580 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
[ December 14, 189J. 
On the part of the judges there is very much to be said. There are 
rules about “ the tents being cleared for the judges ” at a certain hour, 
which should be just as binding as “ the decision of the judges is final.” 
One is as much a regulation of the show as the other. Yet, where do you 
see it carried out ? and who is the Hercules that is to sweep this Augean 
stable clean? Why are the judges to have the time at their disposal 
(generally utterly inadequate) cut short by the breaking through of one 
rule, whilst another regulation may not be interfered with ? 
In judging Roses there is no doubt that the verdict given by the 
judges at noon may often be considered unsound by many at 4 p.m. 
The judges, however, have to judge flowers as they are, not as they may 
be a few hours hence ; but in the case of Chrysanthemums there is a 
lasting power the Rose possesses not, and in the afternoon judgment 
may be as easily settled as at the earlier time. Many years ago, I 
think nearly half a century, when reporting for your pages a large 
West of England Show, I noticed what I considered errors in judging. 
One of the exhibitors, whom I knew only by name, somehow fixed the 
report on me, and was exceptionally indignant, not that I cared an atom 
for the gentleman’s spleen. Well, in that report I suggested that 
another judge should judge the judges. The idea was scouted, but 
here at this Exhibition something of the kind seems to have been 
done, if your correspondent is accurate in his statement. 
My idea was this. We—judges, exhibitors, committee—are all liable 
to error, there is nothing infallible about us. Why should we ape it? 
Assuming, then, that judges may make mistakes—and sometimes, 
recollect, it may be an accidental error of copying on the card the 
wrong number of the exhibitor—why should not another judge scan 
the verdict before its being sent to the secretary’s tent, and detecting 
what he may consider an error, tap his brother judges on the shoulder 
and say, “ Come, just point over these two stands with me? ” It is well 
known that stands may be so close together that points do not separate 
them, and the judges are forced to take setting up into account to 
decide ; these are not the cases where dissatisfaction arises. Possibly 
in the case mentioned there was little to choose between third and 
fourth prizes, but when you come to compare these with the second 
prize it is plain that a matter of thirty points must have been a startling 
difference in the stands. And it is for these manifest oversights or 
misjudgments that the extra judge making his own conclusions and 
finding them at variance with the recognised censors, might advan¬ 
tageously hold a consultation with them before the decision is made 
final. 
Some such arrangement would do away with such a glaring case 
as the comparison between second, third and fourth prizes at the exhi¬ 
bition named ; nay, it actually did detect the error, but too late for 
alteration.—Y. B. A. Z. 
The case mentioned on page 503 is the worst muddle I have ever 
heard of. Neither judges, committee, or secretary are to be congratu¬ 
lated, and it appears doubtful if the final judge or censor ought not to 
be included with them. It is well you have published the alleged facts; 
they contain many warnings. But putting the above case on one side 
for the present, I would ask, Are not many errors in judging caused by 
neglect to clear the place of exhibition soon enough? It is nothing 
unusual at some shows to find the officials nearly an hour behind the 
notified time for clearing; chiefly, it is presumed, because one or two 
exhibitors have arrived late, and have not finished staging. This is 
grossly unfair to those who do try to abide by the regulations, as they 
cannot safely leave their exhibits until the place is cleared, and the 
judges are hurried round in order to get finished before the time to 
admit the public. All such rules should be carried out to the letter. If 
any exhibitors are not ready, let them be disqualified ; they will learn to 
arrive in time at the next exhibition. 
The best arrangement I have seen in this matter is that practised at 
Birmingham Chrysanthemum Show. A notice printed in bold type is 
sent to each exhibitor a day or two before the show, saying that the rule 
as to time will be strictly enforced. A bell is rung as a warning to be 
ready about ten minutes before the time, and the hall is cleared 
punctually and quickly when it is rung again. 
The above is the only reason I can think of for many mistakes in 
judging which one sometimes meets with. A few years back at a very 
large show I remember two dishes of Sea Eagle Peach in one collection 
of fruit were shown under distinct names, one of them being selected 
with less colour than the other. Good judges ought to find out and 
disqualify those who do such tricks, but if they are pressed for time they 
cannot reasonably be expected to do so. It is a pity such cases should 
occur, but as long as there are shows there will doubtless be a few 
dishonest exhibitors who are not ashamed to rob their neighbours. 
There ought to be some means of punishing them by law for this, I 
consider it quite as bad as picking a man’s pocket. 
If I understand your article rightly on page 503 you say the judges’ 
decision cannot be altered after the public are admitted. If this holds 
good, how are judges’ mistakes to be rectified in the future?— 
W . H. Divers, Ketton Hall Gardens, Stamford, 
The article on page 503 throws a search light of electric power on 
the case in question, and places the matter, so far as it has gone, very 
clearly before the public. Although the verdict has been found, 
sentence will presumably be deferred until all the side lights have been 
turned on what is undoubtedly a momentous subject. 
As a judge and exhibitor of some years’ standing may I be allowed 
to make a few comments and offer a suggestion ? The case appears to 
resolve itself under two heads—viz., error or incompetence. The latter 
I need not dwell on ; the leading article deals with that so con¬ 
clusively. But error or difference of opinion, which the so-called error 
may resolve itself into, allow me to turn on a side light from afar off 
truly—viz., ancient history. “Long, long ago, beyond the space of 
twice a thousand years,” Jupiter, in a merry mood, showered down on 
mortals a number of spectacles, which each fitted on (no two were 
alike), and each mortal since has been comeplled to wear them, though 
invisible ; hence, till Jupiter takes back his gift, we mortals shall 
never see things alike. 
Another side light. Given two exhibitors, each complying with the 
rules, each with blooms of about equal merit, the deft hand of one 
exhibitor will with neat arrangement and finish in setting up add a 
grace and charm to his stand which his opponent fails in doing, though 
on analysis of the individual blooms this does not count, but in close 
competition does not this influence the judges, and should it not receive 
consideration ? It does from the public, and they are no bad judges. 
I have seen the humble man from a single-handed place, practically 
unknown and unnoticed, the first to put up his stand, the last to leave 
it, giving a touch here, another there, whilj my lord’s gardener dis¬ 
daining these trifles, dishes up sans ceremonie and sans gout, but to find 
later on that these little things are not to be despised, and do carry 
weight. 
Who, as an exhibitor, when clearing out for the judges does not give 
a final look, and take the measure of his opponents with his eye ? I do, 
and am seldom far out in this premature judging. After that, unless 
anything glaring should be found, which I never have, I do not question 
the judges’ decision, and though not always getting the expected place, 
at other times the unexpected falls to me, and any seeming error 
either way I attribute to Jupiter’s spectacles, which we, the judges, and 
even experts, are condemned to wear. My suggestion is that the 
National Chrysanthemum Society should formulate and publish a 
clearly defined code of rules for the help and guidance of judges, which 
would undoubtedly be recognised as the standard of all societies. A 
committee of judges nominated by Mr. Molyneux, himself acting as 
Chairman, is an alternative suggestion.—E. K. 
There can be no doubt that the show referred to on page 503 last 
week was that of the Scottish Horticultural Association, and the 
allegations contained in your correspondent’s letter demand an answer 
from me as Secretary. 
Your correspondent states two facts, viz.: first, that “The Com¬ 
mittee so far entertained the protest as to appoint a competent expert to 
‘ point ’ the different stands ; ” and, second, that “ The Secretary told 
the ‘protestors’ that the Committee acknowledged the misjudgment, 
but, owing to a clause in the rules, viz., ‘ The decision of the Judges is 
final,’ nothing could be done in the matter.” 
To both of the above “facts” I have to give a most emphatic 
denial. When the disappointed competitors handed me their protest it 
was laid before a meeting of the Committee, and it was resolved that the 
Committee had no power to call in question the decision of the Judges, 
in whose skill and integrity they placed every confidence ; and this 
decision was communicated to the “ protestors.” 
As this matter must be brought before my Committee, in justice 
to myself I think it but right that the name of your correspondent 
should be placed in my hands. The other remarks contained in your 
editorial do not call for my criticism, and therefore I pass them over 
for what they are worth.— Robert Laird. 
[We are obliged to Mr. Laird for informing the public that the Show 
alluded to was that of the Scottish Horticultural Association, held in 
Edinburgh on the 16th, 17th, and 18th ult. Our correspondent of last 
week sent us his name and address, assuring us of the accuracy of his 
statement, which he desired us to publish. He did not mention the 
name of the Society, nor did we know it when our last issue was 
published. It was in no degree material that we should know it. It 
was a question of what Mr. Laird describes as “facts,” but which we 
described as allegations, these being of such an extraordinary nature, 
yet stated with such precision, as to demand attention. We placed our 
pages open for any counter statement, and as readily insert Mr. Laird’s 
communication as we did that of the writer whose accuracy is so 
emphatically denied. The Committee, he says, did not appoint an 
expert to point the blooms after the Judges, and did not acknowledge 
any “misjudgment.” Who then appointed the “ expert,” the result of 
whose irksome duty we published last week? Our correspondent will 
note Mr. Laird’s request for his name and address. We have no 
objection to these being furnished for placing before the Committee as 
Buggestei.j 
CRYSTAL PALACE SEPTEMBER FRUIT SHOW. 
I AM pleased to see in your last issue that “ H. W. W.” (page 508) 
draws attention to these once popular gatherings of pomologists, the 
discontinuance of which has indeed been a great disappointment to 
both fruit growers and exhibitors generally. Like “ H. W. W.,” I was 
for some years an exhibitor at these shows, and always looked upon 
them as being the best managed and best conducted of any in my 
experience of exhibiting. 
I endorse every sentiment “ H. W. W.” has expressed in his desire 
to urge the Crystal Palace Company to renew their September Fruit 
