536 JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY. 



Let my last word on the subject be this : — Exhibitors "who 

 fail to win prizes should search, calmly and patiently, for the 

 cause of the failure. The losers of to-day, who profit by ex- 

 perience and persevere, are the winners of the future. 



Disqualifications. 



Either through oversight or accident exhibitors' products are 

 found at most shows not in exact accordance with the terms of 

 the schedule : one may have one dish too few or too many, in a 

 collection ; or one fruit too many or too few, in a dish. Has a 

 judge the right to add to or take from the produce of any 

 exhibitor ? He has no such right. He has nothing whatever 

 to do with the staging. It is the duty of the show officials to 

 superintend that. A judge is entitled to draw the attention of 

 the official in attendance to such defects, and he can make the 

 correction if he likes. When small departures are observable 

 in several or all the exhibits in a class and the show authorities 

 are satisfied they are pure accidents, and obviously not made 

 with intention to deceive, the judges are told not to disqualify 

 but to award the prizes on the merits of the products. That 

 is simple common sense, which has been described as the best 

 sense of all. 



But in most shows errors are found which cannot be rectified 

 if the show authorities even desired them to be so. They have 

 perforce to be passed over by the judges as " out of competition." 

 In most of such cases it suffices to mark the cards 11 not in 

 accordance with the schedule." If there is reason to believe 

 that a departure has been made with the intention to deceive, 

 then the stronger term " disqualified " may be employed. This 

 in the estimation of many exhibitors and visitors implies a 

 reproach (and perhaps as well so), which the milder term does 

 not. Recently it was reported that a number of exhibitors were 

 " disqualified " because their products were not named. If the 

 schedule distinctly stated that disqualification must follow on 

 such omission the judges had no option ; if not, it was an 

 unusual proceeding. Some names are so grotesquely spelt, and 

 attached in so slovenly a manner, that it would be better if there 

 v, ( re no names at all. If all unnamed exhibits were disqualified 

 there would be something like a smash at many shows. While 



