280 
JOURNAL  OF  HORTICULTURE  AND  COTTAOE  GARDENER. 
March  25,  1825. 
RULES  FOR  JUDGING. 
It  is  very  satisfactory  to  learn  from  “  An  Old  Provincial  Judge  ” 
that  tbeie  is  “  nothing  new”  in  the  code  of  judging  recently  issued  by 
the  R.H.S.  I  hope  neither  he  nor  anyone  else  is  disappointed  because 
there  is  nothing  new  found  in  the  code.  The  Committee  was  never 
invited  to  formulate  anything  new  in  regard  to  judging,  but  simply  to 
codify  or  bring  into  a  tangible  form  the  various  rules  or  traditions 
attached  to  judging.  It  was  for  that  reason  that  the  help  of  persons 
of  experience  in  all  directions  was  sought,  not  merely  judges  of  long 
standing,  but.  of  exhibitors  also.  Thus  in  relation  to  Roses,  Chrys¬ 
anthemums,  Dahlias,  and  other  florists’  flowers,  the  general  rules  or 
practices  guiding  judges  of  these  were  adopted,  but  yet  to  some  extent 
put  into  shape  or  codified,  so  that  the  best  rules  or  practices  might  be 
made  public  with  a  view  to  universal  adoption. 
A  good  deal,  very  smart,  no  doubt,  but  still  not  overwise,  has  been 
written  about  “ destructive  ”  and  “  constructive  ”  criticism.  When  the 
former  is  applied  to  that  which  is  foolish  or  absurd  it  is  as  valuable  as  is 
the  other  when  used  to  build  up  the  best.  It  is  in  both  ways  that  this 
code  has  been  looked  at.  The  object  was  to  destroy  those  practices  that 
led  to  constant  mistakes,  or  gave  rise  to  discussions  and  complaints,  and 
to  preserve  all  that  was  best  and  most  correct  in  connection  with 
judging.  Now  the  code  is  a  product  of  both,  but  essentially  of  the 
latter  quality.  It  is  the  product  of  constructive  criticism  especially. 
“An  Old  Provincial  Judge”  has  no  doubt  often  read  the  declaration, 
“I  came  not  to  call  the  righteous  .  .  .  .”  Codes  of  judging  are 
not  for  the  old  practised  hand,  but  for  the  unpractised,  and  formu¬ 
lated  in  the  hope  that  the  acts  of  both  may  be  brought  into  complete 
harmony. 
Even  practised  hands  often  differ  in  their  verdicts  if  based  on  the 
same  long  experience,  and  it  is  in  the  hope  of  avoiding  such  discrepancies 
in  the  future  that  the  code  has  been  prepared.  How  far  its  rules  or 
suggestions  may  be  acted  upon  depends  entirely  upon  the  temper  in 
which  those  suggestions  are  approached.  All  that  is  asked  that  so  far  as 
is  possible  in  human  fallibility  to  do,  every  effort  shall  be  made  to 
respect  those  suggestions,  and  to  act  upon  them. 
With  respect  to  the  objection  that  no  reference  is  made  in  the  code 
to  judging  cottage  gardens  and  allotments,  it  is  right  to  say  that  such 
were  doubtless  held  to  be  rather  outside  the  objects  in  view.  Whilst  it 
would  be  a  good  thing  to  secure  judgments  on  the  merits  of  these 
gardens  and  allotments  on  the  same  basis,  if  possible,  it  is  very 
obvious  that  they  differ  exceedingly  from  exhibits  found  on  show 
tables. 
But  in  the  county  of  Surrey  very  much  has  been  done  by  the 
horticultural  instructors  to  meet,  so  far  as  that  county  alone  is  concerned, 
the  difficulties  referred  to.  There  the  judging,  when  conducted  by  the 
county  instructors — and  the  same  rule  applies  to  all  of  the  continuation 
school  gardens — is  aided  by  forms  on  which  are  printed  all  the  crops 
usually  grown  on  allotments  and  in  gardens,  with  scales  of  points 
allotted  to  each  according  to  their  relative  merits  or  values  ;  also  for 
fruit,  flowers,  neatness  and  good  order,  for  excellence  in  cropping, 
especially  in  relation  to  crops  being  well  cared  for,  and  for  the  produc¬ 
tion  of  succession  over  a  long  season.  Now,  when  a  garden  or 
allotment  is  judged  figures  are  made  in  columns  set  apart  for  the  purpose 
that,  according  to  the  scale  of  points  allotted  to  each  product  as  a 
maximum,  show  what  is  in  the  judge’s  mind  exactly,  the  merits  of  the 
crop  or  parterre  in  question. 
The  gardens  or  plots  are  merely  successively  numbered,  and  the 
figures  showing  relative  merits  or  points  follow  in  succession,  also  in 
parallel  columns.  Thus,  even  when  gardens  or  plots  are  a  long  way  from 
each  other,  the  figures  in  the  columns  recall  at  once  to  mind  the  relative 
merits  of  preceding  similar  crops  or  features,  and  the  help  in  refreshing 
the  memory  is  immense.  In  Surrey  we  sometimes  have  to  judge  fifty 
allotments,  or  it  may  be  so  many  of  gardens  of  diverse  classes,  in  a  day, 
and  all  have  to  be  done  on  the  same  basis  and  pointed  on  the  same 
order  of  merit. 
A  common  rule  in  judging  allotments,  is  for  judges  to  dot  down 
in  notebooks  their  appraisements  of  the  merits  of  crops,  in  each  one 
on  successive  pages,  not  taking  the  crops  in  the  same  order,  but  just 
as  they  find  them  in  the  plots.  That  is  a  rather  confusing  practice, 
and  renders  referring  back  difficult,  and  sometimes  misleading.  The 
Surrey  rule  compels  all  points  to  be  entered  on  the  same  sheet  and 
in  parallel  columns,  and  as  every  possible  crop  or  feature  is  printed  on 
the  margin,  nothing  then  can  be  overlooked. — A.  D. 
Was  “An  Old  Provincial  Judge  ”  fearful  about  losing  an  appoint¬ 
ment  at  some  show,  at  which  he  tells  us  he  has  judged  so  well,  when  he 
penned  his  peculiar  note  on  page  257  ?  At  any  rate,  he  expresses  the 
hope  that  he  will  be  tried  again  instead  of  “  some  untried  though  no 
doubt  well  qualified  experts”  by  which  he  would  seem  to  be  haunted. 
This  “  Old  Provincial  Judge  ”  fells  us  he  knows  a  great  deal,  or,  at  least, 
as  he  intimates,  thinks  he  does  ;  in  fact,  he  does  not  hesitate  to  announce 
that  he  knows  as  much  as  all  the  experts  who  took  part  in  preparing  the 
judging  code  put  together,  for  he  tells  us  there  is  “  nothing  new”  in  it, 
and  that  he  “  knew  it  all  before.”  What  a  wonderful  old  man  he  must 
be,  and  how  charmingly  modest  1  It  is  certain  there  was  not  a  man  on 
that  Committee  who  would  have  made  any  pretence  to  the  possession  of 
such  wisdom  on  so  many  subjects  ;  and  if  he  had  I  venture  to  think  he 
would  have  been  found  out. 
I  cannot  claim  to  be  an  old  provincial  judge,  or  indeed  a 
“  provincial  ”  at  all,  or  in  fact  “  old  ”  either,  as  compared  with  some 
others  of  my  colleagues  on  that  board — men  whose  experience  with 
shows,  judging,  and  schedule-making  I  had  thought  were  equal  to  any 
that  could  be  found  until  this  Admirable  Crichton  sprung  up,  and  let  us 
know  he  was  superior  to  them  all.  He  knew  as  much  about  Roses, 
Chrysanthemums,  Auriculas,  Carnations,  border  flowers,  hardy  and 
tender  fruits,  vegetables,  indeed  everything,  as  did  any  of  the  specialists 
in  those  departments.  He  “knew  it  all,”  be  says;  they  have  told 
him  “  nothing.”  His  capacity  is  equal  to  the  capacities  of  nearly 
four  dozen  men  in  the  bulk,  and,  therefore,  it  must  of  necessity  follow 
that  he  is  on  his  own  showing  the  superior  of  any  of  them  indi¬ 
vidually.  Again,  what  a  wonderful  old  man  he  must  be,  and  how 
very  modest  1 
What  a  pity  it  is  that  he  has  kept  his  phenomenal  knowledge  back 
so  long.  Had  the  Royal  Horticultural  Society  known  of  this  abounding 
latent  wisdom  the  Committee  would  have  been  needless,  as  one  man 
could  have  done  all  that  was  needed,  and  much  valuable  time  would 
have  been  saved  on  the  part  of  several  gentlemen  who  gave  it  so  freely 
in  the  preparation  of  the  code.  I  dare  venture  to  say  that  there 
was  not  oDe  member  of  that  Committee,  however  able,  who  did  not 
learn  something  during  the  searching  criticism  to  which  every  pro¬ 
posal  was  subjected,  and  went  away  somewhat  wiser  than  he  came. 
It  might  be  that  most  of  them  found  their  match  in  knowledge  and 
argument  there,  and  it  is  somewhat  of  a  pity  that  the  calibre  of  this 
“Old  Provincial  Judge ’’was  not  tested  in  the  same  searching  though 
courteous  way. 
Without  the  least  desire  to  minimise  the  actual  ability  of  this  new 
critic  and  old  judge,  he  must  still  not  expect  all  the  world  to  accept, 
without  a  little  examination,  all  his  claims.  Let  him  be  tested  on  one 
point  which  he  himself  supplies.  He  wishes  to  be  tried  again  as  an 
adjudicator  somewhere  or  other,  instead  of  “some  untried  though  no 
doubt  well  qualified  experts.”  The  feeling  is  natural  enough,  and  it  is 
not  to  be  supposed  that  anyone  would  wish  to  debar  him  from  such 
trial  ;  that,  however,  is  not  the  point,  but  this — namely,  can  he  tell  us 
(and  he  ought  to  be  able  to  do  so,  as  he  says  he  knows  as  much  as 
the  forty-six  people  whose  names  are  printed  in  the  code)  how  an 
“untried”  judge  can  be  an  “expert?”  If  he  can  make  that  point 
clear,  or,  in  other  words,  prove  his  own  proposition,  then  will  his  claim 
for  superior  wisdom  be  entitled  to  consideration  ;  but  if  he  cannot, 
what  then  ?  Why,  of  course,  he  will  not  be  such  a  wonderful  old 
gentleman  as  he  would  have  us  believe.  Perhaps  if  he  is  not  above 
dictionaries,  he  might  look  into  one  ;  and  if  he  should  find  that  an 
“expert”  is  a  person  “ taught  by  use,  practice,  or  experience,”  he  will 
then — well,  only  have  to  prove  the  dictionary  wrong  to  sustain  hiB  own 
doctrine.  We  will  await  the  result. 
When  this  “  Old  Provincial  Judge  ”  has  settled  that  little  matter, 
he  can  perhaps  show  when  and  where  the  authors  of  the  judging  code 
which  he  Datronises  as  being  done  very  well,  issued  it  with  a  “  flourish  of 
trumpets?”  If  he  will  read  the  verv  first  page  he  will  find  that  the 
rules  are  only  issued  as  the  “  beginning  and  the  basis  of  a  code  that  may 
eventually  be  regarded  as  authoritative,”  and  that  in  the  meantime 
“  the  Council  of  the  Royal  Horticultural  Society  will  be  glad  to  receive 
suggestions  of  improvements  and  emendations,  and  a  note  of  omissions, 
for  the  correction  of  future  editions.” 
Is  that  a  “  flourish  of  trumpets?”  a  parade  of  superior  wisdom?  Is 
it  not  rather  a  frank  and  cordial  invitation  to  all  who  can  do  so  to  share 
in  the  completion  of  a  work  that  is  intended  to  be  as  useful  as  it  can 
be  made  ?  Yet  here  we  have  a  judge,  who  tells  us  he  knows  so  much, 
but  who  does  not  convey  a  solitary  item  of  information  for  the  public 
benefit.  He  even  tells  us  he  does  not  intend  to  “criticise.”  Confessedly, 
then,  he  only  carps — an  operation  for  which  supreme  wiedom  is  not 
generally  understood  to  be  a  necessary  qualification.  He  only  wants  to 
be  “  tried  again,”  and  most  persons  will  be  able  to  perceive  that  he  has 
not  hesitated  in  his  efforts  for  gaining  a  hearing  to  “  blow  his  own 
trumpet  ”  rather  loudly.  Can  he  find  elsewhere  in  the  literature  of 
gardening  such  a  concise,  yet  comprehensive,  digest  of  the  several 
qualities  to  be  sought  for  and  avoided  in  the  various  products  of  the 
gardener’s  skill,  as  is  found  in  the  code  in  question  ? — One  op  the 
Forty-six. 
SAXIFRAGA  STRACHEYI. 
At  a  recent  meeting  of  the  Royal  Horticultural  Society’s  Floral 
Committee  a  first-class  certificate  was  justly  awarded  to  the  original  of 
the  engraving  (fig.  50),  which  is  a  new  aDd  beautiful  form  of  the 
well-known  Saxifraga  family.  This  charming  plant  was  exhibited 
by  ‘Messrs.  Paul  &  Son,  Cheshunt,  and  though  it  has  many  of  the 
characteristics  of  the  better  known  varieties  it  has  also  points  distinctly 
its  own,  which,  as  the  plant  becomes  widely  known,  will  not  fail  to 
appeal  to  lovers  of  hardy  spring  flowers.  The  leaves  are  round,  greenish, 
and  not  so  large  as  those  of  Megasea  crassifolia,  indeed  they  are  some¬ 
what  insignificant  iu  comparison  with  the  sturdy  branching  racemes  of 
large  white  flowers,  the  centres  of  which  are  of  a  delicate  pink  tint. 
The  branching  habit  of  the  racemes  renders  the  plant  particularly 
attractive,  as  one  or  two  flower  stems  are  sufficient  to  make  an  effective 
display.  Numerous  as  are  hardy  spring  flowers,  any  addition  having  the 
merits  of  Saxifraga  Stracheyi  cannot  fail  to  be  appreciated  and  admired, 
