570 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
December 20, 1894. 
success. It is perhaps right that they should, but it restricts all trophy 
competitions, if for large exhibits, to these large batallions ; and even if 
these trophies were open to a smaller exhibit, these larger competitors 
cannot be robbed of the advantages which numbers give. “ B. K.” is 
certainly right in his notions that the smaller grower, as a rule, must 
be content with fighting in the smaller classes if he knows that “ So and 
So ” will be a competitor. 
“ Numerous entries, with well filled tables, are the backbone of 
strength to an exhibition,” says “ E. K.” I have frequently urged this 
point, for nothing is so fatal to the success of a show as bare boards. 
That the large batallions should sweep these boards is an evil, and 
various are the plans that have been adopted to prevent this. Bracketing 
classes together and permitting entry in one only is useful, but I 
recollect a show in which this rule existed, but the brackets having 
been omitted, the big batallions swept the boards. 
The National Bose Society has gone a step further and adopted 
restrictions as to numbers of plants, and certainly something of the 
kind might be done for our autumn beauty, but the success of this plan 
hangs largely on the good faith of exhibitors. Have I any right to say 
this? I am forced to it by the fact that Mr. Lindsell, doubtless for 
sufficient reasons, desires to mark in Rose competitions what an amateur 
should be, and if there is doubt on the one score there is, almost as a 
matter of certainty, a shadow over the other. Is there any guarantee 
that the numbers are not exceeded 1 Mr. Grahame’s suggestion is useful; 
but do not all entry forms contain some sort of statement of the kind 
already ? 
It is certain that there are amateurs and amateurs. There are those 
who, with ample means, employ continually first-class professional 
gardeners, in whose hands they entrust their stock, and leave their 
gardeners in all things to act as they think best. They are amateurs as 
far as the explanation of the word goes in this sense, that they do not 
sell plants, or blooms, or buds—that is, they do not profess to do so. 
Still, I recollect well a friend of mine exhibiting, and being offered by 
the gardener of another amateur a large sum for one special plant in 
the collection, which my friend declined. Had he yielded, would he 
have ceased to be an amateur? What is an amateur to do with a 
surplus stock of plants ? It is most difficult to draw the line. Such a 
rule may suit for Roses and Chrysanthemums, but seems to me rather 
to fail for higher priced plants. 
Then, again, there is the amateur who does not keep a regular 
gardener, but who has every week a professional gardener coming for a 
day and overhauling everything, directing here, and possibly arranging 
the soils and potting the plants. 
.Again, there is still another sort of amateur. He or she does not dig 
the ground, but possibly has an eye on the process while it is performed. 
He picks up every wrinkle that comes across his path ; he superintends 
the planting of his trees, prunes them with his own hands, buds his own 
stocks (if his back has not become unbendable), makes his own cuttings, 
pots and repots his plants, orders the quality of soil ; in fact, the whole 
daily routine of his garden is under his own eye. This is the man, to 
my thinking, who is the true amateur. At the same time it is evident 
that he enters the lists under greater difficulties than the other classes of 
amateur. 
Will it ever become general that the time for the judges to commence 
their labours shall be rigidly observed and carried out ? It ought to be. 
It is a tax on the man who comes early to the show that his exhibits, 
especially if consisting of cut flowers, should have one hour more of a 
hot tent than the man who arrives late. It is an eye-opener given to 
the wrong person. This is not only unfair to competitors, but it is 
unjust to the judges. They, poor men, huddle together, anxious to be at 
work and to get finished before visitors hustle them about, or perhaps 
whilst busy deciding some knotty point an officious wheel-chairman 
brings the handle of his vehicle into their back. 
“ Nothing succeeds like success.” True enough ; but we hear of the 
success—do we hear of the failures? Shrewsbury ” B. K.” quotes, and 
mentions that ” Substantial prizes are scented from far but there is 
another side to the shield. I exhibited as largely as I could at a Rose 
show started many years ago in a neighbouring town. It was held in 
the large room of one of the hotels. It was successful. The following 
year, still keeping in a comparatively small way, they tried outdoor 
tents. In two or three years they were going to carry all before them. 
They came out with a grand prize list, and called themselves the name 
of the town and a great division of England Rose show, and they offered 
freely “substantial prizes”—I think £15 was the first prize. Well, it 
was the old story of the rocket and the stick. The latter never rose 
again ! It takes a large number of visitors to make up for “ substantial 
prizes,” and these are not always forthcoming in our fickle climate. 
As regards cups and prizes of that character they are all very well 
at first, but the repetition becomes monotonous ; moreover, “ things are 
not what they seem.” I was the fortunate (?) possessor of a silver cup 
on one occasion. It represented £2, and was handed to me engraved. 
It was plated ! having only this advantage, that a burglar would not 
have encumbered himself with it had he been on evil deeds intent. 
Some of the articles offered as prizes by tradesmen out of a desire to 
help the society often prove white elephants to the winner, and it seems 
better to offer any article to the value of so many shillings, or to give 
the winner the option of taking so much less in coin. Something of this 
kind has been done, I believe, in poultry exhibitions. Personally, I have 
had my share of these white elephants. 
“ E. K.’s ” concluding remarks I entirely agree with. It may take a 
good man to win a prize, it takes a far better man to lose pleasantly. 
Such a friend I have. He had won a champion cup two years in 
succession, and had only to repeat the performance once more. It was 
suggested by professional opinions that it would be wisdom to alter the 
way in which the awarding of this prize was made. I objected that this 
could not fairly be done if the holder raised the slightest obstacle. The 
Committee met, the holder waived his claim and left the matter wholly 
to the Committee. They made a change, and though he ran close he 
was beaten, and the trophy changed hands. The old regulations would 
have given him the cup, but not a shade of regret clouded hia 
countenance, and yet he had never won many cups. On the other 
hand, I had another old exhibiting friend. We were often'showing in the 
same classes ; if he was beaten, a thunder cloud was over him ; if he won 
he growled and said there was no competition I Some people are 
difficult to satisfy.— Y. B. A. Z._ 
“E. K.” (page 614) generally writes so decisively that it is seldom 
indeed there is any fault to find. I am not intending to do this now, 
but it appears to me that he somewhat underestimates the chances of 
the “ little man ” in the suburban garden against his “ lordly neighbour.” 
I do not mean to say that the former can win as many and as valuable 
prizes as the latter, but I do know that it is possible for the “little 
man” to defeat his lordly neighbour in some classes. 
There are certain conditions that the lordly man cannot rid himself 
of that the “ little ” man knows nothing about, and as I will presently 
show the latter scores an advantage. The gardener in a suburban 
occupation is very often single-handed, or nearly so, he therefore can 
carry out all cultural details himself, whereas his “ big” neighbour has 
to depend on others, who perhaps have not had half the experience of 
our “ little ” man. Surely now the “big’’man is handicapped under 
such conditions. Speaking from experience, I won the finest silver 
medal I possess when in a suburban garden, and next door to being 
single-handed. This was for Grape culture. On that pirticular occasion 
my opponents were “ lordly neighbours ” presiding over ten times the 
number of acres 1 had rods, and having a score of men under them 
where I had the solitary boy. From this I do not mean to assert that I 
could have entered into competition in several large classes with any 
chance of success, but by a judicious selection of one class, or it may be 
two, the “ little ” man may cope with his rival, and win too. Many 
times since has my successor defeated “ lordly neighbours ” with produce 
from the same vinery. 
Turning now to Chrysanthemums, the same remark applies with 
similar effect. Seldom indeed do the best blooms come from the garden 
where the plants are grown by the thousand, as compared with the 
hundred of the little man. I could point to several persons who have 
obtained far greater success from their 300 plants than those with 1000 
or more this season. The reason is this. The former has the advantage 
of a thorough training in the art, and a strict observance to the 
necessary details. The true lover of his plants will during the summer 
spend several hours of his leisure time daily carrying out the many 
details required. I am not acquainted with a single successful exhibitor 
who does not do this. Those whom I know act on the reverse principle 
are generally found low down in the prize list. 
“ B. K.” dees not appear to favour the “ubiquitous cup,” as he 
suggests “ something more useful.” Well, this is purely a matter of 
opinion. Speaking, however, from experience I consider cups are the 
best means of making known, not only as individuals, but also societies. 
I do not regard a prize in the light that some do. I am acquainted with 
men who prefer a third prize of a few shillings to a first of a medal or a 
cup. This latter may not commend itself to the “pot hunter” I know, 
but if such men were to strive for a reputation first I do not think they 
would be the losers. No form of prize will bring a society into 
prominence sooner than the offering of a challenge cup—assuming it to 
be of good value. I do not believe, though, that it is not possible to 
overdo the cup business.—E. M. 
FAILURES IN FRUIT G^ROWING. 
I THINK that “ F. R. H. S.” in his letter (page 533) has touched on 
the secret of the inability of our home fruit growers to hold their own 
against the importation of foreign produce. No one who sees the 
quality of the Apples exposed even on costermongers’ barrows, and 
chiefly coming from abroad, but must contrast them with the curiously 
mixed and indifferent assortments which are gathered from those 
venerable and picturesque orchards planted during the youth of our 
grandparents. It is only within the last generation that the idea of 
dealing with this subject scientifically has developed. Not that fruit- 
tree planting has failed to receive the attention of trained minds in the 
past. The reputation of Herefordshire and Kent is the offspring of the 
studious forethought of Lord Scudamore and Henry VIII.’s gardener, 
who two and three centuries ago, acting according to the best light of 
their times, scattered the then best-known varieties o’er those smiling 
districts. What motive influenced them in doing this at a period when 
communication was so slow we cannot tell. At all events their action 
was fraught with benefit to succeeding generations, and is an example 
of that benevolence which “ F. R. H. S.” so justly extols in his letter. 
Even if scientific planting of the best varieties should not result in a 
great profit to the growers, it would at least keep much money in this 
country and beautify the aspect of our mother land, in the exaltation of 
which every good citizen should take a pride. Trees, as we see in timber 
trees, have virtues apart from any special usefulness, while fruit trees, 
as we note in Japan and Germany, add immensely to the beauty of the 
