THE ORCHID REVIEW. 197 
England, from Mr. Thompson’s well-known collection—an excellent lot, 
both for quality and culture. 
But whatever the cause, the display of Orchids, as a whole, was a long 
way behind that seen at the Temple Show five weeks later. This period, 
of course, makes a lot of difference, but what one has most to remember 
is that the conditions under which the two shows are held are altogether 
different. At the Temple Show there is no competition proper, except 
that each exhibitor tries to make as good a display as possible. And very 
good it invariably is—the last being, if possible, better than ever—though, 
as a general rule, there is too much sameness in the groups, and one 
experiences quite a feeling of relief in discovering something different, as 
in the case of the numerous botanical gems staged by Sir Trevor 
Lawrence. If a schedule of prizes equal to that at Ghent were offered at 
the Temple Show, there would be something to see, though the space 
at disposal would be wholly inadequate. The Ghent people have the 
pull of us in this respect. 
It must also be remembered that on this occasion the great Whitsuntide 
Show at Manchester overlapped the dates of the Temple Show, which 
probably kept some of the northern growers away. At all events, the 
Manchester Show was quite up to its usual standard, and the competitive 
classes afford an opportunity for a certain amount of classification which is 
wanting at the Temple Show, and which certainly imparts additional 
variety and interest. At Manchester, too, they have the additional 
advantage of a suitable building. Why should London wait ? 
And now I must allude to a very disagreeable incident which occurred 
at the Temple Show, namely, the loss of M. Jules Hye’s Orchids, under 
circumstances recorded at page 163. From the report of the show at page 
188 they appear to have been seven in number, and their aggregate value is 
estimated at about £300. Over a month has now elapsed, but, up tothe 
moment of writing, I have not heard of their recovery, and therefore the 
suggestion that they mziy have been removed by some other exhibitor in 
mistake may be finally dismissed, and one is forced to the conclusion that 
they were deliberately stolen, which is not by any means a pleasant 
reflection. A reward was at once offered for their recovery, and now the 
question arises, what other steps are being taken to trace the plants ? 
Such an incident naturally called forth various comments in the press as 
to who is responsible and how its recurrence is to be prevented in future. 
It naturally came as a disagreeable surprise to everybody, and especially to 
