May 8, 18J0, ] 
JOURXAL OF HORTICULTURE AXD COTTAGE GARDEXER. 
879 
florists m the respective districts. Well, the trial exhibitions of 18.">0 
dissipated the illusion. Come then to our next meeting of August .5th, 
and I think the difficulties you anticipate in a “ comp<')te ” of colours 
would be found to be of small relative account; less by far at least than 
those existing in the present system, and which threaten indefinite ex¬ 
tension. hat justification can be found for laws which shut out from 
class showing a bizarre-edged Picotee ? Form a class, possibly you may 
say. But this cannot be relied upon to remedy the evil. It extends a 
system alrea,dy practically unmanageable for the effective presentation 
of an exhibition to the outside public ; of only initial value to the 
florist himself ; and very unequal in its incidence of competition. Let 
me not be thought to undervalue the single bloom. All floral know¬ 
ledge and floral enjoyment must begin with it, and my estimate of its 
importance may be inferred when I say that at the earliest time I could 
make occasion—the exhibitions of the Midland Horticultural .Society at 
Derby in the forties—I gave a prize for the best Carnation, and similarly 
for the best Picotee, selected from the whole exhibition, and it was at 
my instance the prizes for the premier Carnation and the premier 
Picotee became part of the schedule of the National. But in the 
multiplication of the classes I have noted great evil. Of the seeming 
difference in our views of the self and fancy classes I need scarcely 
speak. Of course we recognise the fact that both self and fancy occupy 
relatively a lower place than the bizarre and flake and Picotee. But 
I feel suie we shall equally agree the life of the Carnation cannot be 
fully illuitrated without their recognition. And though, for aU the 
higher enjoyment of the florists, the self and the fancy stand on the 
lower level, yet for some purposes, mainly those of import to the outside 
public, they have a very definite and important use. And this brings 
• me to consider the question. What should be our attitude to the general 
public ? Of course we give no regard to the caprices or excesses of 
mere fswhion. They come and go, and are not. But I think with our 
good friend Hibberd, as expressed at our luncheon table, “ Florists have 
an imjwrtant duty to see that the public have the best in their several 
classes,” therefore we lose no dignity if, for the nonce, we step down 
from our higher level to consider these lesser things, and as we arc firm 
believers in the importance of comparison, these lesser things fitly 
occupy a place upon our exhibition tables. I have no thought of 
restricting the “legitimate” preferences of taste. Let the judge, if he 
thinks well, prefer his purp’e, his pink, his rose, or his red ; well defined 
and well understood intrinsic merits being equal, his choice may well 
come in. But I do not anticipate practical difficulty in this. We find 
no difficulty in determining the premier flower from the whole exhibi¬ 
tion, whetl or pd, or rose, or purple, and I should be surprised to find 
any difficulty in deciding the merit respectively of a broad-edged purple, 
or rose, or red. On the other hand, an extension of the classes is, in 
the case of the “ Union ” at least. Impossible. We haven’t space. But 
if we had, I should be as stiffly opposed to such a solution of the diffi¬ 
culty. We now have eight divisions of hues or tints of colours. Last 
year we had six only. But it is said in the rose, or salmon, or scarlet- 
edge Mre. Sharp is distinct from Mrs. Payne, from Edith D’Ombrain or 
Royal \ isit, so a separate class is set up. The distinctiveness is unques¬ 
tionable, but if distinctiveness of hue is to govern, what reason can pre¬ 
vent the separating into classes of the imperial purple of Amy Robsart 
and the soft lilac-purple of Mrs. Chancellor ? And so for the marone-reds 
and the cheiry-reds ? Where would it end ? And if three sub-divisions 
sufficient respectively for bizarres and flakes, w'hy should not a 
similar number suffice for the Picotee ? This is no new subject to me. 
It has filled many an hour of thought in many a year of my life, and I 
embodied, generally speaking, its outcome in the note attached to the 
yellow-ground special piizess, “ the judges are instructed to award these 
prizes to the best and most ejfectivp Jiowevs.” That instruction was the 
best I knew how to give. What could call more alike upon exhibitors 
and judges to make a wise and intelligent selection ? And 1 desire, 
above all things, at all times to stimulate and be stimulated to the 
exercise of intelligence. I know no better way whereby I can .ade¬ 
quately express my sense of the great favour and sympathy which has 
been g:ivfn me in these my later days. Hoping, dear Mr. Horner, that 
you will be with us at our next meeting, and that there may be no gap 
in our circle of friends, with every kindly wish, I am, faithfully yours,— 
E. S. Dodwell. 
R-S.—There is yet one other point—the question of £ a. d. Ex¬ 
tension of classes means, of course, extension of prizes. Who shall 
provide the means ? This is a subject which ought to be borne in mind, 
and, above all, we should be careful that the strong should not be given 
an advantage over the weak. I do not think you have given full 
weight to this pioint, nor to the point that florists are bound to present 
their exhibitions effectively to the public. Again and again in my ex¬ 
perience we have been overwhelmed with the number of single blooms, 
and the litter and confusion incident to their production. To put 
exhibitors upon an equality, it should be one man one flower in each 
class. -\.s regards means, I think we have gone to the utmost limit of 
necessity, and if instead of very narrow I had unlimited means, I should 
not willingly offer more. Proposing to send our correspondence to the 
gardening papers, 1 return herewith your own note, so that if you desire 
to add thereto you may have the means. When read, will you kindly 
return to me with my letter also, for I am really unable to copy it ?— 
Mr. Horner to Mr. Dodwell. 
Many thanks for the generous advantage of seeing your reply to my 
paper before publishing it. I do not know that I have much fresh to .say. 
except that wherein we may differ, it will not be in any unkindly way 
You have had but one lifelong floral .attachment, and I have many ; and 
I do not, therefore, seek to pit my acquaintance with the Picotee against 
your mature and concentrated intimacy with it. 1 quite agree with you 
in your desire to cheer up the smaller grower, though I would hardly put 
it “as against the larger.” We should encourage the one, and not dis¬ 
courage the other. It would be a pity that the small grower should be 
educated and scheduled to look upon the big grower as his natural enemy ; 
or that the big grower should be ruled down and outclassed into feeling 
that he has no friends, and may be stamped on. The large grower, who 
with a large collection has also alargenessof care, anxiety, and expense, 
naturally looks to reaping as he has sown, in a larger recognition and 
reward th.an the smaller grower can reasonably expect with his lesser 
outlay of time and labour. In collections, or “pan” showing, the 
small grower is abundantly fortified. He may sally into the big man’s 
lines by showing upwards into any class abo e his m.ark for which he 
can produce the flowers; while the big man may not show down by 
crossing the small man’s frontier. But in single bloom classes, perfectly 
open ground, both small and great men meet together, generally without 
fear, certainly without favour. I do not see how you can handicap the 
large grower here without being unfair to him. Handicap both, and let 
neither show, in any class for single blooms, more than his best two 
flowers. That would do away with the merciless imposition on the 
judges, and the great absorption of space that must come of exhibitors 
pushing all their spare flowers into the singles because “ they may win 
a shilling.” But however you put it, the larger grower must have more 
power of choice, and in any arrangement this will tell, and I submit, 
ought to. If you have, in single blooms of Picotees, the flowers classed 
solely by depth of edge ; one huge mixed class of heavies, the same of 
mediums, and the like of lights, here will the large grower come down 
strongly, with no restriction as to edge colour, so long as the depth of 
edge is there. If however, you maint,ain, in heavy, light, and medium 
edges, the well-established colour divisions, it may be that the big man 
shall here and there find himself spent or weak, and the small man bowl 
him over. I think the general effect of the single bloom classes, as now 
displayed, is very beautiful in the play of purple, red, and rose shades 
in those respective classes, while the powers of variation are seen at a 
glance in close comparison, which could hardly be in a motley crowd of 
all edges. Judging mixed edges in collections or divisions by depth of 
edge, and selecting the winners, is scarcely, I think, analogous to the task 
of finding the premier flower of a whole exhibition. The premier lies 
within narrow bounds. It cannot decently be outside the winning stands, 
or be'owthe first prize flower in single-bloom classes. It is not likely to 
shine, the so e jewel in some rejected stand. Not alike easy, it seems to me, 
would be the tilling of a long graduated prize list by assortment from 
materials mingled in all their mixed multitudes of edge colours. 
“ There is no trust like trial but so far as I dare prophesy before I 
know, I think it would be more workable to keep the established classes 
by colour of edge, with sections in each for heavy, light, and medium, 
than to merge ^1 colours upon chance of a new one breaking out, or 
because in the rose-edged some are rose scarlet and some salmon rose. 
I think our attitude towards the general public (as florists, in the 
peculiar sense in which we are peculiar 1) is to show a florist flower in 
—and only in—its highest florist types. I think that we have no need 
to exhibit our mistakes, and say, like Beau Brummel’s valet, when 
met returning from his master’s dressing-room with an armful of 
crump ed cravats over his arm, “ These are some of our failures !” The 
“life” of the t-'arnation. Auricula, Tulip—any florist flower in other 
than its florist forms—is surely a little beyond the range of our florist 
societies, which exist for the one definite aim of developing the flower 
in what are known as its florist types. I like a thing true to name, and 
a florist society is for the improvement of florist flowers as such. I 
cordially agree with you in agreeing with our friend Hibberd’s remark 
that “ Florists have an important duty to see that the public have the 
best in their several classes.” But not out of them ! Scarcely, to have 
to admit to a stranger of “ the public ” who may admire a run Carna¬ 
tion, or a nondescript prettiness in “ Lancies —Ah. yes 1 but that is 
not relatively a flower of a high standard in this scale of beauty. This 
is rather the "doing” our duty in the shady sense of getting out of it* 
Again, as to your comparison between the three classes of bizarre and 
flake Carnations, and the six of edged I'icotees—with the suggestion 
why there should not be only three of each—I think the edge in colour 
and depth marks off the Picotee as distinctly as the stripes distinguish 
the Carnation ; and that “ to lump” the edge colours in Picotees would 
be analogous to lumping the Carnation colours into simply bizarres and 
flakes. It would be the easier perhaps, for the eye that sees dimly the 
difference between the crimson and the pink and purple bizarre, but it 
would not interpret the flower fully. So if we had Picotees classed only 
by depth of edge, the florist would miss all the delicate distinctiveness 
to which he is accustomed, and feel the calculation too rough and ready. 
Well! you must not take me for an autocrat on the Carnation or any 
flower. I only give you my opinion freely as you ask it. You may say 
of me playfully, “ Ah ! rather thin of petals on the Picotee question 1” 
As playfully let me gently whisper, “ Don’t burst your pod 1”— 
F. D. Horner. _ 
Mr. Dodwell to Mr. Horner. 
I WILL add a few wonis only in notice of your letter of the 2fith. 
You have done, and admirably done, that I asked for when I invited 
comments germane to my projxisition of March 'ird. There is, I think, 
a little misunderstanding as to my feeling for the smaller as contrasted 
