38 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
[ July 14, 1881. 
consider flowers—say Carnations and Picotees—improved by the 
dresser’s art, and their objection to them is simply this, that the 
flowers when dressed look too much like the artificial produc¬ 
tions which are so cleverly manufactured and arranged in shop 
windows ; and I almost think that the more perfectly artificial 
flowers are manufactured, in the same ratio is the taste for flowers 
well grown, but possessing the free, chaste, delightful forms and 
markings of Nature, increased. 
Without any amalgamation of effort the love for flowers is 
increasing. If we look at the trade in flower seeds and plants as 
it was half a century ago and look at it now it is evident that the 
taste for flowers, undressed flowers, has increased prodigiously—so 
much so that it is not easy to appreciate its magnitude ; but has 
the increase of those particular florists, whose standard consists 
of highly dressed flowers formed and marked according to pre¬ 
scribed rules, increased in the same ratio ? I think not. The 
weight of evidence of the aggregate number of growers and lovers 
of flowers is in favour of those flowers that have been produced by 
good cultural care, but aided so far as regards the arrangement 
of their petals by little or no manipulative dexterity. 
But while well-grown and undressed flowers are preferred for 
quiet home adornment, a different class of flowers is requisite for 
the exhibition stands. Undressed flowers have little chance of 
gaining honours there—not because such flowers are less beautiful 
in the estimation of the majority of cultivators than flowers that 
have been dressed, but because the former do not approach the 
standard—a fancy standard after all—that the professional florists 
have established. There is no reason that one section of growers 
should quarrel with the other; both have their “ fancies,” and 
have a right to enjoy them, and both can adduce arguments in 
favour of their own practices. 
But the advocates of dressing occasionally weaken their position 
by attempting to prove too much. They go so far as to assert 
that pruning trees, training plants, thinning Grapes, trimming 
and cleaning horses, washing faces, &c., are analogous to dressing 
Carnations according to the present high style adopted by the 
florists. The analogy referred to is wholly fanciful, and is not 
based on any sound principle. It is an axiom that if you destroy 
the premisses on which an argument is based the argument of 
necessity falls to the ground. The practices referred to in the 
animal world, then, are indisputable necessities inseparable from 
cleanliness, health, and civilisation. The arbitrary rules of dress¬ 
ing flowers are founded on no such bases—in fact, there is no 
such analogy as represented, because on one side the practices 
are founded on natural principles, and the other on the fanciful 
notions of individuals. Pruning trees, training plants, and thin¬ 
ning Grapes are also necessities that are admitted—essentials of 
cultivation. A wall tree or a Yine must be pruned, or it is im¬ 
possible they can serve their purpose or bear fruit satisfactorily. 
It is similarly indisputable that Grapes must be thinned. No 
mere fancy of an individual can endure for a moment against 
an admitted necessity. Plants, too, must be trained, or they fail 
wholly and entirely in the purpose for which they are cultivated. 
If a limited amount of space has to be occupied with certain 
plants, or plants are required for an obvious purpose, it is equally 
obvious and indisputable that the plants must be trained and 
produced accordingly, or failure results. The comparisons insti¬ 
tuted, in fact, are not debateable on any common principle. No 
one can say that plants should not be trained, but thousands of 
excellent cultivators and real lovers of flowers do not consider 
that flowers are improved by excessive manipulation of their 
petals. 
The general unpopularity of dressing flowers as at present con¬ 
ducted is evident from the fact, that notwithstanding the efforts 
made to extend it during half a century, the energy of its pro¬ 
moters, the contributions of its adherents, and the aid rendered 
by the press in reporting exhibitions of such flowers, the societies 
under whose segis they are placed do not appear in such a 
flourishing condition as their promoters desire. If those so¬ 
cieties and their mode of exhibiting adopted in connection with 
them have the sympathy of the flower-loving public generally, 
donations and subscriptions will flow in ; if not, a powerful nega¬ 
tive answer is supplied, that however strongly certain florists 
feel on the subject of flower-dressing the practice is not popular, 
and it is questionable if there are a greater number of flower- 
dressers now than there were thirty years ago. I think mere 
trimness, primness, and formalism are on the wane in gardens, 
and it does not now appear the general desire that Nature should 
play second fiddle to Art. Still, where the object of growing 
certain flowers is to obtain prizes the flowers must be produced 
in a condition to win them ; or to sum up the question in a 
sentence, it does not appear to be necessary to dress flowers to be 
admired in the garden or in rooms, but they must be more or less 
dressed for securing honours at an exhibition. —A Northern 
Gardener. 
ROMFORD HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY. 
The above Society held its summer Exhibition on the 7th inst. in 
Marshall’s Park adjacent to the town, the weather being all that 
could be desired for the occasion. Taken on the whole it was the 
best summer exhibition we have seen at Romford, the exhibits being 
above the average. Stove and greenhouse plants were well repre¬ 
sented by Mr. Bones, gardener to D. M’lntosh, Esq., Havering Park ; 
Mr. Douglas, gardener to E. Whitbourn, Esq., Ilford ; and Mr. Young, 
gardener to 0. E. Coope, Esq., Rochets, South Weald. Mr. Douglas 
contributed half a dozen Orchids, which were a great attraction, 
amongst them being a finely flowered Oncidium macranthum, a Mas- 
devallia, an Epidendrum vitellinum, &c. The same exhibitor also 
contributed a stand of Carnations, which were much admired. Mr. 
Bones was first for stove and greenhouse plants, his collection con¬ 
taining good specimens of Crassula coccinea, a finely bloomed Clero- 
dendron Balfourianum, Erica Paxtoni, an excellent Ixora, and a 
finely bloomed specimen of Bougainvillea glabra. Mr. Douglas was 
second with a fine Clerodendron, Erica ventricosa Bothwelliana, 
8 tat ice profusa, an Aphelexis, Bougainvillea, and Dracophyllum 
gracile. Mr. Young also contributed some good plants ; a freely 
grown and not too formal Clerodendron, and a good Genetyllis. Mr. 
Douglas secured the first prize for the best specimen plant, and Mr. 
Young second. Foliage plants were well shown by Messrs. Bones 
and Young. Exotic Perns were also exhibited in good form by 
Messrs. Young, Bones, Meadmore, and Woodhams. 
Roses were very good in quality, Messrs. Cant of Colchester being 
first with an admirable stand, Messrs. Meadmore and Saltmarsh 
following in order ; very few of the new varieties being exhibited, 
but some of the old sorts, especially Marie Baumann, were, as usual, 
excellent. The Rev. J. H. Pemberton was successful in his class. 
Mr. Bones contributed some fairly grown Puchsias for the season, 
and Messrs. Saltmarsh & Son a fine collection of Tuberous Begonias, 
equal to any we have seen this season. The best-arranged basket 
of plants in pots was sent by Mr. S. Pord, nurseryman, Wa,rley. 
Gloxinias were also shown in good condition by the same exhibitor. 
Variegated Pelargoniums were well shown by Messrs. Meadmore and 
Saltmarsh & Sons. Zonal Pelargoniums were also shown by Messrs. 
Meadmore, Harrington, and Mr. James Hooper. The Caladium and 
Coleus did not call for special notice. The best single bloom of any 
Rose—Mr. Pord first, Mr. Woodhams second, Mr. Nairns third. 
Twelve Roses, not open to exhibitors in other classes—viz., forty- 
eight and twenty-four—the prizes being secured by Messrs. Burgess, 
Nairn, and Brunt. For the most tastefully arranged Vase of cut 
flowers for table decoration Messrs. Douglas and Soder were suc¬ 
cessful. Cut flowers in bunches were shown by Mr. Douglas, Mr. 
Bones, and Messrs. Saltmarsh & Son ; Pansies by Messrs. Saltmarsh 
and Son, and by Mr. Pord. 
Fruit was exhibited in goodly quantity, but the Grapes were defi¬ 
cient in colour. Mr. Carver first, Mr. Pairman second, Mr. Foster 
third. White Grapes.—Mr. Carver first, Mr. Poster second, Mr. 
Worthing third. Collection of Fruit.—The only competitor was Mr. 
Brunt, gardener to Lieut.-General Pytche. Melons, Green-fleshed.— 
Mr. Poster first with an excellent Golden Perfection, Mr. Brunt 
second with Thornton Hybrid. Strawberries were fine and very bright 
in colour, having evidently benefited by the heavy rain of the pre¬ 
vious Tuesday. Excellent dishes of Eleanor and Loxford Hall Seed¬ 
ling were shown ; the former, although an old variety, is not to be 
despised, and as a late variety is invaluable. Gooseberries, Currants, 
and Raspberries were also abundant and good. A dish of last year’s 
Apples was exhibited in fine condition, the fruit being large and fresh¬ 
looking. It was represented as a good kitchen Apple, and bore the 
name of the Stacpoole—I think the name of the raiser. 
The vegetables were good and abundant, the baskets of eight 
varieties being fine and well set up, the prizes going to Messrs. Bones, 
Brunt, Douglas, and Soder. 
The cottagers’ productions were remarkably good, and did great 
credit to the producers ; and in a class specially for amateurs there 
was excellent competition. Altogether the Show may be considered 
quite a success. 
A BOUQUET OF WILD FLOWERS. 
What was recently said about double flowers has been freely 
criticised, and we are glad at the result. One critic wonders if 
we think wild Pansies anything but weeds compared with culti¬ 
vated flowers. We appreciate cultivated Pansies, but after all 
they are not really so very much lovelier or sweeter than the wild 
Violet. They are larger, and the varieties are numerous ; but 
there is a limit to the enjoyment of mere variety. It is said that 
double Roses are more beautiful than single Roses ; that the Duke 
of Edinburgh is transcendant in its beauty compared with the 
Dog Rose. Roses are very beautiful undoubtedly, but not one 
double Rose in all the long list possesses the simple elegance and 
quiet beauty of the Briar. Marhchal Niel cannot be dispensed 
with, nor Beauty of Waltham either ; but the sweet blossoms on 
the Briar in June are more pleasing. 
