June 1, 1893. ] 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDE NEIL 
429 
I F the character of the Royal Horticultural Society’s Show 
that was held in the Temple Gardens on the Thames 
Embankment last week can be better condensed than in the 
above words we shall be glad to have the amendment for publica¬ 
tion. It must be clearly understood that we desire to register 
what we believe to be a fact, and in no sense to suggest a 
reproach. On the contrary, we think the crush was more in the 
nature of a triumph, and for the Benchers of the Temple who 
granted the site, as well as the officials who conducted the Show, 
we have nothing but praise to record, the first for a kind act, 
the second for assiduous endeavour to turn to the best account 
they could the privilege accorded. 
The Show was undoubtedly a magnificent one. The more it 
was examined the larger and richer it appeared to be; but it was a 
magnificent Show, marred, obscured, and in a sense spoiled by the 
crushing and crowding both of plants and people. The former 
could not be seen to anything like the best advantage, and the 
latter could not see with any satisfactory degree of comfort. The 
Royal Horticultural Society was represented in brilliant guise, but 
all the same in fetters. 
The magnitude of the Show could not be appreciated in the 
cribbed, cabined, and confined space allotted, and the full beauty 
of the exhibits could not be half displayed. True, the tents 
were not small, No. 1 we believe measured 170x32 feet ; No. 2, 
150x40 feet ; No. 3, 160x60 feet, and No. 4, 150x32 feet, or 
a ground area of 25,840 square feet. Surely someone may be 
inclined to say that such provision must have been ample. But 
it was not, and 50,000 square feet would not have been an inch 
too much to have enabled the Society to do justice to the 
material at its disposal, and to have permitted the phblic to 
enjoy the great floral feast. 
We do not know whether there was space for any material 
extension of tents, or, if there were, whether the authorities 
would have permitted the extension. The Benchers are proud 
of their fine lawn, as well they may be of such a verdant 
expanse in the heart of London, and Mr. Newton certainly 
deserves praise for keeping it so fresh and bright during a 
season when most lawns are brown instead of green. He has 
evidently had plenty of water at hand and used it wisely. But 
assuming that the cov^ered area could be doubled, and the plants 
and flowers displayed in picturesque freedom, with adequate space 
for their inspection, we are satisfied that a display of flowers could 
be provided in London that could not be excelled in any city 
in Europe, and equalled in few. It was essentially a “ flower ” 
show, and not an assemblage of lofty Palms, Ferns, and luxurious 
masses of foliage. More of these, with adequate space, would 
have been a relief — a foil to the great banks of Orchids, 
packed in such profusion as to be almost overpowering in their 
beauty. Some relief there was, undoubtedly, in the excellent 
specimen foliage plants from the gardens of Mr. Crowlejq Waddon 
House, and Mr, Warren, Handcross Park, as well as in nursery¬ 
men’s groups, yet these did not materially either lighten or 
subdue the great dense flat masses of flowers arranged as if 
for market. 
The overcrowding was a mistake, and if the tent room could 
No. 675.— VoL. XXVI., Thikd Series, 
not be increased a much better effect would have been produced 
and a more meritorious display provided by a diminution of the 
exhibits. There appeared to be a rivalry in endeavour to pro¬ 
duce the greatest masses rather than the best examples of culture 
of the respective kinds, and the removal of a considerable number 
from some of the consignments would have enhanced the value of 
those remaining—the choicest and the best. It is a question if 
this massing method of showing is not being somewhat overdone, 
and it is becoming more and more impressed on the public that 
the Shows of the Royal Horticultural Society have grown into 
trade marts mainly. With three or four splendid exceptions— 
notably the incomparable Orchid groups of Baron Schroder and 
Sir Trevor Lawrence—comparatively little rivalry in cultivation 
was to be seen among amateurs ; while gardeners, as a body, show 
no disposition to send examples of their skill to the Exhibitions. 
In this respect—and it goes to the root of the object for which 
exhibitions were instituted—there is a great departure from the 
shows of past times, when keen competition was the order of 
the day, and in which the greatest number of cultivators were 
encouraged to share. The Royal Horticultural Society’s Shows 
incite rivalry no doubt, but it is practically trade rivalry and a 
question of covering the most space by packing plants together, 
not as affording lessons in tasteful arrangement or striking indi¬ 
vidual specimens, but of making a great display of produce for 
sale. In many instances this is certainly not done artistically, 
though some of the mixed groups were pleasing, effective, and 
suggestive ; in these the representations of alpine plants in rockery 
mounds probably bore the palm, and they would have gladdened 
the heart of Mr. Arnott. 
Next to the Orchids, hardy border flowers were most in 
evidence. The number was enormous, but most of the groups 
distinctly overcrowded. Tuberous Begonias were gorgeous, and 
if any person had prognosticated such massive and symmetrical 
blooms twenty years ago he would have been regarded as a dreamy 
enthusiast. The march onward in these flowers has been in 
advance of imagination. Gloxinias, Streptocarpuses, Roses, Pansies, 
Calceolarias, Petunias, decorative and “ Improved Raspail ” Pelar¬ 
goniums were effective in blocks, in some instances relieved 
with Ferns or otherwise pleasingly disposed ; and the group of 
Nectarine trees from Sawbridgeworth “took” immensely with 
the visitors. 
It was a great, varied, and particularly a crushed and un- 
picturesque Show. A gentleman who came direct from the chief 
Parisian Show of the season—who, in fact, saw both Shows on the 
same day, was asked for his impressions. In numbers, richness, 
and value of plants the Temple Show he described as overwhelming, 
but for taste in arrangement and picturesqueness it sank very low 
in comparison, and with the Paris Show fresh in his mind he could 
only regard the one at the Temple as a great show spoiled by cram¬ 
ming. Crammed, indeed it was, with plants and visitors. The 
170 feet long entrance tent was wedged with people panting in the 
heat and longing to “ get out of it,” and many who did so did not 
hesitate to say they had “ had enough show ” and passed to the 
lawn and the music. The central table in the entrance tent should 
never have been there, but it was inevitable for accommodating 
the exhibits, and the crowds had to push through as best they 
could without seeing half of them. 
Twice the room was needed for the produce to be fully displayed 
and fully enjoyed. Neither was the case ; the Show, we repeat, 
was a grand crush, and in that respect a great success. It ought to 
be so, and we hope it is, financially ; but there were loud grumblings 
among exhibitors about the conditions attached to tickets, and 
visitors who wished to purchase plants also complained freely 
because there were no attendants with collections to take orders. 
The labour in connection with the Show was immense, and the 
zeal of the officials beyond praise. 
No. 2331 .—VoL. LXXXVIII., Old Series. 
