HORTICULTURAL SOCIETIES. 
501 
of observing this rule most rigidly. We have 
to check ourselves frequently from mentioning 
the names of societies in which the evils we 
speak of are conspicuous ; but we set out with 
a determination, and must abide by it. We 
have before us now the schedule of one 
society, of which the committee of managers 
are nearly all showers, and the prizes have 
year after year been contrived so that all should 
have a turn ; rarely more than three, never 
more than four prizes for any one class ; and 
the classes are made on purpose that the com- 
mittee men shall not run in each other's way. 
It is even carried so far as to make distinct 
classes for amateurs and their gardeners, 
although it must be obvious to any man of 
common sense, that it cannot matter one 
farthing which shows from a collection, the 
master or the man ; but this was done that 
the man should show as well as his master : 
and so the amateur who kept no gardener at all, 
had not only to contend with a man who kept 
an experienced gardener, but he had also to 
show when there were only three prizes, all 
bespoke for the committee men by their 
superior advantages ; but his chances of win- 
ning at all were shut out, because, to increase 
the number of classes, each class was limited 
in number and amount of prizes. The end 
of all this is, that except the three or four 
who can win, few would attempt it ; and the 
winning flowers, in consequence of the want 
of competition, are frequently very discredit- 
able. We trust we have shown good reasons 
for adopting the system we advocate ; but. 
besides multiplying the classes in any one 
flower with regaVd to the persons who are to 
compete, there is another mischievous plan 
advocated and practised in many such societies, 
— the plan of multiplying the classes by 
awarding prizes to different numbers, as if to 
give the monopolizing managers opportunities 
of winning a plurality of prizes for the same 
subject. Thus we see prizes for the best 
thirty-six, the best twenty-four, the best 
twelve, and the best six — not more, perhaps, 
than two in each class ; and then it is a com- 
mon thing to see, Best thirty-six, Mr. A. B., 
second best, Mr. C. D. Best twenty-four, 
Mr. C. D., second best, Mr. A. B. Best 
twelve, Mr. A. B., second, Mr. C. D. Best 
six, Mr. C. D., second best, Mr. A. B. This 
is by no means rare, and if all the schemers 
in England had laid their heads together to 
destroy confidence, nothing more calculated 
to effect the purpose could have been con- 
trived. 
Again, there is another system equally 
worthy of the schemers who originate it. The 
members of the committee are individually 
famous for something ; each has some fancy, 
which, as he thinks, will do to give a prize 
for, and nobody else grows, or at least cannot 
be so strong in as he is ; and, accordingly, it 
gets placed on the schedule for a prize. If, 
however, any other of these disinterested 
managers is upon the same fancy, a second 
prize is offered ; and as it is doubtful which 
may be first, and which second, the value of 
those prizes is generally not very different. 
If anybody can do balsams or cockscombs 
well, prizes are given for them ; if not, we 
hear nothing of them, and so with any other 
subject. One man has provided himself with 
a collection of gooseberries, — a prize must be 
given for the best collection . One has a first- 
rate standard pear tree of a given variety, — 
such pears must not be forgotten. We could 
go through the whole business of one of the 
meetings held for schedule making, and give 
such instances of selfishness, such utter con- 
tempt for the true interests of horticulture, as 
would make the public disgusted with the 
things they are supporting ; and we maintain, 
that were it not for the several societies in 
which all members are equal, all pay subscrip- 
tions, and all depend on their own funds alone 
for their prizes, horticulture would have been 
destroyed as a science, by the meanness and 
duplicity of the people who unfortunately 
have succeeded in worming themselves into 
the management of Horticultural Societies. 
That there are exceptions to this worst of 
all descriptions of establishments, we are free 
to confess, but they are by no means plentiful, 
and perhaps all are more or less tainted with 
mismanagement. 
The choice of subjects for which prizes are 
to be given, should be made with a view to 
the creation of a fine exhibition ; and the less 
subjects are confined the better — or rather, 
the less prizes are confined to particular sub- 
jects the better. In plants, it may be unfair 
to make those who cultivate greenhouse 
plants only, exhibit in common with those 
who grow stove and greenhouse plants too ; 
but when we consider that a grand display is 
of the first importance at a public exhibition, 
the circumstances of the locality must guide 
us a little. If there are but few plant 
growers, and we want all we can get, it will 
be a fair question, whether it is better to give 
ten prizes for the best twenty, for plants of 
any kind, and so have all the advantage of the 
fine collections of stove-plants, or to give two 
series of prizes of half the amount for two 
different classes, — stove in one, and green- 
house in the other. We have seen with the 
greatest advantage the prizes given for the 
best twenty-four plants of any kind. So far 
as the public is concerned, the show in some 
places would be the better — for instance, when 
there are only two or three who can show 
stove plants at all : but when there is an 
