272 



JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GABDENEB. 



[ September 24, 1871. 



known to me by name, being the father of a, very dear 

 friend of mine, but this year a personal meeting between 

 us took place. I was not aware of his gardening propen- 

 sities, and was astonished, after we had chatted on other 

 matters, by his remarking, " I am sure we are all very much 

 indebted to you." I looked aghast, I could not understand 

 what was coming, but it turned out that it was for " the 

 election of Roses" in "our Journal." And then he kindly 

 enlarged on the topic, adding that he waited for the election 

 before " deciding on the Roses he was going to order." Here 

 was then an unexpected testimony to the usefulness of the 

 work. I have thought over it and taken courage whilst reading 

 replies urged against its utility. To the Rose exhibitor it is 

 not comparatively of much use — it is more a matter of curiosity 

 how our favourites will stand, but to this class of lovers of 

 gardening it is very important. A word, too, on the electors. 

 It would be a great thing could we insure that none should 

 vote who were not thoroughly qualified to exercise the right. 

 On the face of it this sounds well, but it is very difficult to 

 accomplish. Is there to be " a competitive examination " for 

 electors ? It had crossed my mind to try something of the 

 kind, but to get those who really possess the knowledge to give 

 us the information they possess in black and white is not so 

 easy ; at least, I have failed in getting several to give ns their 

 opinions, and the reasons are so diverse it seems hopeless to 

 reconcile them. One says the number asked for is too great ; 

 the next replies. The number is so small, better say a hundred. 

 For myself I cannot understand the apathy of the trade in 

 assisting such elections. One fancies it ought to increase the 

 sale of Roses. Does it, perhaps, make too great a run on the 

 good ones ? Any way, one regrets the absence of the names of 

 some of the " giants " in Rose culture ; but as we cannot carry 

 out the "no compulsion, only you must" sys"tem,we are obliged 

 to be content. 



One word more. I think we all ought to deal leniently with 

 the different fancies of Rose-growers, which make them often 

 call different Roses the most beautiful. Only think what a 

 serious thing it would be if men were not to have different 

 fancies, and all to set their affections on the same woman. 

 What an uncomfortable world this would be ! So, as we are 

 not at all likely to think alike, or even to see alike on all sub- 

 jects, it seems to me both more Christian and more charitable 

 to reason that such a voter has some good and sufficient reason 

 for naming a Eose which we ourselves discard as utterly worth- 

 less. Our soils and climates are so various that there is much 

 to account for our differences, and we need not disagree because 

 we differ. Out of the fifty Roses that we each name, about 

 two-thirds of us name the first thirty Roses on the list, and 

 several of the remainder are accounted for by the eccentricities 

 of our EngUsh climate, whilst the rest may be set down to the 

 crotchets and fancies that cling even to Eose-growers. For 

 instance : out of the nineteen nurserymen only two, Messrs. 

 Turner and Walter, have named Roses all of which have been 

 named by some other voter. All the rest have one or more in 

 their lists named only by themselves, and curiously enough 

 these two follow each other in my table. Of the amateurs, 

 Mr. Burrell alone names Eoses that all obtain votes other 

 than his own. 



It will be noticed that the replies number thirty-eight in 

 all, and that by a curious coincidence they are composed 

 equally of amateurs and nurserymen. This renders the return 

 somewhat more interesting ; and some Roses — as, for instance, 

 Marfichal Niel, Alfred Colomb, Prince CamiUe de Rohan, 

 Souvenir de Malmaison, and Lyonnais — have received the same 

 number of votes from each class of voters, both as to quantity 

 and quality of votes, and this in the three last-named is very 

 curious. 



I have adopted the same plan as in the general electioB, 

 1872, and kept the two classes of voters distinct. In the fol- 

 lowing table the first column designates the position of the 

 Eose. Where the grand total is equal between two or more 

 Roses their position is settled by the number of first-class 

 votes — that is, the first twenty ; if these are still equal, the 

 Boses are bracketed together. Next follows the name of the 

 Rose. The letters after the name show what kind of Rose it 

 is. Then I have attempted to carry out a suggestion of Mr. 

 Peach's, and added the name of the raiser of the Rose. Mr. 

 Peach had nearly completed his own list in this manner. Mr. 

 Pochin further assisted me, but several are still wanting. 

 Column A denotes the number of first-class votes given to any 

 Eose by amateurs ; b, the number of second-class votes ; c, the 

 total of amateur votes. The letters with an * show the same 



for the nurserymen. The last column is the total of amateurs' 

 and nurserymen's votes added together. 



Eight Roses obtained five votes each : of these Capt. Christy, 

 Uheshunt Hybrid, and Devienne Lamy obtained some first- 

 class votes. Sixteen Eoses obtained four votes ; fifteen ob- 

 tained three votes ; nineteen, two votes ; and sixty obtained 

 only a solitary vote. 



When first this present election was mooted I received an 



