September 15, 1887. ] 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
221 
llr/VfCvx.T 1 
T)\y J'V-k 
( 
:0MING EVENTS 
/'/j 'k vLA/ ,71 
15 
16 
17 
13 
19 
10 
SI 
th 
F 
S 
sun 
M 
Tc 
W 
Brighton Show. 
Manchester Show (two days). 
15th Sunday after Trinity. 
SHOWING AND JUDGING. 
XFIIBITIONS of garden produce have, with¬ 
out doubt, contributed powerfully to supe¬ 
riority of culture ; and if it had not been for 
such shows British gardening would not 
lia\e attained its generally high standard 
of to-day. There would have been expert 
cultivators in the absence of these shows, 
just as there were before their existence’ 
because there are men who require no external stimulus 
to urge them on in accomplishing the self-imposed task 
of excelling all former efforts. That, however, is not the 
habit or the nature of all. It may be safely said the 
majority need spurring on, so to say, to place them in 
the front ranks of workers in practical horticulture; and 
many professional gardeners and non-skilled amateurs 
lia\6 been firecl with a zeal to excel by the splendid 
■examples of others that have been displayed at public 
exhibitions. Flower shows have, moreover, been the means 
ef inducing thousands of persons to indulge in the 
pleasant occupation of gardening, and to become growers 
of flowers, fruits, or vegetables. They have seen the 
achievements of others and been compelled to become 
cultivators in turn, and have eventually become formidable 
competitors. Thus has the taste for gardening spread 
and a great industry been created. 
In order to increase the interest, not in show's alone, 
but in the delightful art of which they are the exponents, 
oppoi tunities should be afforded for the greatest possible 
number of cultivators to place before the public the best 
examples of cultural skill that can be produced. And 
this should honestly represent their own work. As a 
rule the schedules of shows are comprehensive and 
judiciously framed, but there is very little doubt that 
classes have been introduced by persons of a nature 
which the proposers of them felt they could compete in 
successfully. There is, perhaps, no great harm in that if 
keen competition ensues and the products staged are 
grown by the exhibitor, and at the same time are meri¬ 
torious. Persons who are animated by selfish motives in 
the framing of schedules are sure to be “ taken in ” 
sooner or later, and that matter, of which complaints are 
not unheard, usually rights itself. 
A subject of much greater importance is the growing 
tendency to offer exciting prizes for which it is known 
only a few can compete; because in that case it prac¬ 
tically amounts to distributing large sums of the money 
of a society amongst those few, for the classes are so 
framed as to deter the great body of cultivators from 
entering, and they are deterred. Nor are these sensa¬ 
tional prizes won with the “ best of everything.” They 
are won because of the skill or ingenuity of competitors 
in placing on the tables the requisite number of the 
No. 377 .—Yol. XY., Third Series. 
articles stipulated for, and the greater this number is the 
more inferior must many of the individual products be. 
That plan is neither encouraging to gardeners as a body 
nor resultant of the highest examples of cultural skill. 
The produce staged in a class of twelve dishes of fruit 
and vegetables is better and the competition keener than 
in a class of twice that number of dishes, and it is the 
same in respect to plants; the greater the number of 
specimens named, the fewer the competitors and the 
weaker some of the plants must be. When experience 
shows that large amounts offered for a great number of 
individual exhibits in a class brings out good and genuine 
competition the plan is justified by results; but when, on the 
other hand, there is little or no competition in these big 
classes for the great prizes, as is not unfrequently the case, 
the question arises as to whether it would not be better to 
allocate the money differently—spread it over a wider 
field in restricting the stipulations within reasonable and 
piactical bounds, thus opening the classes more widely, 
and giving more than three prizes in each. It is quite 
common to see meritorious collections left out in the 
cold where the competition is great, while large sums are 
awarded for produce relatively inferior in the larger 
classes simply because the competition is small. It is 
true the judges at most shows are empowered to with¬ 
hold prizes when the exhibits are not considered of such 
merit as to deserve them, also to grant extra prizes to 
meritorious exhibits; but as a rule they simply follow 
the schedule, because by withholding prizes or granting 
an inferior prize they incur the risk of sharp criticisin’. 
Ihere is, however, no good reason why they should either 
fear that or object to it, especially since in the great 
majority of cases their decisions are right. Nor are 
they encouraged to give extra prizes, for in the first 
place the funds at disposal often do not allow of this; 
and, secondly, when a start is made in making extra 
awards it is not easy to know where to stop. If more 
than three prizes are provided, as they are at the shows 
of florists’ flowers, these prizes are adjudged as a duty, 
and it is almost certain that if the number of prizes were 
increased in some fruit classes the competition would 
increase accordingly, and a greater and a better aggre¬ 
gate show be the gratifying result. It is also conceivable 
that this might be accomplished with less expenditure 
than when the lion’s share of the sum total is spent on 
a sensational class or two from which, by its very nature, 
a large number of good cultivators are excluded. 
In the report of the Crystal Palace Show last week, 
Mr. H. W. Ward is credited with the first prize (£8) for 
a collection of twenty bunches of Grapes in ten varieties, 
while in the next class of two bunches each of five varieties 
the whole of the three prizes only amount to £ 1 more; 
yet if there were only three competitors there would be 
thirty bunches which, because of the limit as to number 
and variety, may be confidently regarded as much superior 
to the twenty in the big class. There may be a doubt as to 
the actual value of the Longford Grapes, one version of the 
report (official) placing them first, the judges’ card third ; 
but that does not affect the fact of a good competition and 
thirty bunches bringing a reward of ,£9 to three prize- 
takers, while £8 goes into the pocket of one exhibitor of 
twenty bunches, in a class where there is “no comne- 
tition.” 
Again, in the report of the Newcastle Show, a great 
class is noted, in which there were only three competi¬ 
tions, absorbing £50 of the prize money; while in the 
two classes for eight and four dishes there were no less 
No. 2033. —Yol. LXXYIL, Old Series. 
