162 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
[ August 25, 1892. 
that Mr. Mclndoe was fully justified in exhibiting two Pine Apples 
as separate dishes in one class, when “one Pine ’ was specifically 
^imed, going on to say “ the Judges ought to have f ully considered 
the words in the schedule ” before arriving at a decision. Evidently 
he thinks they did not do this, and they will scarcely thank him for 
ibe compliment. In my experience there is no duty more dis¬ 
tasteful to a judge than to disqualify an exhibitor, and I have 
never known it done without giving the most anxious and careful 
consideration to the terms by which they are guided. Doubtless 
the Trentham Judges weighed the whole matter with grave 
deliberation, and that being so they were bound, in my opinion, to 
decide against the exhibitor. I certainly should have done so, and 
whoever stages in a similar manner under similar stipulations in 
future I shall, if an adjudicator, disqualify the collection. 
If an exhibitor can stage two Pines as “ separate dishes ” when 
one only is specified, why cannot he stage three or four ? Please 
answer that question, “ W. H. M ,” in as “definite” a manner as 
you say the terms of schedules should be. If you say he cannot 
do this you will be in conflict with Mr. Mclndoe, who clearly indi¬ 
cates on page 103 that he was fully entitled to do so ; in fact, to 
have staged six Pines. Now suppose he did this in a class of 
“nine dishes, to include two varieties of Grapes, one black and 
©ne white, one Melon, and one Pine,” and you staged two dishes 
©f Grapes, one Melon, one Pine, also separate dishes of Peaches, 
Nectarines, Figs, Cherries, and Plums, do you think you would 
have been wrong in your strict adherence to the precise terms as 
stipulated, and he would be right in departing from them to the 
extent of five Pines ? Should you not have objected to being 
“swamped with Pines ? ” This is the precise logical result of your 
argument. It is also Mr. Mclndoe’s view. He says, on page 103, 
that after staging the stipulated four dishes he could complete the 
collection with “ whatever kind of fruit he might think proper to 
ase.” What does this mean ? It means that he could have staged 
five more dishes of Grapes or five more dishes of Melons, or it 
means nothing. 
The proposition is in direct contravention of the whole spirit 
and practice of exhibiting fruit. It is exactly to prevent such an 
absurdity occurring that stipulations are framed similar to those 
above quoted. They convey the intentions of the Committee with 
sufficient clearness to practical men. The term “ to include ” has 
no such wide meaning as Mr. Mclndoe suggests. It simply means 
that a collection must include the dishes specified, and that nine 
dishes made up without them would not be eligible for receiving a 
prize. That is the legitimate meaning according to all precedents 
m the history of exhibiting. The intention of the Committee is 
also clear and reasonable—namely, to place all competitors on an 
equality in respect to four prominent and important dishes, leaving 
them latitude with the remaining five. In respect to these the 
terms as published with the report of the Show on page 84, 
July 28th (I have not a Trentham schedule), are not precise, 
because the word “distinct” is omitted, and it is this which gives 
Mr. Mclndoe room to say that he could fill them with five varieties 
of any one kind—five Pines, five Peaches, or any other fruit, but 
mark this—beyond those which are specified. The stipulated 
aamber of those—“ two Grapes, one Melon, and one Pine ”—can no 
more be exceeded than could ten dishes be allowed when nine only 
were named as the limit of the collection. If the word “distinct” 
is in the schedule the five dishes must be dissimilar from each other 
and from the four described. If it is not there can be no dupli¬ 
cating of those that it was imperative to include in the number so 
clearly specified. 
Perhaps another correspondent, “ W. H. D.,” page 146, may now 
begin to see that the Judges had a basis on which to ground their 
decision. I may be permitted to doubt if this correspondent has 
either exhibited or judged many collections of fruit. I should have 
said that he wrote more like a lawyer than a gardener if he had been 
a little more cautious. His argument is based on a “ presumption,” 
and this a false one—namely, that the specified dishes could be 
duplicated. He is venturesome, too, in prophesying that ninety- 
nine out of every hundred exhibitors would interpret the conditions 
as he did. This is easily put to the test. Did one solitary exhi¬ 
bitor at Trentham, apart from Mr. Indoe, so interpret them ? Not 
one. What, then, becomes of the unanimity ? Just this, It is 
exactly the other way, diametrically opposed to the prophetic 
utterance and in strict conformity with the schedule, thus proving 
conclusively that its terms were well understood. 
I have known cases of the whole of the exhibitors in a class 
failing to comply with the terms of a schedule which stipulated for 
six kinds, and they staged “ varieties ” under the assumption that 
they were “ kinds.” It was a pure mistake, and the collections were 
judged on their merits. In another case four out of five so erred, 
and the fifth was accordingly adjudged the first prize, though 
bis produce was comparatively inferior. Had he failed to obtain 
a prize he would have very properly entered a protest, and must 
have sustained his claim as the only exhibitor legally entitled to 
recognition. 
It behoves judges to be extremely careful in doing justice 
between man and man, also in seeingthat the stipulations of schedules 
are complied with, as laxity in this respect misleads exhibitors, 
and it would seem that even Mr. Mclndoe was misled at Trentham 
through a mistake of the judges at a Crystal Palace show. But if 
judges should exercise care so ought exhibitors, while the firms 
employed in schedules cannot be too precise to prevent misunder¬ 
standing, and avoid the most unwelcome of tasks to adjudicators, 
namely—disqualifying exhibits.—A Judge. 
SIXTY YEARS OF HORTICULTURAL PROGRESS. 
(1760—1820). 
(Continued from page 490, last vol.~). 
An author, who wrote about London early in the present 
century, gives a somewhat amusing description of the block that 
often occurred upon Old London Bridge in the afternoon, and he 
notes that conspicuous amongst the crowd of vehicles were those 
of citizens hastening, or wanting to hasten when business was over, 
to their suburban villas. These suburban villas and their gardens, 
few of which remain, were very characteristic of the reign of 
George III., and they illustrated a style of garden arrangement 
and showed a variety of expedients that seem odd to us, but 
which formed a step in horticultural progress with all their defects. 
Another thing noticeable about these citizens’ or gentlemen’s villas 
was the employment they gave to gardeners, for in many instances 
the residents either had a gardener constantly employed (who might 
also have to act as stableman), or they hired one now and then 
from some nursery, or had some jobbing man. But a change has 
taken place, and though our increased population shows no 
diminution of interest in all branches of horticulture, there is less 
employment open to gardeners by profession than formerly. At 
the present time—frequently from economy, but also from love of 
the pursuit—a large number of persons occupy themselves in their 
own gardens, and do not engage others to do what may be required, 
except perhaps for the heaviest work. This has diminished the 
demand for gardeners. 
The garden of the common suburban villa had usually an 
arrangement of evergreens in front to afford a screen, flower pots 
intermixed, the back looked out upon a flower garden, beyond 
which, if space permitted, were fruit trees and shrubs. Many 
thought it cheaper to buy vegetables than to grow them, but some 
had a kitchen garden skirting the flower beds and walks, from 
which it was separated by a hedge or rustic fence. Friendly com¬ 
petitions as to who should have the finest flowers or the earliest 
vegetables took place amongst these suburban residents, and those 
who had grounds of sufficient extent used to have what we should 
call garden parties, which brought flower growers into communica¬ 
tion, and they often exchanged seeds, buds and slips. Visitors to 
London from distant places, by seeing such villa gardens—those of 
the leading nurserymen and perhaps some of the gardens attached 
to such mansions" as Holland House, Gunnersbury, or Kensington 
Palace—went to their homes with new ideas, which were afterwards 
embodied in practice. Intercourse with some of the leading gar¬ 
deners of London gave a great impetus to Scotch and Irish horti¬ 
culture at the beginning of this century, for it was a singular fact 
that though so many Scotchmen who came to the south rose to 
eminence as gardeners in their native land, before that date there 
was scarcely a greenhouse or stove to be found of any size, or 
containing plants worth notice. 
A very perceptible defect in many of the flower gardens laid 
out during the eighteenth century was that they were below the 
level of the adjacent land. We may see specimens of thi3 old 
method in some of the London squares yet. This was done with 
the intention of affording warmth to the plants in the colder 
months, but it prevented proper drainage, and had not a pleasing 
effect by any means. Nicol and Loudon recommended the practice 
of giving a flower garden some elevation, also they advised that 
within it the surface should not be of one level, but made to wave 
somewhat. Mason the poet had advised that the whole should be 
on an incline broken by winding paths ; the result was that the 
higher plants were kept too dry, and the lower were apt to be 
washed out of the soil. Repton opposed the common practice of 
planting deciduous shrubs amongst the flower beds for several 
reasons, and suggested that they should be put along the sides of a 
garden or on the lawns, but always grouped with evergreens to 
avoid the appearance of bareness in winter. Abercrombie advocated 
the round or oval form in the case of small gardens, considering 
