August 16, 1883. ] 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
135 
dark crimson ; very effective. It is as good in beds as in pots, very 
free flowering, and distinct from all others. 
Captain Nares. —Of a soft light shade of scarlet, with large hand¬ 
some trusses. A useful variety for cut flowers. 
Mrs. Mellish. —An old but very good variety, with large flowers, 
so elegant in form and so richly coloured as to surpass many newer 
sorts. 
Guinea. —Bright orange scarlet flowers, elegantly shaped and very 
handsome trusses. A very good variety, bright and attractive, but 
not yellow as it has been fancifully described. 
Dazzler. —Large handsome flowers, of a deep rich shade of scarlet ; 
a fine variety. 
Circulator. —A very useful pot plant, with abundant trusses of a 
soft rosy hue. 
Fanny Catlin. —This is a lovely salmon-coloured variety, of a 
deep hue in the centre of the flowers, shaded to a much lighter hue 
outwards, and the petals have a pretty pencilling of a dark salmon 
colour. , 
Sogdiie Birkin. —Flowers “ like a picture/’ so charmingly varied 
are the tints of salmon, and so handsome are they in form. I know 
none of its colour equal to it as a pot plant. 
Edith Pearson is another lovely variety, having a tinge of salmon 
on a rosy red ground. 
Mrs. Leavers. —Pink varieties are so numerous and so good that 
selection is not easy. This old sort still holds a leading position for 
pot culture, for which purpose I have frequently heard it pronounced 
to be the best. It is somewhat dwarf in habit, and bears a profusion 
of its handsome richly coloured flowers. 
Mrs. Wright also continues to hold a high place ; its shell-like 
petals so elegantly disposed, its compact truss, and colour of a bright 
phasing shade of pink combine to render it very valuable. 
Mrs. Turner. —Has very large trusses somewhat loose, but of a 
distinct shade of pink, and worthy of a place. 
Mrs. Lancaster. —Very deep pink flowers of medium size, in large 
trusses of from seventy to eighty flowers in each. 
Lady Sheffield. —A peculiar shade of colour, described in the 
catalogues as a violet purple, but commonly termed pink ; the flower 
truss is very large. 
Mrs. Strutt.^— This has very large flowers of pale pink, is of stout 
and compact growth, and very free flowering. 
Mrs. Parker. —This is a remarkable variety, with large green 
leaves having a broad white margin. The flowers are double, of a 
light, delicate, yet most pleasing shade of pink ; the trusses are of 
medium size, are freely produced, and blend charmingly with the 
foliage. 
Dr. Denny is distinct by having purplish flowers with a bold 
scarlet blotch at the base of the upper petals. 
Hettie. —A large truss of somewhat small flowers of a soft rosy 
scarlet, very freely produced. 
Candidissimumplcnum. —An excellent variety with pure white double 
flowers, which proves very useful both for pot plants and cut flowers. 
Wonderful. —A bright orange scarlet, with semi-double flowers 
and small trusses ; very attractive and useful. 
Jewel. —This old and well-known variety has proved so extremely 
useful to me this year, both for plants in pots and cut flowers, that it 
must have a place. As the plants gain age and size they become 
crowded with the pretty little trusses that are rich in colour and 
neat and compact in form. The cut flowers are most useful for a 
variety of purposes ; they pack closely, travel well, and keep fresh for 
a long time. The plants had liquid manure regularly after the first 
flowers appeared, and they were certainly much benefited by it, for 
the abundant flowers were remarkably handsome.—E. Luckhurst. 
JUDGING COTTAGE GARDENS AND THEIR 
PRODUCE. 
From time to time in these pages I have tried to draw 
the attention of gardeners and other interested persons to the 
want of some definite rules for the guidance of both judges 
and exhibitors, and it is with pleasure that I notice the editorial 
remark anent a few general rules. I would go for more than 
this: I would have the rules specific and definite. They are 
already too few and too general, without being at all binding or 
calling for close observation or adherence; in fact, instead of 
any binding rule, judges are, in a measure, left to their own 
whim and caprice, thus placing the exhibitor entirely at the 
mercy of the local dignitary in the gardening world or the 
parish priest; not that I would not willingly place myself in 
the hands of either of the gentlemen named, as far as honour 
or integrity is concerned, but for the simple reason that they 
are not bound by any specific rules of guidance, their prejudices 
in favour of this or that particular “ fad ” guide or misguide 
them, and we are told that ‘ Prejudice squints when it looks, 
and lies when it speaks.” A “ Reader’s ” question came at an 
opportune moment for us in this north country, where we are 
just entering upon the flower show campaign, and the remarks 
that it is hoped will be elicited will be read with interest. 
Respecting the first portion of “ Reader's ” question, I am 
decidedly in favour of the “ well-stocked and nicely managed 
kitchen garden.” In this utilitarian age, when our leading 
politicians and public orators are impressing upon our minds 
that the number of the population is continually pressing 
against the verge of existence, how can we get away from the 
fact that to the cottager or the artisan his garden should be 
a source of profit ? I do not by any means despise the flower 
garden of the cottager; on the contrary, I would encourage him 
by awarding prizes for that also, but there cannot be any degree 
of comparison set up between the two. 11 ought not to be thought 
of, and the judge who would pass a good kitchen by in favour of 
a tower garden, however good, which both belong to cottagers, 
would, iu the opinion of the writer, commit a gross error. 
The easiest and the safest solution of the '‘collection” diffi¬ 
culty would be to name the number and the varieties of articles 
to be exhibited. This applies to the large as well as small 
shows. Nothing that I know of causes so much dissatisfaction 
at flower shows as the “collections ” either of fruit or vegetables. 
At a local show a splendid collection of vegAabl s was dis¬ 
qualified because it contained a dish of Tomatoes. The winning 
collection had in it two Cucumbers. In one lot the Tomato was 
called a fruit, in the other Cucumber was allowed to be a vege¬ 
table. Definite rules would prevent all this ; sirupli city and per¬ 
spicuity in the wording of the rules and the prize list would 
obviate many difficulties; all ambiguous words and sentences 
should be eliminated, and nothing left that could be construed 
into anything else than what it was really meant for. The 
parish priest would be of great service here, and would, by use 
of vigorous Anglo-Saxon, so simplify the local schedule that 
grumbling would soon be an unheard-of quantity. Nothing 
tends so much to accentuate the acerbities of exhibiting as the 
ambiguity of some of the flower show schedules. Indefinite terms 
like “collection,” “dish” “basket,” and many others, only 
create confusion and bring about differences. Lay down some 
good and safe definite rule to be universally applied and followed; 
let it be done by some competent authority, and then, once for 
all, we shall have the question of exhibiting and judging put 
upon a sound basis. The Royal Horticultural Society ought to 
do this. If it will not, or cannot, it still ought not to be difficult 
to formulate a set of good and efficient rules for the guidance of 
bo h interested parties ; at any rate, the scheme is worth a trial 
—Peter Ferguson, Mere Knolls, Monk Wearmouth. 
I have long been convinced that in districts where cottage, 
garden shows are held a marked improveu.ent has been effected 
both in the appearance of the gardens generally, and also in the 
quality and quantity of the vegetables grown. Whether the chance 
of winning a small sum, or the rivalry, not always very friendly, 
existing, are the all-powerful factors in the matter, is immaterial, 
the result is highly satisfactory. Men who take great interest 
in their gardens deserve encouragement, as such are seldom to 
be found wasting the hours of daylight, at any rate in a beer¬ 
house. Judging their handiwork, however, I am not fond of. 
It is really an unthankful task, especially when the society for 
whom the judges are a ting is niggardly with prizes, particularly 
with regard to the number offered. All cannot have prizes, but 
many more deserve them who do not get them. 
In many cases the societies comprise a large district, and the 
last time 1 assisted to judge we had to go through fourteen 
parishes. In such cases, if funds are available, prizes should be 
offered in each parish, and a champion class may well be pro¬ 
vided. It is scarcely possible to fairly judge many gardens 
without some agreement at the outset among the judges acting, 
or by directions from the committee as to the number of points 
to be given. For my part, I would not interfere with the liberty 
of the subject. Every man ought to be allowed to grow what 
best suits himself, whether it be Cauliflowers, Celery, or Red 
Cabbage. If it does not pay them to grow such we may 
safely °rust them to discontinue their culture. For vegetables 
of all kinds, if very good all round, I would give a maximum of 
three points, if fairly good two points, and one point for a 
serviceable crop. I would take into consideration the extent of 
each crop, and not give the highest number of points to a few 
overgrown or unduly favoured specimens.. Encourage them to 
crow a proportionate number of each serviceable vegetable, and 
this will, of a certainty, result in superior culture and double 
cropping. 
After taking the crops singly, their proportionate arrange¬ 
ment, the cleanliness of the garden as well as the fruit trees 
