JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
538 
[ June 20, 1882. 
flowers should be determined by their rarity and cost; so far from 
that being? the case, we should not hesitate to give a prize of £2 to a 
group of flowers worth 5s., or on the other hand to grant an award 
of 5s. to flowers worth £2 if the former were arranged tastefully and 
the latter the reverse, but we shall join in no raid against exotic or 
tender flowers as such. We are thus free to criticise the Exhibition 
in question, and to admit, as we readily do, that the Judges had a 
difficult task to perform, and they spared no pains to arrive at what 
they were convinced was a right decision in each case. 
The decorations on the whole were not equal to our anticipations, 
and the display afforded one more instance of what we believe to be 
the fact, that in the arrangement of cut flowers London is behind 
the provinces. We have seen better bouquets at Liverpool, Leeds, 
Shrewsbury, Birmingham, and other places, and better examples of 
table decorations, including epergnes, at Newcastle, Richmond, Tun¬ 
bridge Wells, Chislehurst, and other larger and smaller shows than 
were to be seen at the Exhibition under notice. 
Dinner-table Decorations. —Sixteen tables were submitted for com¬ 
petition. Some were too prim, some gaudy, some with glittering 
receptacles for the flowers, some with flowers—such a3 rich purples— 
unsuitable for artificial light; then there was glass for a lake, and 
swans as if frozen on the surface, and again a sombre wreath twisted 
about on the cloth. Such tables as these were properly passed, for 
it would be tiresome, to say the least, to have to sit round them for 
two hours. It was quickly perceived that the premier position 
rested between Mr. Walter Wood, 66, Conduit Street, London, W., 
and Messrs. W. P. & G. Philips, 175, Oxford Street, and after much 
consideration the award went to the former. The table. 10 by 5 feet, 
was occupied with twenty-three bowl-like vases about 4 inches deep ; 
colour old gold. The central one was about 18 inches wide, the two 
flanking it a foot. The four corner pieces 6 inches, and the sixteen 
miniatures about 3 inches in diameter. In the centre of each of the 
larger vases was a Cocos ; in the four corners G-eonoma gracilis ; in 
the miniatures tiny seedling Palms and Caladium argyrites alternately, 
with a few flowers. The flowers in the larger vases consisted of 
yellow and white Irises and white Gladioli chiefly; yellow Aquilegias, 
Paris Daisies, and small yellow Poppies sparingly ; foliage, Eulalia 
japonica variegat.a largely employed, and Perns rather lightly used, 
with Caladium argyrites and Japanese Honeysuckle. The result was 
huge and attractive bunches of flowers and foliage, the central one 
upwards of 2 feet in diameter. Those who are much engaged in 
table decorations will not need telling that this table was much too 
crowded ; the vases, as filled, were sufficient for a table of twice the 
size. The chief vase was also too crowded as vis-a-vis guests could 
neither see under it, over it, round it, nor through it. No doubt the 
Judges were aware of these faults, but the merits — the pleasing 
association of flowers and foliage—appeared to counterbalance them, 
hence the award. Messrs. Philips’ table was entirely different. The 
receptacles for flowers consisted of thirteen pieces of white glazed 
statuary ware—that is, shallow dishes supported by elegantly formed 
figures about a foot high. Each of the three central dishes contained 
a small Palm, the flowers employed being the same as the preceding 
with the addition of a few Stephanotis sprays, Sweet Sultan, and 
scarlet Poppies and Lilies, relieved with Ferns and Grasses, the whole 
being free and tastefully disposed. In this table there was nothing 
really to obstruct the view of the guests, but the glistening white 
statuary would not be soothing to the eyes. In all probability had 
the slenderest possible of green sprays been taken from some of the 
vases and passed once round the stems, this table would have 
secured the first position. Differences of opinion on the relative 
merits of the two tables would be many and great, but the majority 
would probably be in support of the Judges. We doubt if this would 
be so in the third award to a table that was almost severely neat, 
still it was chaste. The centre was formed with a slender variegated 
Arundo springing from a mound of Golden Selaginella, in which was 
inserted Caladium argyrites and a few flowers. This was flanked 
with two glass baskets neatly filled with flowers and Agrostis nebu- 
losa, a few miniature buttonhole glasses completing the table, which 
was, in the opinion of not a few visitors, as much too light and tame 
as the first was overcrowded. Mrs. Searle’s table, to which an 
extra prize was granted, was much admired. In the centre was a 
fresh Cocos rising from a rich group of Water Lilies, Cactuses, Eu- 
charises, Rose buds, and Ferns. The side stands were filled taste¬ 
fully with wild flowers and Grasses generally, brightened with a few 
Begonias, the whole relieved by pendent sprays of Bedstraw, which 
had a most pleasing effect. The miniature glasses were also pretty, 
and the general appearance of the table was highly agreeable. The 
tables furnished with ordinary trumpet-shaped stands containing 
choice flowers and rich basal arrangements were eschewed ; but one 
table somewhat of this style, by Miss Williams of Holloway, was 
really pleasing and merited recognition. There was nothing extra¬ 
vagant about it, but it combined brightness with lightness, and rich¬ 
ness with chasteness in a remarkable manner, while its appearance 
was certainly not marred by the Orchid flowers that were sparsely 
introduced. However, the fact must be recorded that such flowers 
appear to find little favour in the eyes of the Judges at Regent’s Park. 
Arches of Flowers. —The examples in competition in this class were 
generally disappointing, and with the exception of that of Miss 
Johnson’s, Park House, St. John’s Wood, for a pier glass or sideboard 
were scarcely worthy of any awards. The arch in question which was 
adjudged the chief prize was formed chiefly with white Lilies, Irises, 
Spiraea Aruncus, and Ribbon Grass. The second-prize arrangement 
comprised Deutzias, light Phloxes, and Ribbon Grass; a few large 
flowers with foliage would have improved it greatly. It was ex¬ 
hibited by Mr. Buster of St. Mary’s Cray. 
Epergnes. —“ Epergne, a centre table decoration, flowers, &c." was 
the official designation of this class, in which there was great compe¬ 
tition, but the majority of the exhibits were of a very commonplace 
character. Mr. Wood secured the first position with a vase the 
exact counterpart of that in the centre of his prize table above de¬ 
scribed. The flowers appeared as if springing from a clump of the 
variegated Eulalia, and the arrangement would have proved a beauti¬ 
ful ornament for the table of a large room. Mr. Buster’s second-prize 
arrangement had a base chiefly of red Gladioli and leaves of Begonia 
Piercei, the glass above containing three small floating Water Lilies, 
the top wild flowers and Grasses. The third prize went to Mr. Prewitt 
for a plant of Cocos, the pot hidden with a high mound of Roses, 
Water Lilies, Spiraeas, Ferns, and Caladium argyrites. An extra prize 
was worthily granted to Miss Brown, St. Mary’s Grove Nursery, Rich¬ 
mond, for a large glass dish excellently filled with flowers, Grasses, 
and leaves of Begonia Louis Chretien, the latter having an admirable 
effect. There was a great number of tall trumpet-shaped glasses, and 
some of them were tastefully filled ; all, however, were passed. As it 
is certain those glasses will continue to be employed in thousands, 
and equally certain that they can be rendered highly attractive, would 
it not be worth considering whether prizes should be offered for them 
apart from other “ centre table decorations ? ” 
Baskets of Flowers. —Of these there were nearly thirty, a few very 
good, but the majority comparatively indifferent. The awards caused 
some surprise in this class, and we are compelled to observe that, as 
regards the first-prize especially, the aesthetic hobbyhorse was ridden 
rather too hard, while in the third-prize basket grace in aiTangement 
was quite ignored, as the wiring of the Rose buds, which protruded in 
harsh formality, was plainly visible; thus the awards could not fail 
being perplexing to exhibitors. The first-prize basket was half filled 
with Selaginella, in which was stuck about twenty border Pansies at 
regular intervals like pins in a pincushion. The petals were drooping 
and flaccid, and the stems slanted at various angles. This basket of 
hardy flowers was “harmoniously” margined with exotic Ferns, no 
Pansy leaves ; while, as if a burlesque on natural arrangement, four 
Pansy flowers were tied on the top of the handle of the basket! A 
basket of Pansies with sprays of the foliage of the plant is beautiful, 
and we can readily understand such an arrangement winning a prize, 
but we cannot understand how such namby-pamby taste as was dis¬ 
played in the above effort should be countenanced. It was a simple 
example of playing with flowers as a child would play with them. 
Indeed, we do not hesitate saying that hundreds of better and more 
tasteful examples of arrangement have been seen, and will be again, 
at children’s village shows. A few more such awards as this and the 
Basket Show of the Society may be expected to become notorious, 
“ taste ” in arrangement an enigma, and the whole an artistic curiosity. 
The second-prize basket of Mrs. J. A. Guimarens, Caterkam Valley, was 
really attractive by the free arrangement of wild Roses, a few Rhodan- 
thes, with Oak sprays and Ferns—infinitely superior to the nondescript 
study in Pansies. The third basket, we have stated, was conspicuous 
by the wired Rose buds transfixed in mathematical regularity. Can 
it be possible that these were overlooked by the adjudicators ? This 
question is suggested by the word “ wired ” attached to another basket 
that was passed, as if indicating its ineligibility for competition. 
Another basket was filled with Orchids, Odontoglossum vexillarium 
being used lavishly, but there was a total absence of taste in their 
disposal, and the arrangement was properly passed ; but we fail to 
perceive any valid reason for ignoring the merits of a pleasing 
arrangement of Roses and white Gladioli, with a spray or two of Bou¬ 
gainvillea and Ferns, from Mr. T. C. Brown, 100, Camden Road ; and 
an equally good arrangement from Mrs. Butcher, Station Road, Nor¬ 
wich. There was neither crowding nor formality in these baskets, 
and both of them were most creditable examples of flowers pleasingly 
disposed. If they were passed because a few tender flowers were in¬ 
cluded the sooner there is a class in which such may be included, and 
another for hardy flowers exclusively, the better. By this plan the 
Society would have a better display, the duties of the Judges would 
be easier because defined, and exhibitors would know what to do to 
avert disappointment. Only confusion can exist now, and mongrel 
mixtures may be expected to follow. 
We have had no pleasure in penning those remarks, but the reverse. 
It may be urged that our observations are founded on defective taste. 
Be that as it may, they are the outcome of some experience, anil we 
have derived no education from the basket lesson in question. We 
have furnished numbers of baskets for critical eyes, examined the 
exhibits at at least a hundred shows, and adjudicated on not a few ; 
but we entirely fail to perceive wholesome taste on the one hand in 
dotting withered Pansies 1^ inch apart in moss, fringing them with 
Ferns, and hoisting a cluster on the basket handle, and on the other 
of wiring Rose buds in a basket for a drawing-room table and de¬ 
priving them of their natural loveliness. The arrangement of flowers 
is a subject in which many are interested, and we are quite unable 
to recommend the examples specially honoured and referred to as 
worthy of imitation. Our unwelcome task is finished, and we turn 
to another class. 
Bouquets. —Seven brides’ bouquets were exhibited, Messrs. Henry 
and Co., Yictoria Road, worthily securing the first position. The 
