December 21, 1832. ] JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 569 
there manifestly exists a strong chemical attraction which, with 
the co-opcration of carbonic acid and water, causes the transfer¬ 
ence of the incombustible matters into the system of the plant.”— 
(Liebig's “Laws of Husbandry,” p. 71 andj>. 86.) 
In this action of carbonic acid we have my last argument in 
favour of the manurial action (using the term in its widest sense) 
of humus, and I am unable to see anything more than an apparent 
verbal contradiction between the two theories of humus to which 
S. W. Johnson calls attention (see p. 473). 
In conclusion I have only to sum up the various modes in which 
humus exhibits its agricultural value. 
1, As an absorbent of moisture, which materially increases the 
fruitfulness of a soil. 
2, By attracting and physically fixing ammonia, which would 
otherwise be washed away. 
3, By chemically fixing ammonia by the aid of the acids which 
are generated as its decomposition proceeds. 
4, By providing a long-continued, if feeble, supply of carbonic 
acid, which helps to distribute the phosphates, Sc c., which are im¬ 
perfectly disseminated through a soil. 
5, By assisting, through the disintegrating influence of the 
carbonic acid which it generates, in breaking down hard insoluble 
substances containing potash and silicic acid, &c. 
6, By supplying carbonic acid to bring about the transference 
into the organism of the plant of the food with which the rootlets 
come into contact. 
I would ask, then, whether these properties are not of sufficient 
importance to justify our agricultural chemists in allowing some 
money value for humus as such ?—Inquirer. 
FRUIT AND JUDGING AT EDINBURGH. 
Many times previously I have contributed my thoughts in re¬ 
gard to some rule being authoritatively laid down in order that 
judging at horticultural shows might thereby be rendered more uni¬ 
form. Let me premise that with grumblers I have slight sympathy, 
and not so much because they may not have some reason for their 
fault-finding, but because they seem to be satisfied with that one 
privilege and seldom take any other step to secure a more excel¬ 
lent way. It is well known to an exhibitor before he stages his 
produce that his exhibits risk being submitted to no better tests 
than the likes and dislikes of some person not better able to judge 
than himself. 
At Edinburgh one of the things that pleased me most was the 
courtesy of the Secretary, next the attractive groups of plants 
staged for effect, and next very fine collections of Apples. With 
the Grapes I must own that I was somewhat disappointed. I could 
not get away from the thought that Grape-growing “ with the 
lions ” had not advanced since the Manchester show some ten years 
previously, though perhaps it might be quite as true that, gene¬ 
rally, Grape-growing had progressed. At the show, save pairs of 
bunches, I could not find one perfect stand. In the collections 
it was plain that great difficulty had been experienced to 
secure bunches of uniform merit. The staging, too, was faulty. 
I once previously was anxious to show at Edinburgh, but on 
examining the schedule I discovered that Grapes must be exhibited 
on stands not higher than 6 inches at the back, and I refused to 
submit to any such foolish rule. Uniformity is desirable, and 
especially in the staging of Grapes grown by various competitors, 
as this secures a sameness being all but impossible. Had the 
Committee carried out the spirit of the rule that I have condemned 
by having had sloping boards fixed, padded, and covered, and 
requested that each exhibitor removed his Grapes from his own 
stands to the uniform stand provided, then I think the Grapes 
would have made a most magnificent display, which otherwise 
they failed to do. And this change would have included other 
desirable conditions, which it is unnecessary at present to further 
1 particularise. 
Unfortunately, I took no notes at Edinburgh, but from memory 
I shall just run through the few stands of Grapes, and then I 
shall again propose a system of judging which if followed out 
would, I think, not only secure merits being more uniformly re¬ 
cognised, but form a source of increased interest to exhibitors, also 
to others interested, and do much to allay grumbling, as exhibitors 
would then see the reason of being passed by. On the even¬ 
ing of staging, after only a glance, I concluded that chief honours 
would be secured by either Mr. Kirk or by Mr. McKelvie, and 
that Mr. Maclndoe and Mr. Hunter would have a sharp run for 
third place. After a more careful examination next day the 
judgment I had arrived at I considered had been hasty ; and that, 
though there was not much advantage to boast of, still that the 
awards arrived at by the Judges were justified. Had Mr. Kirk 
picked his stand of twelve bunches for his six I think undoubtedly 
he would have won the six ; but this he failed to do, and lost the 
prize. Mr. Hunter’s Gros Colmau and Golden Champion in his 
twelve were superb. Here he decidedly surpassed Mr. Macln¬ 
doe, as did Mr. Maclndoe surpass him where they again showed 
the same varieties—Gros Guillaume and Trebbiano. Next, Mr. 
Maclndoe staged two fine bunches of Black Hamburgh and in fine 
condition, whereas Mr. Hunter staged two equally fine bunches 
of Muscat of Alexandria, but which were past their best; and 
here it was that I think the award was gained, as Mr. Maclndoe’s 
Mrs. Pince decidedly required time, whereas Mr. Hunter’s better- 
ripened Alicantes were not at all such handsome specimens as he 
has previously exhibited. Mr. Kirk’s pair of Muscat of Alex¬ 
andria were decidedly weak, as were bis otherwise handsome 
bunches of the Duke of Buccleuch weak, they having so many 
stoneless berries. Great ciedit was, I think, due to Mr. Kirk for 
his staging less showy bunches and depending on higher-class 
Grapes ; but there the matter ends, as we have no rule that prefers 
one variety of Grape to another when equally well grown. Of 
Mr. McKelvie’s exhibits I find that my memory does not justify 
further criticising them, though I well remember that with day¬ 
light my first very high opinion was partly modified. 
Regarding awarding the Veitcli Memorial medal to Mr. Macln¬ 
doe’s two magnificent bunches of Gros Guillaume, I much re¬ 
gret that I could not agree with the judgment. That pro¬ 
bably more credit was due to the ability that presented to us 
such produce I readily admit, but a weak spot that may reason¬ 
ably be passed over in a collection when presented to us in a 
single exhibit I quite as earnestly contend judges are not justi¬ 
fied if they ignore it. With the poor quality of the Grape as 
already alluded to, there being no recognised classification of 
merit, judges have nothing to do, but for such an award the 
nearest to perfection was necessary, which these bunches were not, 
as they had been cut some weeks too soon, and that this award was 
necessary to justify the other award I do not for a moment admit. 
The stand was undoubtedly first, but when closely examined this 
lack of finish was discernible enough, and there were other pairs 
of black bunches certainly without a fault. Mr. Hunter’s Gros 
Colman, Mr. Johnstone’s Alnwick Seedling, and I know at the 
time I examined other pairs of black bunches without a weakness 
visible. Had I had the giving of the prize the many meritorious 
exhibits that were otherwise necessarily passed by, in any of them 
where I could have discovered an equal justification, they would 
have been remembered. When it rains it frequently pours I 
grant, but enough is the more excellent way for all that. 
Next, as to my suggested rules of judging. I contend they are 
plain, easily understood, and if the system does not promise to 
supersede the present system, then pray let others who are inter¬ 
ested point out where they fail. On each exhibit I would lay 
cards similar to the following— 
Collection of Six Dishes of Fruit. 
Fruit admissible. 
Points 
allowed by 
Committee. 
Points 
awarded by 
Judges. 
1 Pine . 
10 
9 
2 Grapes . 
8 
8 
6 Peaches . 
6 
5 
6 Nectarines . 
6 
— 
6 Figs . 
6 
S 
1 Melon. 
6 
6 
6 Plums . 
4 
2 
6 Pears. 
4 
3 
0 Apples . 
4 
1 
1 quart Strawberries . 
4 
— 
1st card . 
40 
2nd card . 
41 
3rd card . 
38 
119 
Judge's Name—A.. B. 
N.B.—The Judges are requested not to compare their cards or to add up the 
points. This duty will be performed by the Secretary, and by him the prizes 
awarded accordingly. 
And not that I stipulate for the points I allow, for I am not in 
any way wedded to any particular allowance of points ; generally 
what is made beforehand is fair. Each judge would then take 
one card, and after seeing the number of points allowed by the 
Secretary for fair specimens of each exhibit admissible, then on 
the blank space they would fill up according to their individual 
judgment, put their initials or names to the card, and then pass on 
till all was judged. We have a plurality of judges to prevent 
