June 9, 1881. ] 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
455 
9th 
Th 
10th 
P 
Alexandra Palace Exhibition of Floral Decorations and Pelar- 
11th 
S 
[goniums (two days). 
12 th 
SUN 
Trinity Sunday. 
13th 
M 
[at 11 a.m. 
14th 
TU 
Royal Horticultural Society—Fruit and Floral Committees 
15th 
W 
Royal Botanic Society’s Evening FSte. York Floral Fete. 
[South Essex and Southend Horticultural Shows. 
SHOWS AND THEIR USES. 
UST as the great industrial exhibitions, inter- 
' ^ national or local, general or special, contribute 
to an expansion of trade, inciting also to 
quicker production and skilled workmanship, 
so must exhibitions of products of the soil 
have the same results. They give an impetus 
those engaged in the twin occupations, which 
together form the greatest and most important of all 
Yp British industries—agriculture and horticulture ; im¬ 
pelling those onward who have hitherto lagged behind, 
and nerving those who have won their spurs not only to main¬ 
tain their positions but to increase their prowess. This is 
what is 1 accomplished by public exhibitions ; indeed such 
results are their natural outcome, for there is implanted in the 
human mind a desire to excel. Were this not so, and did not 
the results indicated follow as if in obedience to a law of 
Nature, exhibitions would be anomalies, and would long ago 
have died of inanition. But so far from the exhibitions that 
represent both agriculture and horticulture diminishing in size, 
decreasing in numbers, failing in variety, or lacking in in¬ 
terest, the exact reverse appears to be the case, for they are 
larger, more numerous, more varied, and appear to attract 
greater attention than ever. Indeed, the spirit of emulation 
is so predominant that there is—and it would be a great wonder 
if it were not so—about as much rivalry among pro moters of 
shows as prevails among exhibitors. 
A very practical question is now often asked—namely, Have 
the results that have generally accrued, say in agriculture and 
horticulture, been proportionate to the efforts that have been 
made to produce them ? Is the cultivation of the present 
generation so far superior to the system of the past that 
farming is more profitable, and gardening more productive 
and enjoyable, than before ? An affirmative reply cannot be 
given to the first, and, it will be conceded, the most important 
question ; but this is certainly not the result of exh ibitions, 
but in spite of them. Agriculture is not prosperous now, but 
the cause is wholly beyond the influence of any “ shows ; ' and 
as no one can define it in a sentence, it will be convenient to 
attribute it to a “ fortuitous concurrence of atoms,” and there 
leave it for polemical controversy. Bat another question of 
some moment arises—Were it not for the knowledge that has 
been gained by public exhibitions, would not the depres sion 
that has prevailed during the past few years be greater than 
it is now ? According to such logic as is derivable from nega¬ 
tive evidence, the presumption is that the depression would 
certainly not have been less, but probably would have been 
much greater; yet there is no denying the fact that the cul¬ 
tivators have had to bear, and are bearing, the brunt of the 
“ bad times,” and their allies the machinists and others have 
so far had the best of the “ improved systems ” that have been 
instituted. Without machinery—thrashing machines, mowing 
machines, cultivators, &c.—the agricultural state of this country 
must inevitably be in a worse condition than it is now, be¬ 
cause it would be deprived of the material that is necessary in 
the battle of competition. Shows, then, have done great good 
in having brought valuable inventions before the public, and 
especially to those who have prudently availed themselves of 
them, much emphasis being laid on the word “ prudently.” 
But to the second primary question as applied to gardens. 
Are gardens more productive and enjoyable than before hor¬ 
ticultural shows were so general ? It is a question if they are 
more productive, as judged from an utilitarian standard. The 
old kitchen gardeners of the past generation were as competent 
in their calling as the young men of the present time ; and 
the hardy fruit culture of half a century ago was as good as 
it is now, and in some respects probably a good deal better. 
The grand and fruitful old espaliers and magnificent wall trees 
trained by the grandfathers of the present adult generation of 
gardeners have mostly disappeared, and have in few cases 
been substituted by trees equal in every way to the originals. 
Fancy forms have been inaugurated, and varieties have been 
increased, perhaps too much increased, yet some are improved ; 
but the fruit supply is not better than it was before shows 
were so numerous. Exhibitions, then, have done but little 
good in the hardy fruit department of the garden. Neither 
have they in the outdoor vegetable department. That this is 
so we have pretty conclusive evidence from the superior pro¬ 
ducts of the best market gardeners—men who have no time 
for visiting shows, and yet whose produce, there is reason to 
believe, has by some means had the honour of being arranged 
in the winning stands of vegetables at some of our greatest 
exhibitions. 
Turn we now to another phase of the question, and withal 
a most important one. Without, like certain individuals of 
artistic proclivities, making too much of the fashionable 
word aesthetics, it must be stated that the term has some 
application to the department now under consideration, 
which undoubtedly represents both what is ornamental and 
useful—the term useful being founded on and applicable to 
anything that is necessary. This branch of gardening is the 
outside floral, and under glass section—the latter, of course, 
including fruit as well as flowers. There are some who have 
the habit, a pedantic one probably, of asserting that the 
present state of gardens, flower gardens especially, are strik¬ 
ingly destitute of taste. Be this as it may, it is not the result 
of flower shows. It would, however, be an unfortunate mo¬ 
notonous world if all gardens were arranged according to the 
taste of one or two individuals, as it might happen they may 
have crotchets, and crotchety people are proverbially not the 
most reliable of guides. 
Now, in the department under notice, the forcing and 
growing of fruit under glass, and the production of plants 
and flowers in the homes of the affluent—and it would be well 
if they were represented as far as possible in the homes of all 
.—there has been great improvement of late years. The supply 
is better, more choice and continuous, than formerly. To this 
improvement flower shows have materially contributed. They 
No. 50 .—Yol. II., Third Series. 
No. 1706 .—Yol. LXY., Old series. 
