278 
[ April 6, 1893. 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
Cheysanthemum Etoile de Lyon. 
With this I am sending you half a dozen blooms of Etoile de Lyon, 
cut from bush-trained plants grown for decorative purposes, and we find 
it one of the very best for late blooms. This experience may perhaps 
interest readers of the Journal of Horticulture. — JOHN Lambekt, 
Powis Castle Gardens, 
[The flowers were fresh and exceedingly fine for the time of year.] 
Judging Cut Blooms. 
I AM pleased that “ Sadoc ” (page 202) is of my opinion, that if two 
flowers are put side by side the best is soon detected, and I do not see 
what injustice is done if, when side by side, a Jeanne Delaux is pitted 
against a Stanstead White. It is a decided advantage to the exhibitor 
who produces good flowers of difficult varieties to grow, like Mrs. Alpheus 
Hardy, Golden Dragon, or Thunberg. A practical j udge can easily measure 
the comparison, and they have the advantage of being judged under the 
same light. This is not the case with stands placed long distances 
apart and in darker parts of the hall. “ Sadoc ” gives 4 points, we will 
say, to an Avalanche in stand A ; when he finds this flower afterwards 
in another stand he may give it 4i. Can he accurately trust to his 
eye to measure this slight difference without having them near 
together ? 
I may not be quite clear where I say “ Give a point for colour and fresh¬ 
ness.” The colour and freshness of individual blooms should, as stated 
by “ Sadoc,” be taken into consideration when measuring the compari¬ 
son ; but an exhibitor who tastefully arranges his colours and also includes 
difficult varieties like Refulgens, giving his stand a more pleasing and 
fresh appearance, should have a point for this over one that stages too 
many of all one colour although good flowers, and in accordance with 
the regulation of the schedule. 
“Sadoc” asks me at about how many exhibitions do I find more 
than one bloom gaining six points? Six points is the highest I think, 
and I mentioned that number to explain my meaning. Judges are very 
shy of giving the maximum or six points to any flower meaning perfec¬ 
tion, and to one show where it occurs I should say I find quite four 
lacking. If I had mentioned all those gaining five points, it means for 
the judge to carry his premier bloom to more. “Sadoc” is the first 
judge I am aware of who has confidence enough in his judgment to 1 
award a premier prize to a bloom without first lifting it out to compare 
it with one, or several we will say, only half a point less, when the 
points had been given to each a distance apart.—J. Lambert, Foiois 
Castle Gardens. 
The N.C.S. Imbroglio—Me. Dean and Mr. Trinder. 
The following letters have been sent to us for publication. 
Dogmersfield Gardens, Winchfield, 
April 3rd, 1893. 
To the Editor.—Dear Sir, I have received a letter from Mr. Richard 
Dean concerning my letter which you kindly inserted in your last issue 
(page 258), and as it reflects on your correspondents, I venture to forward 
it to you, with a copy of my reply thereto.—I am, dear sir, yours truly, 
G. Trindeb. 
Mr. Dean to Mr. Trinder. 
National Chrysanthemum Society, 
Ranelagh Road, Ealing, London, W., March Slst, 1893. 
Mr. G. Trinder, Dogmersfield Gardens, Winchfield. Sir,—In the Journal 
of Horticulture of March 30th appears an article, headed “ The N.C.8. Com¬ 
mittee versus Godfrey and others,” and bearing your signature, in which 
you make reference to “recent discreditable proceedings connected with the 
Committee of N.C.S.” and in the last paragraph of this article you allude 
once more to what you term “ highly discreditable proceedings.” 
To many of the statements which have appeared in the Journal of 
Horticulture reflecting upon the National Chrysanthemum Society I have 
paid no attention. They have been confined to the columns of that paper; 
they were either anonymous or from writers not connected with the Society, 
and who could have no personal knowledge of what they were writing about, 
or from obscure persons gratifying merely personal feelings. It is different 
in your case. You are a member of the N.C.S.; you hold a deservedly high 
position in the estimation of your brother gardeners : you are at the head of 
one of the most important gardening establishments in the country, con¬ 
sequently any statement bearing your signature carries considerable weight 
with the gardening public. But your position also necessitates you should 
be very careful what statements affecting others you publicly make, and 
therefore you are bound to ascertain they are bona fide before you make 
public reference to them. 
As it is impossible I can allow your statement to pass unnoticed, I am 
bound to bring it to the notice of my Committee. I have no hesitation in 
sajing the officers and Committee of the N.C.S. are quite as honourable and 
high-minded as yourself, and they cannot permit themselves to be publicly 
charged by you with being associated with “discreditable proceedings” 
without calling upon you to justify your charges. I assume you have 
personal knowledge of certain facts to which you make allusion. I cannot 
imagine you would base your charges merely upon secondhand and 
probably interested statements. If you have a knowledge of this character 
I am sure you will feel it to be your duty to set it forth fully, so that 
immediate steps may be taken to inquire into its correctness. 
I need scarcely state that in charging a number of gentlemen who are 
largely known in the horticultural world with proceedings of a “discredit¬ 
able character” you incur a very grave responsibility, which you must 
accept. 
As I intend to bring your accusations befo-e a meeting of the General 
Committee to be called at an early date, I shall be glad to have your reply 
at your earliest convenience.—I am, Sir, your obedient servant, Richard 
Dean, Secretary. 
Me. Trindbr to Me. Dean. 
Dogmersfield Gardens, Winchfield, 
April 3rd, J893. 
Mr. Richard Dean.— Sir, —Your letter to hand on Saturday evening 
last, and, in reply, I beg to say that the recent discreditable proceedings t) 
which I refer in my letter to the Journal of Horticulture are those alluded 
to in the letters that have appeared in that paper—I mean those in connec¬ 
tion with the member of the Floral Committee who voted against the lovely 
“ Beauty of Exmouth ” Chrysanthemum, and then offered to buy it; and 
also your own recent action in the election of a Chairman to that 
Committee. If you consider such conduct that of high-minded and 
honourable gentlemen, I beg to differ from you very considerably. 
I think the majority of the readers of the Journal of Horticulture well 
know that the Editor is too honourable to allow “ statements to appear from 
persons who could have no personal knowledge of what they were writing 
about, or from obscure persons merely gratifying personal feelings.” You 
will please withdraw my name, for the present, as a member and subscriber 
to the N.C.S. I shall now forward your letter, and a copy of my reply 
thereto, to the Editor of the Journal of Horticulture. —I am. Sir, yours 
faithfully, G. Trinder. 
[Mr. Dean is in error in his allegation that our correspondents have 
“ no personal knowledge of what they write about.” Some of them 
know rather too much to please Mr. Dean, and withhold their names to 
prevent themselves being pestered with letters through the post. Mr. 
Ballantine’s remark at the annual meeting with respect to the corre¬ 
spondence in these columns that “ he was able to say an accession of 
members was distinctly traceable to that cause ” had the effect of bring¬ 
ing several communications, and the methods Mr. Dean chooses to 
adopt have brought many more. We think we are right in suggesting that 
those gentlemen might have prevented the controversy if they wished ; 
and at least they ought to be satisfied with the result of it—•“ a distinct 
accession of members.” That statement is our justification for sustain¬ 
ing interest in the N.C.S.] 
Floral Committee of the N.C.S. 
But for '.the letter of Mr. George Gordon in your last issue (page 
258), I should not have again intervened in this controversy. 
That gentleman appears to have discovered in my letter (page 240) 
an “ inuendo” which certainly was not present to my mind when I 
penned the letter in question, and one which I do not think is presented 
even by the most strained construction of its contents. Surely it is 
permissible to credit Mr. Dean with the genuine intention to secure a 
chairman absolutely independent of late events without its being a 
necessary inference that the other nominee to the office was less 
independent or more implicated. When I desire to convey a meaning I 
do not resort to “ inuendo.” I say what I mean straight out, and 
assume the full responsibility for my statement. 
In the present case it certainly never occurred to me to attribute to 
Mr. Gordon any association with the recent differences which have 
agitated the governing body of the N.C.S. I am glad to say that, save 
for the information gleaned from your columns, I am absolutely in 
ignorance who has and who has not been concerned in the contest, but 
the general impression left on my mind is that if there is one member, 
especially of the General Committee, who has not been drawn into the 
struggle it is Mr. Gordon. 
My personal knowledge of the incidents of the late election is limited 
to one chance interview some two months ago, an interview lasting 
for two minutes covering the question “ Would I accept the post of 
chairman if elected ? ” and the reply that “ If, by so doing, I could be of 
use to the N.C.S. and help to restore peace within its borders, I would.” 
From that moment until I learned the result of the meeting of the 
General Committee I had no communication, direct or indirect, with 
Mr. Dean, or with any other officer of the Society, nor did I even know 
that there was to be any contest. Certainly, had I been aware that 
Mr. Gordon was to be proposed I should not have allowed my name to 
be brought forward, for I can imagine no one better qualified to fill the 
position of chairman. But the election had taken place, and for the 
reasons already stated I saw no sufficient reason to refuse the result and 
thereby throw upon the Society the inconvenience and delay attending 
the summoning of another meeting of the General Committee. 
However, the incidents disclosed in your issue of the 16th ult., in my 
opinion, entitled me to disregard mere considerations of convenience, and 
these incidents, together with the additional light since thrown upon the 
present position of the Society, have decided me, under no possible 
circumstances to be connected with its Floral (Committee either as 
Chairman or member. 
One other point. If Mr. G. Trinder (page 258) will refer again to 
my letter he will see that it is not of the discussion of the “ Godfrey ” 
case that I, in common with others of your readers, am tired. It is 
with the acrimony and personal animus with which the discussion is 
carried on that we are weary. Those who have decided to keep the 
‘ Godfrey ” case steadily before the Society until it shall have received a 
