428 
JOURNAL  OF  HORTICULTURE  AND  COTTAGE  GARDENER. 
May  14.  19C3. 
Judging  at  Flower  Shows. 
I  am  glad  to  find  that  “  Professional/’  in  his  letter  on  page 
318,  does  not  attempt  to  justify  the  appointment  of  unpractical 
men  as  judges  at  flower  shows,  and  although  such  things  do  not 
often  occur,  I  know  of  my  own  personal  knowledge  that  such 
things  do  happen  occasionally,  and  although  it  may  be  the  excep¬ 
tion  and  not  the  rule,  it  is  none  the  Jess  an  insult  to  the  profes¬ 
sion,  and  must  wound  the  feelings  of  any  exhibitor  to  find  his 
exhibits  being  judged  by  men  who  have  not  had  an  atom  of  prac¬ 
tical  experience  in  the  production  of  the  things  they  are 
attempting  to  judge.  These  men  are  extremely  pushful,  often 
writing  for  permission  to  give  lectures,  not  forgetting  to  add 
F.R.H.S.  to  their  names.  Such  an  instance  I  have  in  my  mind 
at  the  present  time,  and  I  have  it  on  the  authority  of  a  most 
excellent  judge  that  this  very  individual,  when  acting  as  judge 
with  him,  did  not  know’  Peaches  from  Apples.  Needless.to  say,  the 
practical  man  Avill  decline  such  company  again.  Of  course,  as 
Mr.  Editor  knows',  I  have  had  a  long  experience  in  connection 
w’itli  flower  Shows,  and  I  do  know"  that  where  committees  are 
composed  of  good  practical  men  such  mistakes  rarely  occur,  and 
I  don’t  think  there  is  any  country  in  the  world  where,  on  the 
whole,  flower  show’s  are  better  managed  than  they  are  in  Old 
England. 
It  is  quite  true,  as  “  Professional  ”  says,  that  there  are  many 
good  practical  gardeners  who  have  no  capacity  for  judging  pro¬ 
duce  at  flow’er  shows.  This  being  so,  it  will  be  very  interesting 
to  know  how",  and  by  what  means  an  unpractical  man  can  have 
any  capacity  for  judging  at  all.  The  same  remarks  apply  to 
lecturing.  What  W’e  want  is  practical  experience  at  the  back  of 
both,  and  these  unqualified  would-be  lecturers  and  judges  kept 
in  their  proper  place,  thereby  checking  what  may  prove  a  grow¬ 
ing  evil. — Amatextr. 
- - 
Italian  Wines. 
The  interesting  leading  article  on  “  The  Vine,”  in  your 
number  of  May  7,  1903,  and  its  reference  to  varieties  in  the 
“  Vin  du  Pays  ”  (which  experienced  travellers  generally  find  it 
safest  to  ask  for),  reminds  me  of  that  entry  in  an  explorer’s  diary 
who  made  a  point  of  testing  the  produce  of  each  country.  After 
his  first  day  in  Scotland  he  was  found  to  have  recorded,  “  Le  vin 
du  pays  ici  est  diablement  fort!”  As  to  the  wines  of  Italy, 
besides  the  “  Asti,”  of  which  the  spumante,  or  effervescing  sort  , 
is  perhaps  the  safest,  I  remember  testing,  on  a  w’alking  tour, 
several  other  little  known  ones.  The  Orvieto  was  one  of  the 
best  and  cheapest ;  an  amber-coloured  w’ine,  supplied  in  delight¬ 
ful  straw’  flasks  at  half  a  franc;  and  then  the  Mon- 
tepulciano,  regarding  which  I  find  recorded ;  “  Dined  at  an  inn, 
where  they  brought  me  a  huge  flask  of  a  rather  sw"eet  but  heady 
amber-colourqd  wine  for  one  franc,  so  strong  it  was  impossible  to 
empty  the  bottle.”  This  is  a  region  that  would  suit  those  who 
are  like  the  farmer  who  objected  to  claret  as  “  a  very  nice  drink 
but  you  did  not  get  any  forrader.”  I  will  engage  your  doing 
that  with  Montepulciano.  But  the  wine  of  the  country  in 
respect  of  excellence  and  by  very  far  superior  to  any  other  I 
ever  tasted  (except  once  in  a  monastei’y  in  the  Lebanon)  w’as  that 
of  Montefiascone.  It  is  a  small  town  near  Orvieto,  where,  in  the 
Church  of  St.  Flavianus,  may  still  be  seen  a  very  remarkable 
episcopal  monument.  The  good  German  bishop  is  depicted  with 
a  flask  of  this  on  either  side  of  him,  beneath  his  mitre,  and  an 
epitaph  below,  said  to  have  been  written  by  the  faithful  servant, 
whom  he  always  sent  before  him  to  test  the  vin  du  pays,  and 
leave  notices  in  the  strangers’  book.  When  the  bishop  reached 
Montefiascone  he  foiind  this  notice,  “  Est !  est !  est !  ”  (and  I 
quite  agree  with  that  valet ;  it  is  the  finest  W’ine  in  Italy).  The 
poor  bishop  stopped  at  once,  and  alas  !  never  left  it ;  and  a  portion 
of  his  epitaph  survives  to  this  day.  It  is  hardly  credible,  but  it 
is  very  legible,  and  to  this  effect :  - — 
Est!  Est!  Est! 
Propter  nimium  Est, 
Joannes  de  E  oucris 
Dominus  Noster, 
Mortuus  Est. 
which  may  be  freely  translated:  — 
This  !  This  !  This  !  is  the  wine  of  wines, 
But  too  much  of  it 
tv  as  the  death  of  my  master, 
Bishop  Fugger. 
Gardeners’  Commissions. 
The  correspondence  that  has  of  late  been  carried  on  in  various 
periodicals  seems  to  me*  to  have  assumed  an  importance  unde¬ 
serving  of  such  a  delicate  subject.  Mr.  E.  Bishop,  page  378, 
places  the  matter  in  a  very  practical  light,  and  with  his  remarks 
many  readers  must  be  in  entire  agreement.  The  benefit 
accruing  to  the  average  gardener  from  these  commissions  is  so 
slender  that  they  may  be  treated  almost  as  beneath  one’s  notice. 
To  create  large^  bills  for  the  sake  of  getting  proportionate  dis¬ 
counts.  one  hears  of.  but  such  instances  are  accepted  only  with 
the  contempt  they  deserve  from  honest  men.  Certainly  from 
my  experience  the  matter  becomes  an  impossibility,  even  were 
such  a  feeling  and  desire  fostered.  As  Mr.  Bishop'  puts  it,  the 
stigma  is  verj’  unfair  applied  to  the  profession  as  a  w'hole,  when 
the  evil  nature  of  one  or  two  out  of  so  many  thousands  deal 
falsely.  Gardeners  as  a  class  are  far  more  honest  than  the  many 
other  professions  man  is  engaged  in,  and  they  are  certainly 
underpaid.  Why,  then,  should  not  a  present  from  a  seedsman 
or  nurseryman  be  given  and  accepted  openly  as  much  on  a 
gardener’s  part  as  that  of  any  other  profession  or  calling  ?  It  is 
too  well  known  that  in  gardening  the  expenditure  is  cut  down 
to  the  lowest  limit,  and  with  it  wages  as  well.  With  this  know¬ 
ledge  so  willingly  admitted,  where  is  logic  found  in  such  an 
utterly  absurd  charge?  “  C.”  says  if  anyone  is  entitled  to  dis¬ 
count  it  is  assuredly  the  man  w’ho  pays  the  bill.  Might  it  not  be 
added  that  that  is,  in  so  many  instances,  the  man  W’ho  does? 
Many  employers  of  gardeners  discount  their  own  bills,  and  many 
more  fail  to  pay  them  w’ithin  the  limit  of  time  making  discount 
eligible.  Wherein,  then,  in  found  the  means  for  obtaining  these 
so-called  secret  commissions  ? — W.  S. 
I  am  not  “  in  the  trade,”  but  my  remarks  from  the  employer’s 
point  of  view  may  be  useful.  My  gardeners  are,  when  they  are 
first  employed,  warned  that  to  accept  any  commission  or  present 
of  any  kind,  without  my  previous  knowledge  and  consent,  will 
ensure  their  instant  dismissal  without  a  character,  however  small 
the  value  may  be.  With  my  permission,  they  can  and  do  receive 
presents  when  they  have  done  anything  for  the  nurseryman  or 
dealer  which  I  think  justifies  it.  In  the  same  way,  with  nursery¬ 
men  and  others  I  deal  with,  often  the  foremen  will  give  me  hints 
and  information  of  practical  value.  When  they  do  so  I  either 
make  them  a  return  in  the  presence  of  their  employer,  saying 
what  it  is  for,  or  I  ask  the  employer’s  permission  to  do  sq.  This 
does  no  one  any  harm,  it  is  useful  to  me,  costs  the  employer 
nothing,  and  helps  to  keep  things  pleasant  on  all  sides.  It  is 
not  a  ”  secret  ”  commission  in  any  way,  and  it  has  acted  most 
satisfactorily.  I  had  to  dismiss  one  man,  w’arning  him  off  the 
premises,  and  it  has  aeted  as  a  check  all  round,  which  is  not  yet 
forgotten.  He  was  being  paid  28s.  weekly,  w’ith  good  house  and 
garden,  and  a  very  substantial  present  every  Christmas.  Like  all 
]ny  men,  he  was  paid,  ill  or  w’ell.  Now  he  is  glad  to  get  20s. 
weekly,  inclusive  of  everything,  and  is  paid  only  for  time  worked. 
He  is  not  likely  tO'  take  any  commission  or  blackmail  again,  even 
if  he  ever  gets  the  chance,  w’hich  does  not  appear  likely. — T.  F. 
- <.#♦> - 
Pharmacy  Acts  Amendment  Bill. 
There  are  certain  aspects  of  this  measure  which  are  open  to 
criticism  by  those  who  honestly  differ  from  its  provisions,  and  I 
shall  be  greatly  obliged  if  you  will  enable  me  to  briefly  refer  to 
them  through  the  medium  of  your  valuable  paper.  The  second 
clause,  which  makes  provision  for  the  regulation  of  the  sale  of 
poisons,  is  evidently  directed  against  any  and  evei'y  firm  and 
company  except  individual  registered  chemists  and  druggists.  I 
fail  to  see  w"hy  the  restriction  upon  “  any  company,  firm,  co¬ 
partnership,  or  body  of  persons,”  should  be  so  stringent  as  they 
are  intended  to  be,  or  why  an  already  existing  monopoly  should 
be  strengthened  in  the  way  suggested.  It  is  seriously  proposed 
to  make  it  unlawful  for  any  person,  comiDany,  firm,  or  co-partner¬ 
ship,  or  body  of  persons  to  sell  or  to  “  negotiate  ”  or  “  participate 
in  the  sale  by  retail  of  any  poisons  at  or  upon  any  place  other 
than  an  open  shop  registered.”  Is  a  traveller  or  other  agent  to 
be  forbidden  negotiating  an  order  for  paint,  sheep  dip,  weed 
killer,  or  insecticide  from  an  agriculturist  or  nurseryman?  Surely 
that  w"ould  be  an  unwarrantable  interference  with  the  liberty  of 
the  subject  which  the  Legislature  will  decline  to  sanction.  The 
well-known  case  of  the  Pharmaceutical  Society  v.  White  at  once 
occurs  to  one  in  this  connection.  White,  a  nurseryman  and  seeds¬ 
man,  received  an  order  at  his  shop  for  weed-killer,  which  he 
transmitted  to  a  manufacturer,  who  supplied  the  customer  direct. 
White  receiving  a  commission  for  forw’arding  the  order.  The 
Court  of  Appeal  affirmed  that  White  was  .the  agent  or  ‘‘  pipe  ” 
or  “  channel  ”  through  whom  the  order  was  sent.  Surely  that  is 
common  sense  ;  and  it  would  be  against  the  trend  of  modern 
legislation  to  endeavour  to  prevent  such  a  transaction  being  per¬ 
fectly  legal  or  that  persons  who  take  orders  in  the  same  way  as 
White  should  be  deprived  of  their  commission. 
Then,  again,  the  powers  proposed  to  be  conferred  upon  the 
