July 27, 1882. ] 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
85 
aspect of exhibiting has not been brought about by themselves, 
but by the rivalry that has existed among societies. In London 
and the provinces a sort of auctioneering policy has been steadily 
pursued of late years, each making an attempt to overbid the other, 
until they have almost brought themselves into a state of bank¬ 
ruptcy. Not a few practically live on sufferance. Some are unable 
to pay the prize money at all, while others appear to find it neces¬ 
sary to postpone payment for a year, trusting, it would seem, to the 
“ takings” of next year, with all their uncertainty, for paying the 
debts of this or last year that have been but too certainly incurred. 
I fail to see the wisdom of pledging the future in this manner, or 
pursuing a policy which seems in principle essentially unsound. 
On what do the managers of societies thus conducted base their 
foundation ? Theoretically, on the subscriptions of members no 
doubt ; and if this principle were adopted in its integrity all 
would be well, but practically they leave this solid foundation to 
one weaker than sand—water, for they rely on the weather, and 
the consequence is that there have been some narrow escapes of 
drowning. It is to be feared that not a few societies, and some 
of high standing, are in the condition of a man living above his 
income, trusting to the charity of friends to extricate him from 
his difficulties that are sooner or later certain to overtake him ; 
and what is the opinion of the prudence of a man like that ? 
There appears to be too clear evidence that societies have, in 
endeavouring to over-reach each other, during the past twenty 
years over-reached themselves ; and what is the result 1 They 
have established a trade in exhibiting in which the chief object of 
the workers is to make money. These have a right to earn all 
they can, and wages have been kindly forced up for them. Accus¬ 
tomed to reap what has been so generously sown they are ever 
looking for still higher remuneration ; and if, by whatever cause, it 
is found necessary to retrench and propose a reduction, those 
engaged in this trade, workmen-like, refuse to work, and fall in 
with the fashion of the times—strike. 
I sometimes ask myself if the inevitable result of this high- 
pressure policy will not soon come to pass, for it is inevitable in 
all the affairs of life—a strong and united effort for self-preser¬ 
vation. At present societies are living an artificial life ; the pace 
is too fast. Already a slackening is perceptible, and a reaction 
occurring. For a time the trade was stimulated by this strongly 
advanced, go-a-head, and showy policy—a policy of big posters 
and sensational programmes. Not satisfied with steady progress 
founded on an adherence to sound business principles, they have 
hurried onwards until it is a question if in the race for gain, and 
fame, and prestige they have not at least injured the goose that 
lays the golden eggs. And where is the gain from this neck-and- 
neck race? The committees of the several societies secure no 
advantage ; they work hard, incur anxiety, and at times run the 
risk of loss, and for all their labours, given gratuitously, they are 
rewarded too often with a measure more or less large of abuse, 
as if committees were made to be grumbled at. It is quite certain, 
too, that the owners of hundreds of private gardens do not feel 
they are benefited by those great efforts that are made in ex¬ 
hibiting, and it is a question if the numbers of these are not 
increasing. 
Not a few are beginning to observe that better all-round horticul¬ 
tural work is often to be seen in establishments unconnected with 
shows and showing than in many others where exhibiting would 
appear to be the chief object. The exhibitors themselves benefit, 
if they are successful, as they have a right to do, especially when 
they grow their own “ stuff,” instead of borrowing or buying it. 
Nurserymen have doubtless benefited immensely by exhibitions, 
not by the value of the prizes they have won—as these are and 
ought to be considered by them a small matter—but by bringing 
their products before the public who visit the shows, and to the 
notice of the thousands who do not visit them through the press. 
Perhaps it was this consideration that weighed with the com¬ 
mittees of shows in the good old times—the palmy days, when 
allocating the prizes and devoting the lion’s share to amateurs. 
In fact I think, but am not quite certain on this point, that no 
money prizes at all were given when the Chiswick Shows were 
about the zenith of their splendour. This was before I was an 
exhibitor, but I have a recollection of having heard that such 
was really the case. 
I have alluded to the existence of a practice, that is with pretty 
good reason supposed to exist, of exhibitors obtaining prizes for 
products which they never grew. It is to he hoped that such a 
mode of gaining honour is not very prevalent; but whether it is 
so or not, far greater blame attaches to the societies than to the 
men who exhibit under their rules. Let us take the schedules of 
the Royal Horticultural and Royal Botanic Societies. If I 
interpret the rules and regulations correctly there is nothing to 
prevent me going to any of the nurseries and purchasing collec¬ 
tions of plants, or to Covent Garden and obtaining as many dish • » 
of fruit and vegetables as I like, and winning prizes with them 
my exhibits are the best in competition. I may not have grow 11 
one plant, nor dish of fruit, nor plate of vegetables ; yet if the 
products staged were better than those of an exhibitor who had 
grown his own “ stuff,” and he was awarded the prize while I 
was disqualified, the decision, strange as it may seem, would be 
illegal, and I believe that the production of a receipt in a court of 
law showing that I had paid for my goods would establish the 
perfect legitimacy of my purchased materials for competition in 
the show. 
Is this as it should be ? Is it encouraging horticulture in its 
best and truest sense and inciting to superior cultivation ? Is it 
not rather sporting with the products of gardens, with the object 
of what ?—making a show ; and for what ?—of getting money for 
paying the prizes that were perhaps won a year or more previously. 
Is not this system of management unsound ? It appears like 
trading in bills of acceptance, as is practised by men of straw, 
who yet contrive to make a great display of wealth previous to 
the coming collapse. Are important horticultural societies setting 
a worthy example by opening their doors to such sporting prac¬ 
tices as above referred to ? By the present system is there not a 
danger of flower shows becoming so frequent, so common, and 
consequently so little appreciated, as to meet sooner or later the 
fate of spelling bees and skating rinks—namely, going out of 
fashion ? 
Yes, it would be well if the “ palmy days of Chiswick ” could 
return again. We want more showing for honour and less for 
mere gain. Estimating the value of garden products by the 
amount of money they bring in prizes is a practice of either sport¬ 
ing or trading which not a few societies are encouraging, and 
crippling themselves in the process. The result of this is that 
people are getting tired of shows and of showing, and if a reaction 
once sets in and becomes established it will not be good for horti¬ 
culture either as a pleasurable and salutary home pursuit or as an 
important industry of the country.— A VETERAN. 
NATIONAL CARNATION AND RICOTEE SHOW. 
The annual southern Exhibition of this Society was held in the 
conservatory at the Royal Horticultural Society’s Gardens on Tuesday 
last, and though in some classes the competition was not so keen as it 
has been at some previous shows, yet the general quality was ex¬ 
tremely good. Indeed, some of the veteran growers considered that 
the blooms were much above the average of exhibition quality. This 
certainly applied to a large proportion of those staged by Messrs. 
Dodwell,’Douglas, and Turner, who shared the chief honours between 
them in all the chief classes. The first-named of the trio was particu¬ 
larly successful, the aggregate number of prizes won by him much 
exceeding the others. In many cases, however, where the Oxford, 
Slough, and Ilford blooms were staged together their merits were so 
nearly equal that much difficulty was experienced in determining 
their relative positions. There was considerable falling-off in most 
of the other collections which took fourth, fifth, or sixth-rate places, 
but all were distinguished by a clear bright appearance. 
CARNATIONS. 
For twenty-four blooms, not less than twelve distinct varieties, Mr. 
C. Turner, Slough, gained chief honours with a handsome collection 
of blooms, even, fresh, and bright, the following being especially 
noteworthy :—Wm. Laing, Rifleman, Lord Lewisham, Florence Night¬ 
ingale, James Macintosh, John Keets, Jupiter, Squire Dodwell, Ad¬ 
miral Curzon, Sporting Lass, Jessica, Thomas Moore, Matador, John 
Hines, John Ball, Mrs. Matthews, Master Fred, and Rev. F. Tymons. 
Mr. J. Douglas, gardener to F. Whitbourn, Esq., Loxford Hall, Ilford, 
was a very close second, though some of his blooms were a little 
rougher than the preceding. The best were Robert Lord, a beautiful 
even bloom of good substance, which was selected as the premier 
Carnation ; James Taylor, Apollo, James Douglas, Rob Roy, William 
Skirving, and Sarah Payne. E. S. Dodwell, Esq., Stanley Road, 
Oxford, was third with a fresh collection of good varieties ; Mr. J. 
Hines, 81, Bramford Road, Ipswich, was fourth ; and Mr. H. nooper, 
Bath, fifth. 
Mr. Douglas carried off chief honours with twelve varieties, having 
fine blooms of William Skirving, Florence Nightingale, Dreadnought, 
Earl of Stamford, Sarah Payne, Sportsman, Admiral Curzon, John 
Keets, J. D. Hextall, Annihilator, a sport, and a seedling. Mr. Dodwell 
followed closely with handsome examples of J. Douglas, Ben Simonite, 
Rifleman, Henry Cannell, Tim Bobbin, Master Fred, Florence Night¬ 
ingale, and Harry Matthews. Mr. Hines was third ; Dr. Abercrombie, 
13, Suffolk Square, Cheltenham, was fourth ; Mr. J. Buxton, 27, Manor 
Street, Clapham, fifth ; and Mr. F. Cattley, Bath, sixth. 
For six blooms Mr. J. P. Sharp, Perry Bar near Birmingham, was 
first; Master Stanley Dodwell second; and Mr. W. Slack, Queen 
Street, Chesterfield, third, all showing well. 
Single Blooms. —These were largely and well shown, about 150 
blooms being entered in all the classes. Scarlet Bizarres —Mr. J. 
