93 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER, 
t February 2, 1893. 
J. H. Tayloe. 
Messes. Pitohee & Maxda send us a bloom of this new American 
variety, which they consider one of the best for late work. They 
describe it as a great advance on Miss L. Cartledge. The plant is said 
to possess a robust eonstitution, yet is of a dwarf habit, and the flowers 
last in perfection a long time. This variety, it is stated, was shown last 
November at the Koyal Aquarium, and has been flowering the whole 
time sinee. The bloom received is good, and the eolouring attractive, 
the centre florets being creamy white, and the outer ones deep pink. 
L. Canning. 
Is there not a mistake in naming this variety Lord Canning ? If 
I mistake not it is the same sort we grow for late flowering, as the 
description answers so closely to the one under that name, which is an 
American variety sent to this country during, I think, the spring of 1890. 
In the autumn of that year I saw a splendid bloom of it in the nursery 
of Mr. Morton in Darlington, but since that time I have not seen a 
good flower. I have given up trying to produce large blooms, aud now 
grow the variety for late flowering only, it being one of the best for 
that purpose. It is pure in colour and of even form, therefore well 
suited for decoration in a cut state. When cultivated on the large 
bloom plan it had a peculiarity of going blind in the point of the shoots 
instead of showing a crown bud in the ordinary way. This, I think, is 
the general experience of growers. However, by this we have gained 
a good late-flowering variety, which is, perhaps, of greater importance 
than for the sake of the exhibition table. We top our plants when 
4 inches high, afterwards allow them to grow uninterruptedly, and 
produce as much bloom as they think fit. Disbudding is not practised. 
—E. M. 
Mes. L. C. Madeiea. 
Is there not a mistake made in classing this variety as a Japanese on 
page 54 ? I cannot find it catalogued as belonging to this section. Mr. 
Owen staged three blooms of it at the Drill Hall in London on 
January 17th, to which the Floral Committee of the Eoyal Horticul¬ 
tural Society gave no award. The blooms in question were closely 
incurved, reminding one very much of Mabel Ward in the form of their 
florets, but which are narrow and pointed, and the manner of incurving. 
The colour is a rich orange yellow. It promises to be a good late 
flowering variety. It appears to have been highly thought of in 
America, judging from the honours it has received in that country. 
—E. M. 
John Lambeet. 
Like a “ Yorkshire Bite,” I have watched this wordy duel, and have 
no desire to say one word either for Mr. Molyneux or Mr. Lambert ; 
both are equally qualified to hold their own, but in all fairness to the 
variety John Lambert I should like to state my opinion, and that is I 
consider it far superior in form and much more reliable than the old 
Gollen Queen or Emily Dale. After I grew John Lambert side by side 
with those varieties I was so well pleased with the new comer that I at 
once threw the older stock away. So far as I can judge, Mr. Lambert 
only claims for his namesake that it is an improved form ; in that I 
readily support him, for it is “ form ” we require, the same as in John 
Doughty being an improved form of that flat reflexing variety Bronze 
Queen ; but Chrysanthemum growers, as a body, well know which 
varieties are best after a three-years test.—J. D. 
Inceeased Size of Show Stands. 
The letters of “Sadoc” (page 55) and “ D.” (page 76) again 
raise the question of an authoritative increase of the size of the stands 
for the exhibition of Japanese blooms. As I am one of those who 
differ from “Sadoc’s” estimate of conferences, and am rather inclined 
to the belief that the conclusions arrived at by a large body of experts 
are not likely to be of less value than the expressions of opinion of 
a single individual, I think it scarcely necessary to again traverse the 
ground covered by the late conference on show boards; suffice it that, 
practically, all the points mooted by “Sadoc” were raised and con¬ 
sidered at the conference, and by an overwhelming majority decided 
in a sense adverse to the views of your correspondent. 
“ D.” tells us that “ it has already been so conelusively shown that 
there is no need whatever for the increase in size of the stands that it is 
almost certain in a year or two we shall hear no more about it.” It 
would indeed be interesting to learn when and where it has been so 
“ conclusively shown.” A sweeping and confident assertion will scarcely 
adequately supply the place of proof. Although a very steady reader 
of the hortieultural papers I have seen no signs of the conclusion so 
dogmatically alleged. 
So far as I am aware the matter stands thus. Of the thirty-seven 
representative exhibitors consulted by Mr. R. Falconer Jameson, thirty- 
five appear to have assented to the principle of the necessity for an 
increase. At the N.C.S.’s conference thirty-eight voted for and only 
seven against the resolution to adopt, compuls rily, the new standard 
size proposed by Mr. Drover—namely, with 7-inch intervals between 
the holes (centre to centre), and I understand that the opposition of 
some of the dissentients was directed rather against the principle of 
compulsion than against the desirability of an increase. 
Mr. H. Brown, in his very able letter, page 76, tells us that in his 
experience “ 90 per cent, of growers are in favour of reform.” If 1 
may substitute “ leading exhibitors,” whom the question practically 
alone concerns, for “ growers,” I can add my testimony to the like 
effect. There are of necessity a large body of growers who never, or 
rarely, enter the charmed circle of prizewinners, to whom the retention 
of a system which enables smaller blooms to be displayed to better 
relative advantage would doubtless be very welcome, and there is the 
“smart” exhibitor referred to by Mr. Brown; and I would ask is 
Mr. Brown’s letter exactly indicative of that speedy burying of the 
question which “ D.” manages to persuade himself lies in the near 
future 1 
Upon one point, however, I find myself able to agree with both 
“ Sadoc ” and “ D.” The former tells us that “ it will never do to 
allow all (exhibitors) to employ whatever size they thought fit,” and 
“ D.” adds that “ if exhibitors are allowed to have boxes for Japanese 
flowers up to any size they like there will be chaos.” Exactly, and I 
would add that nothing can be more undesirable, or calculated to confuse 
and mislead the Judges than to have, as was the case in a leading 
Japanese class at the late November Show of the N.C.S., certain of the 
competitors using the new conference stand, others the old standard 
size, while another exhibitor had a stand with the intervals midway 
between the two—namely, 6|^ inches. 
So long as the law of “ comparison under unequal conditions ” re 
mains—and Nature’s laws have a way of holding their own, even in face 
the most sweeping assurances to the contrary—so long will such a con¬ 
dition as I have described militate very greatly against the formation of 
an accurate judgment upon the several exhibits. I think that during 
the present transitional period, and until a larger standard size shall, 
either by authority or by growing usage, become universal, the exhibitor 
should have the alternative only of the present 6-inch size or that of the 
“ Conference” stand. All other sizes should be prohibited. 
I wish that I could agree with “ D.” that a limitation of the size of 
the board could restrain the rage for more bigness, but with the practical 
evidence of the audit of last season’s shows before us, it is impossible to 
assent to the conclusions of your correspondent. 
It is true that “style” and “refinement” have recently received in 
some quarters more pointed recognition, but when we have before us the 
fact that very many of last season’s novelties give to us all that can be 
desired in these directions, and yet have the added quality of giant size, 
the last argument against the adoption of a show stand large enough to 
permit of a proper and critical judgment of the exhibit must dis¬ 
appear.—S. 
NATIONAL CHRYSANTHEMUM SOCIETY. 
Theee-days Exhibitions. 
I WAS fully in accord with the N.O.S. in holding a three or four- 
day Exhibition to celebrate the centenary of the Chrysanthemum ; but 
what exhibitor ever expected a continuation of a three-days Exhibition 1 
They rightly choose the best dates in November for a Show, but 
exhibitors from a distance are (if they show at the N.C.S.) practically 
debarred from exhibiting elsewhere, as the preparation for going to 
the N.C.S. and the return journey take up the best part of the week. 
Perhaps the three-days Show is to suit the Aquarium Company ; if so, 
and exhibitors dislike it, they have the remedy—“ don’t go.” Then how 
about the increase of membership ? Members will not continue unless 
they are partly considered, and I am not aware that a single member 
has been asked his sanction to such a waste of time alteration. The 
Crystal Palace Company have an excellent Show (only two days), and 
exhibitors from a distance are able to leave in sufficient time to reach 
their destination the same evening. The N.C.S. Committee are elected 
to carry out the work of the Society, and no one grudges them their 
onerous duties ; neither do I wish to be dictatorial, but I, with many 
others, look for consideration. Shall we get it when the schedule comes 
out ? and will its issue be deferred till the Committee have settled the 
Beauty of Ex mouth case?—J. Doughty. 
The Beauty of Exmouth Case still Unsettled. 
Allow me to thank Mr. Harman Payne for answering my query, or 
at least as far as he was able to do so ; but I am sure the majority of 
readers will consider the answer a most unsatisfactory one. It amounts 
to this. The General Committee acted in a straightforward manner, 
and, on the spur of the moment, the sub-Committee thought it best to 
act with greater caution, and consulted a lawyer. The Committees and 
b jth cases are in connection with one Society, and there is also another 
similarity in both cases. The difference in the cases is this, Mr. Wells 
repeatedly requested the Secretary to lay his complaint before the Com¬ 
mittee, but he (the Secretary) deelined to do so. Mr. Wells took other 
measures, and brought the matter before the General Committee in such 
a manner that the affair could not be smothered, and the resu’t is such 
that says little for the wisdom of the Chairman and Secretary. 
In the Beauty of Exmouth case a sub-Committee was appointed 
who wished the public to believe they could not investigate the affair 
until the name of the member complained of was before them. Then, 
so it states, a lawyer was consulted as to whether it would be libellous 
to “ investigate ” the charge any farther, and he advises the sub-Com 
mittee to cease further action. I do not wonder at Mr. Harman Payne 
