no 



THE FLORIST AND POMOLOGIST. 



matter, that his statement denies my right to honours fairly won, and demands 

 an answer at my hands. The high respectability of Mr. C, and his well-known 

 skill as a horticulturist, renders the task only more imperative. 



Mr. C. states that the Judges were " very little acquainted with them" 

 (Hyacinths) ; that " he is quite convinced that they took no particular notice 

 of the subject, or they would not knowingly have committed such a blunder." 

 Strong words these ; we shall see, presently, how far they can be substantiated. 



Seldom have I seen such strong statements sustained by so weak an 

 argument. The paper reminds me of the anecdote of the barrister, who, 

 retained in a bad case, found written on his brief, " No case for the defence ; 

 abuse the plaintiff's attorney." Mr. C. tells us that there are "some few 

 first-class Judges in whose hands he should be pleased to place his reputation !" 

 No doubt ; and in the illustration above chosen, had the defendant been allowed 

 to appoint the judge and jury, he would at least have hoped for a satisfactory 

 verdict. But, thanks to the wisdom of our forefathers, things are not managed, 

 in this way in England, neither in the courts of justice nor in the courts of 

 Flora. Although I did not know who the Judges of these flowers were till 

 months afterwards, I do not now hesitate to say that they were thoroughly 

 competent men — men of great horticultural attainments and undoubted probity 

 — men whom those who know them delight to honour. I am surprised again 

 that Mr. C. does not perceive that, in saying his new Hyacinths should have 

 received the first prize, he is the sole authority for this statement, in a case in 

 which he is the interested party ; whereas, arraigned against him is the opinion 

 of three disinterested Judges. 



But is it on the ground of novelty or quality that Mr. C. sets up his claim ? 

 I remember when at school a clever form-fellow of mine, who, before he 

 entered on an argument, would have his premises granted. In like manner 

 Mr. C. puts his own interpretation on the word new, and proceeds to argue 

 from it as if it were an interpretation universally admitted. But this, I 

 apprehend, is not the case. Even the rule which he adopts from the Royal 

 Horticultural Society is unfortunately chosen because it is applied by them to 

 single specimens of plants only, and not to collections of florists' flowers. 

 Every observant visitor to the London flower shows will know that a collection 

 of neiv Roses, neiv Azaleas, and neiv Pelargoniums will not be disqualified on 

 the ground that the varieties " had been exhibited before the Society at a 

 previous meeting." Many reasons might be adduced why a collection of new 

 Hyacinths should not be tested by such a rule ; but in the face of the Royal 

 Horticultural Society's practical application of the rule, this appears unnecessary. 

 As to the novelty of Mr. C.'s six new varieties, a writer in the " Gardeners' 

 Chronicle" (p. 1012) tells us that among them were "one of nineteen years, 

 one of fifteen years, one of six years, one of four years old !" These surely 

 are not neophytes, but veterans; their ages amounting in the aggregate to 

 forty-four years. On the same authority, the ages of the competing six amount 

 to thirty-seven years only ! It is true Mr. C. throws a doubt on the accuracy 

 of this writer's information ; but as he offers nothing definite in its place, the 

 authority is too high to be disregarded. 



Next as to the quality of these six " veterans." Would Mr. C. have placed 

 any one of them in a collection of 36 or even 50 ? A grower and exhibitor 

 of Hyacinths stated recently in my nurseries that he believed he would not. 

 I speak of them now in the state in which they were shown, not doubting that 

 two out of the six will be heard of hereafter. 



But surely the Horticultural Society did not offer a premium for new 

 Hyacinths wholly withovit reference to quality? Their object, judging from 

 their antecedents, undoubtedly was to promote the improvement of a flower — 



