Deoember 10, 1885. ] 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
521 
prize stand of Grapes was not so 1 gappy’ as Mr. Ward represents, neither 
were the third-prize bunches so ‘dirty’ as he states they were.” This 
statement is wrong, as a reference to my former note will prove, as I did 
not use an adjective in connect.on with either “ gappy ” or “ dirty.” 
This being so, your reporter in the few sentences which I have just 
quoted from his note unintentionally admits that the exhibits in question 
were what I represented them to be—“gappy” and “dirty.” Your 
correspondent assumes too much when he says that “ it would have 
been better if Mr. Ward had let my criticism pass unnoticed”! 
Had I done so I have no doubt it would have been more agree¬ 
able to his wishes to be allowed to pose as the champion and the 
mouthpiece of one or two dissatisfied exhibitors. I have nothing to fear 
from the result of this discussion, and am not disposed to lie silent, even 
to oblige your correspondent. Your reporter—I wish I were at liberty to 
refer to him by name—says, “ What if Pitmaston Duchess were in one 
dish, and that very small sort Winter Nelis in another ?” Simply what 
happened at Bath—namely, that the collections consisting of twenty-four 
even-sized fruit of a size between the two varieties indicated, provided 
they were of as good quality as the fruits constituting the irregular col¬ 
lections, would be “placed” and the others “ passed.” The fact (com¬ 
municated to the Journal, page 470, by Mr. Bannister) of the Committee 
of the Bath Show having awarded that exhibitor an equal first prize for 
his collection does not alter the awards of the Judges in the least, nor the 
merit of the collection which the Judges “ passed.” The prize referred 
to was given to soothe the feelings of—as far as I could gather at the 
Show—the only dissatisfied exhibitor in the fruit classes, and only goes to 
prove that the Committee, out of motives more charitable than wise, 
did that which they certainly had no right to do without having first 
obtained the sanction of the Judges who “ passed ” the said collection—a 
sanction which it may be rightly assumed no competent men would give. 
If the action of the Bath Committee in this case goes for anything it is to 
establish a precedent for dissatisfied exhibitors to fall back on, and one 
that other committees should avoid fas affecting the interest and 
reputation of themselves as men of business and the society which they 
represent as a body, 
I must, with the Editor’s permission, return to the Grape question by 
telling your correspondent that it must be sufficient for him to know, as 
it is for me, that wbat I stated at page 465 in reference to the Grapes 
which Messrs. Nash and Taylor staged at Bath being placed in the same 
position at Bristol the following week is substantially correct; indeed, 
your correspondent almost admits as much when he says, “ even if they 
were,” two bunches only, instead of three as at Bath, were shown, 
adding, “ this, might easily have made a material difference.” I should 
like to know in what way this could possibly have made a “ material 
difference ” in determining their respective positions. Does he mean to 
say that Mr. Taylor left his best bunch at home and Mr. Nash his worst ? 
They “ might” have done so it is true, but it is highly improbable. Your 
correspondent says, “ It has yet to be proved that consistency and cor¬ 
rectness of judgment are necessarily conjunctive.” It is quite evident 
they are not, as is shown by your correspondent’s report of the Bath 
Show (page 425), wherein, as I pointed out at page 466, in speaking of 
Mr. Taylor’s second-prize stand of Alicante he hinted, and now (page 
490) he says “ ought to have been placed first,” and then proceeds to 
accord the “same position ” to the third-prize stand. And, again, in his 
report of the Bristol Show (page 476) the Grapes (Mr. Nash’s) which 
were referred to in his report of the Bath Show the previous week as 
“ not being well coloured ” are here referred to as “ being of the highest 
order.” So much for your reporter’s consistency of judgment. Your 
reporter says he has great respect for Mr. Nash, and I may be permitted 
to say that now, as at the Show, I have nothing but good wishes to offer 
any of the gardeners whose name your reporter has been instrumental in 
mixing up in this subject. But I should like to know what the respect 
or good wishes which judges may bear for exhibitors have to do in 
determining their respective positions. And these remarks are equally 
applicable to those who make reports of the shows. 
I feel I should be wanting in respect to “ A Thinker ” if I allowed his 
remarks at page 485 on judging to pass unnoticed, and which I trust may 
have a salutary effect on exhibitors, press attendants, judges and com¬ 
mittees alike. It is, as he states, an established practice for press 
attendants to judge the awards of the adjudicators, and for my part I 
should be sorry if it were otherwise. I know that errors of judgment do 
occasionally occur, but very rarely indeed when the awards are made by 
successful growers and exhibitors of plants and fruits in the respective 
classes. I am aware that it sometimes—though happily very rarely— 
happens that men who had not previously attended a show in any other 
capacity than that of a visitor or an unsuccessful exhibitor have been 
selected by the “ committee of management ” to determine the relative 
merits of the exhibits of practical men, and I need not say with what re¬ 
sults. Here the practical press attendant points out the inconsistency and 
unjustness of the awards ; and, having made himself acquainted with the 
unfitness of the men to perform such important duties, he censures pretty 
strongly—if not, he ought to, not the men who doubtless made the awards 
to the best of their judgment, but the committee who was responsible for 
the selection, and who ought to have chosen men of ability and paid them 
for their work. If the Judges erred in their awards in one of the Grape 
classes at Bath the Judges at Bristol, both excellent fruit-growers, re¬ 
peated that error. I also beg to remind “ A Thinker ” that I did not, and 
never have done so, “ advance the principle of uniformity throughout a 
collection as being of greater moment than individual merit, either of 
Pears, Chrysanthemums, or anything else but what I said, and say still, 
that “ uniformity throughout a collection in connection with individual 
merit should guide the Judges in making their awards.” And if any 
practical man tells me in these columns that this dictum is not sound I 
will say no more on the subject. The collection of Pears which secured 
first place consisted of good-sized, even, clean, and ripe fruits of Marie 
Louise, Louise Bonne of Jersey, Beurr6 Bose, Beurre Diel, Beurrd 
d’Aremberg, and medium-sized fruit of Van Mons Leon Leclerc under 
the name of Beurre de Capiaumont, and which the gardener, who made 
the report of the Show for this Journal, admitted at the time was wrongly 
named, although it afterwards crept into his notes somehow under that 
name. I merely mention thi3 for the information of your able and un¬ 
biassed critic, “ A Thinker,” as he has referred to this somewhat small 
Pear as being “ extraordinarily large or the others correspondingly small ” 
to make the collection uniform in point of size. I may add that the 
second and third-prize collections were composed of similar varieties of a 
high order of merit. 
Accepting “A Thinker’s” improved illustration of stands of six 
incurved blooms of Chrysanthemums on the score that they are regularly 
seen and judged at shows. In one stand the blooms decrease gradually 
in size from the back row to the front (which was not the case with 
Mr. Bannister’s Pears, inasmuch as two varieties were larger than the 
fruits on the other three plates, while those, Pitmaston Duchess, on the 
sixth plate were considerably larger than any of them). This stand 
receives a total of twenty-six points. The stand in competition is so even 
that the blooms examined individually are worth four points each, or a 
total of twenty-four points. “ A Thinker” then asks if it would be right 
to give the first prize to the stand that loses in intrinsic merit—bs it 
observed he allows nothing for evenness of collection—by two points, and 
the second prize to the stand that wins by that number. Now if evenness 
of collection count for nothing, I ask, How is it that we invariably find in 
the special reports of the metropolitan and provincial shows the expression 
that “ so-and-so was first with a good 1 even ’ collection of fruit, vege¬ 
tables, or plants, or, as the case may be, ‘ even ’ stand of Roses, Dahlias, 
or Chrysanthemums ? ” It is the same with a collection of Grapes. Even¬ 
ness of bunches throughout should count in connection with individual 
and collective merit. I join with “ A Thinker” in saying that there can 
be no fairer subject for criticism than this, and in expressing a hope that 
nothing but good feeling and fellowship may prevail in any discussion 
that may ensue. In conclusion, I may be permitted to say that in what I 
have here written there has been no intention, consistent with defending 
my own case, to wound the feelings of anyone. It is one thing to make 
a charge, but quite a different thing to adduce facts to prove that charge ; 
neither can the groundlessness of a charge, however slight, be conclusively 
proved in a short paragraph. Hence my apology for this rather long 
letter.—H. W. Wabd, Longford Castle. 
[We have received a letter from Mr. Bannister, in which he states the 
weights of the Pears (four fruits to a dish) in his Bith collection, except 
as regards the Pitmaston Duchess, which ware given away by the owner 
of them the day after the Bristol Show, where the collection was awarded 
the first prize “ against fruit much sup rior to that staged against them at 
Bath.” The Judges of the Pear classes at Bristol were Mr. Tbomas 
Shingles of Tortworth, and Mr. John Austen of Witley Court Gardens, 
who both in letters before us testify to the excellence of the fruit. The 
weights of the four fruits in each dish were—Conseillerde laCour, 32Jozs. ; 
Doyennd Boussoch, 32 ozs.; Marie Louise, 29 ozs; Glou Moqjeau, 
27£ ozs.; Easter Beurre, 274 ozs. Mr. Bannister says the Bath Committee 
awarded him an equal first prize after both himself and Mr. Ward had 
left the Exhibition. Whether this is a wise innovation or not is a fair 
matter for discussion, as also is that of the principle on which products 
are judged as to whether the general evenness of a number of fruit or 
flowers in a class shall have greater or equal weight with the merits of 
the dishes or blooms as determined individually. When general even¬ 
ness is combined with individual excellence there is obviously no question 
for discussion. Mr. Ward having defended himself fully as a Judge at 
the Bath Show the discussion on that particular subject must cease. On 
this account we do not insert a long letter from “ A Bath Amateur,” the 
publication of which could not possibly do any good. It may be con¬ 
densed into half a dozen words—“ The report of the Bath Show was a 
air one.”] 
ROYAL HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY. 
December 8th. 
The last meeting of the year was a small one, very few exhibits being 
contributed, and it formed a most striking contrast to the extensive and 
beautiful shows that have been held in the conservatory during the year. 
Fruit Committee. —Present : Harry J. Yeitch, Esq., in the chair, and 
Messrs. John Lee, J. Burnett, J. Willard, J. Woodbridge, G. T. Miles, G. 
Paul, F. Rutland, R. D. Blackmor?, and G. Bunyari. The most interesting 
exhibit were some bunches of the black Grape Winter King, shown by Mr. 
B. S. Williams, but although it has been previously exhibited several times 
the Committee expressed no opinion concerning its merits. It is said to 
have been raised in this way. Five years ago Gros Column was grafted on a 
Vine of Raisin de Calabre and produced a different variety in colour, berry, 
and flavour. It has now been grown for two years on its own roots, and 
bunches have been twice shown from Vines so established. The berries are 
oval, of good size, with a thick skin and a brisk rather pleasant flavour ; the 
bunches are compact without shoulders, and bear an excellent thick bloom. 
It is a good-looking variety, and is distinct f om Gros Column. Several 
varieties of Apples were shown for the opinion of the Committee. Mr. A. 
Miller, Rood Ashton Gardens, sent fruits of a variety called the Rood Ashton 
Seedling, thought to be something like Greenup’s Pippin, but it was passed, 
one fruit being over-ripe. Mr. J. C. Parker, Bcoxbournebury, showed a 
seedling Apple not considered of special merit. Mr. T. Woodford, nursery 
