559 
beoember  io.  1896.  JOVkNAL  OP  ItORTICULTVRP  AND  GOTTAOE  GARDENER. 
APPLES  AT  THE  ROYAL  AQUARIUM. 
Dessert  v.  Ctri^ixARY. 
I  All  pleased  to  find  answers  to  my  complaint  from  “  A.  D,”  and 
"  W.  R.  Raillem,”  thongh  both  appear  to  have  missed  the  point  of  my 
argument.  It  is  a  relief  to  find  (page  636)  Mr.  R.  M’Intosh  sapporting 
my  views,  when  he  writes,  “  The  same  variety  in  both  classes  seems  an 
abssrdicy,  and  not  very  satisfactory  for  exhibition  purposes.  Mr. 
King’s  six  dishes  in  the  dessert  class  were  perfect,  and  four  of  them 
represented  the  best  of  this  dessert  fruit,  American  Mother,  one  of  the 
dishes,  being,  in  my  opinion,  the  most  delicious  Apple  grown.  Here 
was  clearly  and  easily  the  first  prize.  It  was  the  repeating  of  Cox’s 
Pomona  and  Blenheim  Pippin  in  the  cooking  class  that  I  objected 
to.  “  W.  R.  Raillem  ”  writes.  '*  Blenheim  Pippin  is  of  merit  in  both 
classes,  and  I  see  no  reason  why  it  should  not  be  shown  in  both,  just 
as  we  show  Tea  Roses  in  their  own  class,  and  in  the  general  class  as 
well.”  This  is  not  an  analogous  case.  If  the  Royal  Aquarium’s 
schedule  had  offered  prizes  (1)  for  six  “  dessert  Apples,  and  (2)  for  six 
Apples  ”  then,  but  then  only,  would  Mr.  ”  Raillem’s  ”  argument  hold 
good  ?  Where  six  varieties  only  are  asked  for  none  should  be  repeated . 
Most  dessert  Apples  are  delicious  when  cooked,  most  culinary 
Apples  are  not  very  palatable.  When  my  friends  in  Devonshire  and 
Cornwall  send  me  clotted  cream,  then  I  take  from  my  shelves  Cox’s 
Orange  or  Ribston  for  my  cook  to  make  savoury  pastry  dishes.  I 
do  not  consider  that  appearance  only  should  qualify  for  dessert  fruit. 
The  ”  good  ’  Editor  has  seen  Emperor  Alexander  Apple  at  civic 
banquets  and  public  dinners  in  high  places,  but  this  does  not  make  it 
a  dessert  Apple.  I  am  ready  to  admit  that  many,  my  o>vn  wife  and  my 
many  children  included,  prefer  a  sub-acid  Apple  either  before  or  after 
dinner,  but  does  this  peculiarity  of  palate  qualify  these  sub-acid  and 
acid  fruits  for  the  dessert  class  ?  I,  too,  have  seen  Cox’s  Pomona  and 
Emperor  Alexander  and  other  highly  coloured  Apples  on  the  dinner 
table,  and  beautiful  decorative  dishes  they  make,  but  they  are  too  large 
•  for  tlie  purpose  of  eating  after  dining,  and  how  seldom  is  an  entire 
Apple  eaten  at  a  dinner  party.  If  the  general  opinion  is  in  favour  of 
these  Apples  under  review  in  this  discussion  may  be  shown  either  as 
dessert  or  culinary,  then  in  the  name  of  logic  and  common  sense  let  not 
the  same  exhibitor  be,' allowed  to  repeat  varieties  in  the  two  different 
classes  at  the  same  show. 
As  to  the  cooking  Apple  Joe  Roger,  I  will  make  inquiries.  It  is 
quite  unknown  to  me  under  this  name  — Bedfordshire  FouNDLina. 
[The  results  of  a  poll  taken  for  the  whole  of  Great  Britain,  and  in 
which  130  exhibitors  voted  for  what  they  considered  the  best  dessert 
and  best  culinary  Apples  in  order  of  merit,  show  that  Bleuheim  Orange 
obtained  the  fifth  position  in  the  dessert  list  of  sixty  varieties  with  fifty- 
two  votes,  also  the  fifth  position  in  the  culinary  list  of  sixty  varieties 
with  sixty-three  votes.  This  was  in  connection  with  the  great  Apple 
Congress  held  at  Chiswick  in  1883,  and  the  report,  entitled  “British 
Apples,”  was  issued  by  t^e  Royal  Horticultural  Society.  The  Committee 
responsible  for  that  report  comprised  fifty  persons  specially  selected  for 
their  knowledge  of  Apples  from  various  parts  of  the  kingdom.  This 
Committee,  moreover,  “  considered  many  dessert  Apples  too  small  for 
general  use,  and  it  would  seem  useless  to  cultivate  them.”  It  seems 
that  “Bedfordshire  Foundling”  objects  to  having  the  Apples  that  he 
and  his  family  prefer  for  dessert  (eating  after  dinner)  classed  as  dessert 
fruits.  We  suspect  the  only  way  in  which  certain  Apples  can  be  kept 
out  of  both  classes  will  be  by  a  special  line  of  prohibition  in  schedules. 
So  long  as  there  is  no  contravention  of  the  stipulations  which  are  pro¬ 
vided  for  the  guidance  of  exhibitors  and  judges  it  must  be  a  serious 
matter  to  disqualify  exhibits.  When  the  terms  are  not  complied  with 
it  is  the  duty  of  judges  to  refrain  from  awarding  prizes,  no  matter  how 
meritorious  the  products  may  be.] 
JUDGING  AT  YORK. 
I  THANK  you,  Mr.  Editor,  for  giving  publicity  in  the  Journal  oj 
Horticulture  to  my  note  on  Emperor  Alexander  Apple,  and  the  action  of 
the  Judges  at  York  Show,  and  also  for  your  unbiassed  opinion.  Although 
the  show  was  held  on  the  18th,  19th,  and  20th  November,  I  was  in 
ignorance  of  what  the  “  extra  ”  prize  awarded  to  the  disqualified  collection 
of  fruit  meant  until  the  28th  of  that  month,  the  day  after  the  publica¬ 
tion  of  the  case,  as  the  enclosed  letter  from  the  Secretary  verifies.  More, 
I  had  sojne  difiSculty  in  learning  the  reason  of  the  disqualification.  But 
even  if  I  had  known  that  the  exhibit  was  to  receive  a  prize  equal  in 
value  to  the  second,  it  certainly  would  not  have  deterred  me  from  bring¬ 
ing  the  matter  under  the  notice  of  the  gardening  public  through  the 
medium  of  the  periodicals. 
It  was  not  a  question  of  money,  but  a  question  of  right  that  was  at 
issue,  and  the  fact  that  the  Apple  under  discussion  is  generally  used 
where  cultivated  for  both  culinary  and  dessert  purposes  in  private 
establishments,  marked  what  I  considered  the  injustice,  and,  at  the  least, 
arbitrary  proceedings  (however  honest  their  convictions)  of  the  Judges. 
Until  then  I  never  once  beard  a  word  against  the  Apple  being  admitted 
to  the  dessert  class.  Its  size  alone  entitles  it  to  a  place  among  cooking 
varieties,  and  its  eatable  qualities  are  decidedly  superior  to  Worcester 
Pearmain  and  many  others  included  in  dessert  lists  of  Apples.  It  is 
indeed  time  that  exhibitors  had  some  ready  means  of  verifying  the 
justice  or  injustice  of  the  decision  of  judges,  and  if  the  R.H.S.  will 
undertake  the  compiling  of  a  list  of  Apples,  Pears,  .and  Plums  suitable 
for  dessert  and  culinary  use,  as  “  A.  D.”  mentions  (page  544),  we  would 
be  less  likely  to  trouble  the  editors  of  horticultural  papers  with  our 
vexations.  I  thank  Mr.  Mclndoe  for  his  remarks  on  the  above  question, 
and  his  suggestion  to  refer  this  matter  to  the  R.H.S.  There  is  certainly 
no  greater  living  authority  on  fruits  than  Dr.  Hogg,  and  to  his  decision 
I  would  have  preferred  leaving  the  matter,  but  as  Mr.  Lawton,  one  of 
the  York  Judges,  places  a  higher  value  on  his  own  abilities  than  that 
of  the  honoured  doctor,  there  is  no  likelihood  of  all  the  interested 
parties  being  satisfied.  t  j  > 
Under  these  circumstances  I  am  quite  willing  to  adopt  Mr.  Mclndoe  s 
suggestion,  page  535,  and  leave  the  case  for  the  R.H.S.  to  decide. 
As  it  is  due  to  the  action  of  the  Judges  that  this  case  has  arisen,  it  is 
the  duty  of  the  Ancient  Society  of  York  Florists  to  approach  the  R.H.S., 
with  the  view  of  securing  its  acquiescence  to  adjudicate  on  the  disputed 
point.  If  all  interested  are  agreeable  to  this  course  being  adopted,  and 
the  R.H.S.’s  consent  is  obtained  to  decide  the  question,  I  will  willingly 
forward  the  Apples.  In  matters  of  this  kind  the  services  of  the  R.H.S. 
would  be  invaluable  to  both  Judges  and  the  judged,  and  the  Society 
make  its  usefulness  felt  in  almost  every  garden  in  the  United  Kingdom. 
In  reference  to  the  Judges’  remarks,  and  those  of  the  Ancient  York 
Society  by  their  representative,  Mr.  McIntosh,  I  have  only  to  add  that 
my  statements,  page  523,  were  justified  by  the  results  which  led  to  them. 
Mr.  Clayton’s  broad  views  on  doubtful  subjects  are  well  known,  and 
his  acquiescence  in  disqualifying  the  collection  of  de.s8ert  fruits  at  York 
has  perplexed  more  than  myself. — J.  Riddell,  Castle  Howard. 
[Par.  12,  page  7  of  the  Judging  Code  is  as  follows  :  “The  Council 
of  the  Royal  Horticultural  Society  is  willing  to  act  as  referee  in  cases 
of  dispute,  if  the  parties  concerned  signify  their  consent  to  abide  by  the 
Council’s  decision,  in  which  case  a  complete  schedule  must  be  sent  with 
a  statement  from  both  sides,  accompanied  by  a  fee  of  10a.  6d.”] 
I  CONSIDER  Mr.  Riddell  has  a  just  cause  of  complaint.  Judges  are 
not  expected  to  carry  out  any  peculiar  ideas  of  their  own,  but  to  act  on 
a  broad  basis,  and  to  adhere  to  the  usual  customs  where  there  are  no 
regulations  in  the  schedule  to  the  contrary.  Emperor  Alexander  Apple 
is  used  for  both  dessert  and  kitchen  purposes,  and  is  quite  as  much 
entitled  to  a  place  in  a  collection  of  dessert  fruit  as  is  Blenheim  Orange 
or  Fearn’s  Pippin,  and  personally  I  much  prefer  it  to  either  of  these  for 
eating  purposes.  In  all  cases  where  there  is  any  doubt  the  prisoner 
should  have  the  benefit  of  it,  so  likewise  in  horticultural  judging. 
Moreover,  the  extra  prize  awarded  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  case,  as  it 
cannot  make  amends  for  the  word  “disqualified,”  which  no  exhibitor 
likes  to  have  awarded  to  him. — W.  H.  Divers,  Belvoir  Castle  Gardens , 
Grantham,  _ 
In  connection  with  this  controversy,  and  Mr.  Meindoe’s  suggestion 
that  the  Royal  Horticultural  Society  should  be  asked  to  give  a  decision 
on  the  subject,  allow  me  to  point  out  that  this  body  has  already 
virtually  decided  that  the  Apple  Emperor  Alexander  should  be  classed 
among  the  cooking  varieties,  and  that  it  should  not  be  exhibited  as  a 
dessert  variety  at  their  autumn  fruit  shows,  held  the  past  few  years  at 
the  Crystal  Palace.  In  this  year’s  schedule  of  this  exhibition,  under 
the  heading  Division  3,  which  relates  to  the  collections  of  Apples,  the 
following  clause  is  inserted  ; — “  In  distinguishing  dessert  and  cooking 
varieties  be  guided  (as  far  as  it  goes)  by  Division  4.”  In  Division  4 
Emperor  Alexander  is  specially  allotted  a  class  as  a  cooking  variety. 
Thus,  had  an  exhibitor  staged  this  variety  in  any  of  the  dessert  classes 
the  duty  of  the  Judges  would  certainly  have  been  to  disqualify  him.  On 
page  1  of  the  above  mentioned  schedule  will  be  found  the  names  of 
eight  gentlemen,  all  well-known  pomologists,  who  are  responsible  for 
the  framing  of  these  regulations  on  behalf  of  the  R  H.S.  I  believe  the 
majority  of  exhibitors  and  judges  would  uphold  the  Judges  at  York  m 
their  decision. — 0,  Herrin,  Droymore,  Maidenhead. 
[If  the  stipulations  in  the  York  schedule  were  as  clear  as  those  of 
the  R  H.S.  schedule  referred  to,  there  would  have  been  no  difficulty, 
for  in  the  first  place  Mr.  Riddell  would  have  been  most  unlikely  to  have 
ignored  them,  and  in  the  next  place,  if  he  had,  the  Judges  would  have 
had  no  option  to  withholding  a  prize  on  the  ground  of  the  exhibit  not 
being  in  accordance  with  the  terms  of  the  schedule.  But  if  the  York 
schedule  were  not  thus  explicit,  what  then  ? 
In  the  general  or  fundamental  “Rules  for  Jddgino.  para¬ 
graph  8,  page  6,  states  :  “Any  exbibits  contrary  to  xhQ  wording  of  the 
schedule  are  disqualified.  But  in  the  case  of  an  exhibitor  having  acci¬ 
dentally  made  a  disqualifying  error,  through  misunderstanding  the 
terms  of  the  schedule,  or  such  other  innocenc  cause,  the  J udges,  though 
forced  to  disqualify,  may  recommend  the  authorities  of  the  show  to 
"rant  an  extra  prize  if  the  exhibit  is  sufficiently  meritorious.  ’ 
In  the  York  esse,  it  would  seem  that  if  Mr.  Riddell  “  accidentally 
introduced  something  contrary  to  the  terms  of  the  schedule  that  “  forced 
the  Judges  to  disqualify,  they  did  exactly  right,  as  the  exhibit  v^s  m 
their  view  “  meritorious.”  The  Judging  Committee  of  the  Royal  Horti¬ 
cultural  Society  evidently  regard,  and  rightly  so  in  our  opinioiq  the 
schedule  as  the  Law,  and  that  judges  must  act  in  strict  accordance  there¬ 
with  ;  but  at  the  same  time  may  signify  their  opinion  that  it  does  not 
adequately  meet  a  particular  case  by  recommending  the  innocent  trans¬ 
gressor  to  the  favourable  consideration  of  the  Committee.  If 
lawyer  could  make  his  own  law  as  he  went  along,  the  result  would  be 
obvious — chaos.  .  ,  .  . 
Then  in  the  execution  of  their  duties  judges  of  exhibited  produces 
are  instructed  as  follows— [Code,  par.  38,  pages  10-11].  “  Judges  should 
not  disqualify  exhibits  without  a  substantial  reason,  but  when  they  are 
satisfied  there  has  been  an  intention  to  deceive,  they  should  not  hesitate 
