July 8, 18fi9. ] 



JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 



21 



a dessert fruit, it is also one of the finest varieties for preserv- 

 ing purposes, the flesh being of a fine reddish tinge. It also 

 forces well. 



In constitation this Strawberry is one of the hardiest and 

 most vigorous, accommodating itself to almost every soil and 

 situation, and rarely, very rarely, being injured by frosts or 

 wet. Its foliage, indeed, remains pure and green through- 

 out the most severe winter ; it might be called the evergreen 

 Strawberry. It is on that account very suitable and orna- 

 mental as an edging Strawberry in the kitchen garden. It is 

 long-lived, although, as with all other Strawberries, the best 

 fruits are produced on young and vigorous plants. This will 

 continue in bearing on the same plants for many years in 

 succession, longer than any other Strawberry. 



In point of earliness, it is a day or two in advance of Keens' 

 Seedling, and continues in bearing a week later than that 

 variety. In form the fruits are generally conical, the largest 

 being cockscomb-shaped. 



The Vioomtesse Hericart de Thury is not a new variety. It 

 was brought to this country from the neighbourhood of Paris, 

 where it is esteemed over all other varieties, by Mr. B. Thomp- 

 son, of Chiswick, many years ago. It has been distributed 

 throughout the country a little, yet through not being directly 

 the property of some pushing nurseryman, it has never ob- 

 tained that publicity or notice which it would otherwise have 

 done. I have myself sent it to all parts of the kingdom — to 

 the north of Scotland, to Aberdeen, to Yorkshire, to North and 

 South Wales, to Kent and Sussex, and from every quarter the 

 report is the same — " The Vicomtesse Hericart de Thury is 

 the best Strawberry we have." A further proof of its good 

 qualities is its number of synonymes — viz., Duchesse de 

 Trevise, Prince Imperial, Marquise de la Tour Maubourg, 

 &c. — Akchambaud. 



NEW ROSES AT THE ROYAL HORTICULTURAL 

 SOCIETY'S SHOW. 



Although I have headed this paper thus, and shall in the 

 main confine myself to my text, yet I should like at the same 

 time to take a little wider range, and include within it, as far as 

 I can, my judgment on the new Roses of 1807 and 1868. I am 

 not likely to see any more of the Hybrid Perpetuals (the Teas 

 I shall reserve for another opportunity), this season, and be it 

 remembered I only give my judgment on what I have seen. I 

 take no ipse dixit of anyone, however clever and disinterested 

 he may be. I ask no one to agree with me. I have my own 

 ideas of beauty, and of what constitutes a good Rose ; they 

 may be false ones. My Vanessa may be no Vanessa to my 

 neighbour Smith, but that does not prove Smith to be wrong ; 

 it only shows that he and I do not think alike. 



There were four stands of Roses exhibited in the class for 

 varieties of 1867 and 1868. The exhibitors were Messrs. G. 

 Paul & Son, Mr. Keynes, Mr. Cant, and Mr. Turner. Instead, 

 however, of particularising each stand by name, I shall just 

 take out the names of the new Roses, first of 1867, and then of 

 1868. Seiiiores jtriores — so here are those of the former year ; 

 President Willermoz, Impuratrioe Charlotte, Reine du Midi, 

 Clotilde RoUand, Madame RoUand, Reine du Portugal (Tea), 

 IJa France, Enfant d'Ameugny, Christine Nilsson, Elie Morel, 

 Ernest Boncenne, Duchesse dAoste, Baronne de Rothschild, 

 Prince Humbert, Madame Luizet (Bourbon), Madame Grondier, 

 Pitord, Lisette de Beranger, Madame Adole Huzard, Charles 

 Turner, Docteur Hurta, Madame Marie Cirodde, Vicomtesse de 

 Vesins, Barillet-Deschamps, Madame Noman, Alice Dureau, 

 and Souvenir de Caillat. Of Roses of 1868 there were exhibited 

 Victor de Bihan, Duke of Edinburgh, Devienue Lamy, Nardy 

 Freres, Adrienne Christophle, Dupuy Jamain, Charles Fontaine, 

 Julie Touvais, Souvenir de Monsieur Poiteau, Alphonse Fon- 

 taine, and Marie Ducher (Tea). Of Roses not yet out, and 

 therefore I suppose English seedlings, there were Caroline 

 Hole, Charles Perry, Lord Napier, Seedling No. 2 in Mr. 

 Turner's stand, and Viceroy of Egypt. 



It will be hardly necessary for me to go through each and 

 all of these. Theie are many which I verily believe we shall 

 never see much of, and some which I am sure are the very 

 best of this year were not there at all, being, as I shrewdly sus- 

 pect, strongly attacked by the budding-knife. Thyra Ham- 

 merick, which is a lovely Rose, Marquise de Mortemart, 

 Madame Creyton, and Reine Blanche, were not exhibited in 

 these stands, but I believe they will be found in many a win- 

 ning one in another year. 



I have little to add to my former observations on the Roses 



of 1807 at the Crystal Palace, and should hardly be inclined to 

 add to the list I have already given. As to the Roses of 1868, 

 in addition to those mentioned in that report, I should be in- 

 clined to give a trial to Dupuy Jamain, a large and well-formed 

 flower, to Charles Fontaine, a deep crimson flower, shaded 

 with scarlet, and Victor de Bihan, brilliant carmine ; while 

 Duke of Edinburgh has established its claim to be considered 

 one of the very best dark Roses that we have. 



With regard to the Roses not yet sent out, Viceroy of Egypt 

 is simply General Jacqueminot over again, and if exhibited 

 with that name would, I am sure, pass muster with the judges. 

 Lord Napier is a richly-coloured Rose, and Charles Perry is a 

 promising flower. 



Of other Roses which I have seen, I do not think much of 

 Minerve, Adrien de Montebello, or Perfection'de Lyon. Should 

 I have an opportunity of seeing any other, I shall not fail to 

 notice them in the Journal. There is little doubt, I fancy, 

 that we are gradually obtaining larger and finer Roses ; and 

 although many still hold their ground, yet, probably, we shall 

 each year see some fresh one taking the place heretofore 

 claimed by older favourites. How seldom General Jacqueminot 

 appears now ! although three or four years it was in every 

 stand ; Senateur Vaisse has succumbed mainly to Madame 

 Victor Verdier ; La Reine is nowhere, and so it will be with 

 many others. We think now they cannot be beaten, by-and-by 

 we shall wonder that we ever thought so. — D., Deal. 



HARDY CLIMBERS AND OTHER PLANTS FOR 

 WALLS. 



Almost every garden has its iron or wood trellis, pillars, 

 arches, ornamental or rustic wood and ironwork, which in 

 most instances it is desirable to cover with climbers. There 

 are arcade fronts, arbours, bowers, stumps and trunks of old 

 trees — some objects pretty in themselves, which it is considered 

 in good taste to enrich with lively beauty, and other subjects 

 objectionable, which when clothed with foliage and flowers be- 

 come ornamental. Walls too high or too low, sunny or 

 shaded, never look so well as when so adorned. 



It is not always advisable to cover with climbing or other 

 plants every surface suitable for their training and successful 

 growth ; and in the case of buildings it is not judicious to 

 train plants over an architectural mansion — its principal parts, 

 perhaps no part, ought to be planted against, for as a work of 

 art it should be seen in all its details. Buildings which have 

 many enrichments should not have these covered, though it 

 may be advisable to clothe the intervening spaces with foliage ; 

 and in the case of brick buildings with stone dressings, the 

 plants ought to be confined to the brick portion only, and they 

 should only be taken up the height of the stonework, and not 

 so as to cross it with the view of covering the upper part of 

 the building. The phnth, too, if of stone, ought not to be 

 hidden, but the stems of the plants made to cross it in the 

 angles, or in the least objectionable manner. A well-designed, 

 well-built mansion needs no plant ornamentation. There is 

 such an objection to covering architectural buildings, that it 

 ought not to be done without an architect's advice ; but there 

 are some buildings so mixed in character, and so inartistic, 

 that it is desirable to cover them with foliage. Plain buildings, 

 especially if low, may, as a rule, be clothed with plants, as 

 these give an appearance of height, or prevent the want of 

 elevation in the building from being so much noticed. Nothing, 

 however, is so incongruous as to have tall and low-growing 

 plants on the same surface. They must all attain one height, 

 and be kept to that by pruning. I do not think they look well 

 trained higher than the first-floor window-sills, or if there be- 

 a string course, they should be kept under it ; but if they are 

 taken higher then they should not stop until the cornice or 

 projecting roof is reached, but of that they should be kept 

 clear, the whole wall being covered equally to one height. 



In garden architecture there are many surfaces suitable for 

 the training of plants. Walls built for division, or for afford- 

 ing shelter, when unplanted are cold and wearying to the 

 eye, but become cheering when covered (with plants. Besides 

 walls, there are buildings which present surfaces with dift'erent 

 aspects suitable for plants, some admirably suited for a class of 

 shrubs whose flowers are handsome and desirable for bouquets, 

 &c., and which cannot be depended on from plants in the open 

 ground. Even the low walls of greenhouses or other plant 

 houses are rendered less cool and uninviting when clothed 

 with either foliage or bloom. Nothing in my opinion is so 



