July 10.] 
THE COTTAGE GARDENER. 
223 
for example, six pounds for eighteen cut roses! Mr. 
Wilkinson, of the firm of Curtis and Wilkinson, of 
Bristol, is one of our authorities for saying that the 
roses were shown quite up to the mark, and we deny 
the judges right to lessen the prize unless the roses had 
been shown in some point deficient. They had no right 
to take upon themselves to correct the schedule. But 
there was just as stupid an engagement for the best 
bulbs, and the prizes for both roses and bulbs were cut 
down. We maintain, that if the managers had been 
absurd enough to promise five pounds for the best 
cabbage, and the best cabbage shown had been excellent, 
the judges had no right to curtail the prize. Judges 
may decide that unworthy subjects should not have 
first prizes; but we entirely deny that they have any 
right to lessen a profered prize, unless the subjects 
shown were second instead of first-rate. Mr. Turner, of 
Slough, was one of the judges; he might have felt 
ashamed to award six pounds to eighteen varieties of 
cut roses, but he had no right to make the exhibitors, 
who came a hundred miles, perhaps, to show them, feel 
the penalty of that just shame. Mr. Turner knew well that 
the man who offered such prizes must have been very 
ignorant, but having been offered, and people having 
come many miles tempted by the bait, the judges had 
no business with the amount. We happen to know 
that the best eighteen roses were as good as they could 
be shown, and that the shower ought to have had three 
more pounds awarded. But roses were not the only 
things so curtailed of their due. We mention them 
because we happen to know their condition better than 
that of some other things, and because we can refer to 
an authority as good as any in the rose trade. We have 
now disposed of our second and third charges. As to 
the fourth, Mr. Mayle, of Birmingham, could not obtain 
the money for some of his prizes for a long time, and 
after in vain trying the committee and the judges, he 
asked Mr. Glenny’s advice, which was that he should 
give them one more application , informing them that he 
should put the matter into the hands of his solicitors. 
This was a long time after the prizes should have been 
paid; and this threat, we believe, brought the money; 
but if it did not, the prizes are still unpaid. 
We now leave it to the readers of The Cottage Gardener 
to decide whether our charges are founded on fact or other¬ 
wise. We fancy that the worthy defender of the Cheltenham 
Show will have to convince the horticultural world, that 
the eoncocters of the first schedule—the speculators in the 
first show—the cutters down of the first prizes—are no 
longer concerned, before he will create a confidence in the 
show. If those now concerned be not the parties concerned 
in the original show, the writer should have expressed as 
much, and convinced the public that, however true our 
charges were as against the originals, the present movers were 
not the same. The attempt to deny charges which we are 
prepared to substantiate was overstepping the mark. He 
encloses a schedule; is it in any one item like the schedule 
of the private speculators of last year ? Our whole paragraph 
related to facts indisputable, to charges which cannot be 
denied, and we repeat most emphatically, “It (the Show) 
may be improved, but it will never be what it might have 
been with good management.” We refer, at once, to Mr. 
Glenny for our authority as to the fact of the subscription, 
two hundred pounds, being handed over to the proprietors 
of the gardens, who engaged to carry out the show. We 
refer to Mr. Wilkinson, of Ealing (late of Bristol), as to the 
condition of the roses, and the cutting down of the prizes ; 
but there are plenty to confirm this. We refer to the 
schedule itself as the most laughable proof of its folly; and 
we refer to Mr. Mayle, of Birmingham, as to the difficulty 
of getting his prizes. But, if necessary, we think we can 
produce an actual correspondence to confirm all we have 
said. E. Y- 
Since the above was in type we have received the 
following from Mr. W. Davidson, one of the judges of 
the Cheltenham Show :— 
“ I observe in last week’s Cottage Gardener, some re¬ 
marks on the Horticultural Exhibition at Cheltenham, on 
.Tune 12th, and, as one of the judges on the occasion, beg 
leave to inform you that you are misinformed on some points, 
and will thank you to do simple justice in the case. It is 
not my province to account for the formation of the schedule, 
with which myself and fellow-judges had no concern, ex¬ 
cepting in awarding or withholding the prizes according to 
the merits or demerits of the subjects competing for them, 
and to do this the printed rules ofthe Society fully authorised 
us. The committee neither cut down the prizes, nor di¬ 
rected or influenced the judges in doing so ; but the latter 
simply did what they conceived to be their duty between the 
Society and the exhibitors. The prizes were high enough 
to have induced the best plant growers within one hundred 
miles to have competed, as I believe the Society pay exhi¬ 
bitors the expense of bringing plants from a distance; but 
owing to the show being fixed for the day after Regent’s 
Park , none of those who exhibited at the latter place could 
get to Cheltenham, and the competition was, therefore, 
confined to a few small growers in the immediate neigh¬ 
bourhood. No prize that was fairly won was withheld; if 
we erred at all it was on the liberal side; if we had in all 
cases given the first prizes to the best plants present, we 
should not have done our duty conscientiously towards the 
Society, but should have been unworthy of the confidence 
reposed in us. The amount of the prizes, if they had been 
all awarded, would, in many cases, have been more than the 
plants would have been sold for at a sale by auction. At 
many provincial shows when I have acted in the capacity 
of judge, I have seen far better plants exhibited for prizes 
not more than one-tenth of the value of those offered at 
Cheltenham ; and I feel quite certain that not more than 
two dozen plants could have been selected from the whole 
number exhibited, which would have been admitted at 
Chiswick or Regent’s Park upon any terms." 
[The above confirms rather than refutes our reporter's 
statement, and we fully coincide with him in the opinion 
that judges have no right to reduce the amount of a 
prize. As six guineas were unreasonably offered for the 
best eighteen cut roses, the eighteen best, if so grown as 
to be entitled to be exhibited at all, should have had the 
prize, because, as Mr. Davidson truly says, “it is not my 
province to account for the formation of the schedule.” 
—Ed. C. G.] 
A correspondent (S. P., Ruslimere ) says, “ during a 
trip to France this month, I saw in a garden atFontenay 
aux Roses, seven different sorts of Roclcets, all of them 
distinct in habit, and very beautiful, viz., 
White, giant , growing five to six feet high, with immense 
spikes of flowers. White, medium size, usually cultivated in 
England, height about two feet, White, dwarf, also usual 
here, not more than one foot. Purple, about two feet high, 
an abundant bloomer, very double and showy, the colour of 
a dark purple candy tuft. Crimson, two feet high, rich and 
attractive, but the spikes not so large as the purple. Rose 
or Peach, same as we have in our gardens, but grown finer, 
probably owing to the climate. Yellow, very double and 
more compact in form, eighteen inches ; this last, I think, 
was not a Rocket, but a double-flowering Erysimum. I 
could have had slips of the above, as the owner was a 
