24 
THE FLORIST AND POMOLOGIST. 
[ February, 
them are “ their capability for holding, heat¬ 
ing, and circulating a much greater volume of 
water, at a higher maximum temperature, in 
proportion to their size, than any other boiler 
j^et invented.” 
So much for what is claimed for the Glasgow 
Boilers. As regards their performance, Mr. E. 
Todd, of Ascog Hall, says that he expected to 
find them powerful, and the}^ are that and more, 
being clean, easily wrought, and quite a success. 
Mr. Pettigrew, of Ashburn Gardens, says they 
give him very great satisfaction, being far su¬ 
perior to any boiler he knows, easily wrought, 
and capital smoke-consumers. Messrs. J. and 
E. Thyne have also recently superseded their 
lime-kiln apparatus by one of these boilers (an 
8-ft. one), and find it does the same amount of 
work more efficiently and economically. In a 
letter now before us, dated December 27th, 
1878, they say:—“After a trial of many 
boilers, we unhesitatingly give the palm to 
Bullen’s No. 1 ; in fact, it has proved a real 
boon to us during this severe weather.” This, 
with Mr. Bullen’s own experience at the Botanic 
Gai’den, is very satisfactor}' evidence that the 
boilers do their work well.—T. Moore. 
DRESSING CARNATIONS. 
Liberty or Eestriction — ComiiIunion or 
Isolation ? 
COEEESPONDENT in a contem¬ 
porary, at the fag-end of a discussion 
on dressing Carnations, raised a ques¬ 
tion as to the “ legitimacy,” as he called it, 
“ of one fancier growing the flowers and another 
fancier dressing them.” He thought the prac¬ 
tice not right, “ unfair ;” and that if he, who had 
been a grower of Carnations in a small way for 
many years, and had been “ fairly successful ’’ 
at local shows, came to London to compete, ho 
v/ould be very seriously handicapped in entering 
the lists against the “best grower in England,” 
who called to his aid “ perhaps the best 
dresser.” 
Another correspondent, Mr. E. W. Beachey, 
sustains this argument, and says :— 
“ The show-bench is, it seems to me, a test of in¬ 
dividual skill, and it is no more fair for the exhibitor 
to import external aid in dressing his flowers than 
it is to import flowers from a neighbour’s garden, 
or to gum the petals of one floiver into another. 
It is said that the system of florists helping 
one another tends to promote good-fellowship. 
That may bo so, where they are well known to 
each other, and the skill of the opponents is 
nearly equal ; but one must not forget that 
there are often aspirants to fame cropping up at the 
shows who labour under the disadvantage of not 
knowing their fellow-exhibitors, and under the still 
greater disadvantage of unskilfnlness in the art of 
the florist. Such, naturally, feel aggrieved. An 
element is introduced into the competition for which 
they were not prepared. They find, to their dismay, 
it is one thing to grow a good flower, another to be 
able to show it. They have patiently acquired 
sufficient knowledge of the first, but are all at sea 
wdien it comes to the second. Is it to be wondered 
at that when they see two or three skilled dressers 
engaged in transforming a stand of flowers into 
show trim, and are unable to do it themselves or to 
obtain help, that they feel an unfair advantage is 
being gained over them ?” 
Mr. Beacliey then suggests, as a remedy for tbis 
assumed evil, “ tbat a rule sball be made tbat 
exhibitors, or their gardeners., must dress and 
set up their own flowers without assistance, 
and that any infringement of this regulation 
shall disqualify.” 
Let U3 see to what these arguments tend. 
There is no axiom better established than that 
an impracticable law is the worst of all laws. 
Could the above proposition be carried into 
practice ? Speaking with many years of ex¬ 
perience of exhibitions and exhibitors, I sa}' no. 
What would lie required to carry it out ? 
Nothing loss than that the whole work of pre¬ 
paration for the exhibition should be done in 
public, under the eye Of persons competent to 
say the work was begun and finished without 
help, and who yet could be trusted to give no 
help. For remember how subtle is the work 
of preparation—the transposition of a petal here, 
the change of a flower there ; who is there who, 
having seen, has not been filled with delight 
with the marvellous change a Turner has 
worked in the arrangement of a stand of 
twenty-four, or even twelve flowers ? And who 
is there, w’ith a florist’s instincts and a florist’s 
sympathies, who could remain impassive while 
good flow’ers were being done to death ? Yet, 
if such a rule existed and was complied with, 
this must be the result. Isolation absolute, 
iron restraint; florist must cease even to speak 
to florist, for the question might well be raised 
that help had been so communicated. The 
truth is, these proposed restrictions, all uncon¬ 
scious as their authors probably are, spring from 
that old bad root, suspicion and jealousy, 
which years ago ramified in the rec{uirement 
that the productions of the exhibitor should be 
cut under the inspection of a Committee ; and 
that judges should, under no circumstances, 
know the productions of the exhibitor. Im¬ 
practicable requirement, of course ; fertile in¬ 
deed in disseminating jealous feeling, fatal 
always to exhibitions. 
Did this rule exist, there could be no teach¬ 
ing, for teaching, if real, is ever an “ assistance,” 
and “ assistance ” would infringe the rule. 
To such ends, monstrous and absurd, do 
these efforts towards restraint always tend. 
But I am happy to say we need have no fear 
of this ever being brought to a practical issue. 
