1868. ] 
THE JUDGES AT OUR FLOWER SHOWS. 
129 
attempt to conceal the fact that the question is surrounded with more than 
usual difficulty. Such men as we describe are few and far between. 
Opinions vary in matters horticultural, as well as in other departments of 
art and science, and to borrow the phraseology of another keenly contested 
field, it is not every first prize that is “ won in a canter.” Half a length, 
half a head, a dead heat is now not infrequent, and such nice points, 
although clear to the judges, are not so easily made apparent to owners 
and bystanders. Why not to owners ? Because they have been accus¬ 
tomed daily, perhaps hourly, to dwell on the beauties and defects of their 
own plants, endeavouring to develope the former and to extinguish the latter 
until, to their own appreciation, at least, they have pretty fairly succeeded in 
this effort. When an exhibitor weighs his own plants against those of a 
competitor, the difference is that of a hasty opinion formed of a company 
at first sight and that of an opinion founded on thorough knowledge of 
character. True, the latter taken singly is likely to prove the more correct 
estimate, but then the thorough knowledge of the one cannot fairly be set 
in comparison with the first impressions of the other. Why not to by¬ 
standers ? We confess that we have little faith in the opinion of bystanders 
when weighed against that of properly qualified judges. In the first place 
such opinions are often inconsiderately given—given without full and 
painstaking investigation—given on some one prominent point rather than 
on a summing-up and judicious balancing of all points. Then again, the 
mere bystander, if he has the will, has not the clear field and opportunity 
for investigation, and probably not the special training—be it practical or 
be it artistic—that the properly qualified judge has or ought to have. 
We sincerely believe, then, that however honest the judges, and however 
just their awards may be, general satisfaction to exhibitors is, from the 
nature of things, a point wholly unattainable, although there is no reason 
why the utmost efforts should not be made to secure the best possible judges, 
and the greatest possible realisation of justice. Even then, especially 
when the competing collections are nearly equal, each exhibitor will think 
his own the best, and the defeated will be disappointed and dissatisfied. 
The plan of giving equal prizes where collections are only “ nearly ” equal 
would not remedy, but increase the dissatisfaction, and would, in addition, 
be perpetrating a manifest injustice. 
One word to exhibitors. On this point we would speak tenderly, for 
we know by experience the momentary mortification of defeat, especially 
when, as we are free to admit, has been the case with ourselves, we have 
been under the impression that our contributions have not been justly 
appreciated. In the olden times we remember to have seen defeated can¬ 
didates pull off their coats and assume a boxing attitude, probably under 
the conviction that if not mentally vigorous, they were at least physically 
g 2 
