330 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
[ October 31, 1878. 
parks are raised from 4 to 6 inches above the grass, this eleva- 
tion adding considerably to their artistic appearance. Those 
intending to adopt this mode of decoration may well bear that 
point in mind at this the proper season of the year for making 
and preparing the beds. 
BOTTLING FRESH FRUIT. 
I WISH to say that I also had offered to me in the Paris Ex- 
hibition a similar recipe to the one spoken of in this Journal ; 
but the fruit shown and said to be preserved in the same 
manner as the five-franc recipe was in glass bottles, was mostly 
divided into halves and quarters, and surrounded by what ap- 
peared to be arich syrup. The plan of burning sulphur seems 
a very simple one, but do you think it would be likely to answer 
for any fruits besides firm ones, such as Apples and Pears? I 
am very anxious to find out some reliable way of preserving 
soft fruit, such as Damsons, Gooseberries, Currants, Cherries, 
&c., without the necessity of making them very sweet. This 
year I have succeeded with some bottles, whilst others have 
kept for a short time and then begun to ferment, causing the 
bladder to puff up. As all the bottles have been prepared in 
the same way I am very much puzzled to know why some 
bottles should keep so well. I have now a bottle of Goose- 
berries from last year’s bottling perfectly good, and others fail 
through fermentation. My plan is—after filling wide-mouthed 
glass bottles with fruit they are placed over the fire in a fish 
kettle of cold water, which is gradually heated. When the 
fruit is cooked the bottles are lifted out and as quickly as 
possible tied down very carefully and tightly with bladder. 
Those that do keep are exceedingly good and taste like fresh- 
stewed fruit. If all the bottles would keep equally well I 
should be satisfied with my method. Can you or any of your 
readers suggest a cause why the result should be so variable ? 
—A PUZZLED HOUSEWIFE. 
NOTES ON ROSES. 
I HAVE for some time past been intending to write on the 
cexata questio of Roses, Rose judging, and Rose elections, &c., 
but have not hitherto been able to find time or opportunity. 
I cannot resist saying something now, especially as the 
recent Rose returns given by Mr. Hinton are naturally calling 
general attention to the subject. First I must, with other 
Tosarians, heartily thank Mr. Hinton for the trouble he has 
taken. I know from experience, though a lesser one than his, 
how difficult it is to get returns, and when you have them 
how much time and care are necessary to compile them pro- 
perly. Mr. Hinton’s return is very careful although elaborate, 
and great credit is due to him for his services to the Rose 
world, even pace “ WYLD SAVAGE.” I cannot help saying to 
my friend ““WYLD SAVAGE.” it would be better if he were 
to use a little more discretion with his zeal. To callan election 
such as last year’s a mockery, snare, and delusion is a very 
good penny-a-line statement and may run glibly from the pen, 
but the old adage, “Think twice before you speak once” 
might be even better appHed to writing. For instance, one 
who signed himself “A LOVER OF ROSE SHOwWs,” on the 
strength of what “WyLD SAVAGE” wrote about the two col- 
lections of Mr. Baker’s and Mr. Jowitt’s at Hereford, was 
induced to write to the Jowrnal of Horticulture to find fault 
with the judgment, although he was not there himself and had 
seen none of the Roses. ‘“WYLD SAVAGE” has so great a 
penchant for Teas himself, that a few more than ordinarily 
good Teas in a stand are sure to make him think the whole 
stand superior till he comes to take the points. With the 
difficulties he has to contend with in soil, and haying also a 
forward climate, Iam not at all surprised that he has found 
Teas repay his care more than other Roses; but (and this is 
a great but) no Roses are more liable to damage from damp 
weather, none that require more constant attention, none that 
do so badly in the neighbourhood of large towns or smoky 
manufactories. He seems to pride himself on having written 
down Gloire de Dijon, and yet it is classed as a Tea, and if I 
am not mistaken will regain the position of which it has been 
temporarily, and to my mind very unnecessarily, deprived. 
I say advisedly, Classed as a Tea, for I have always doubted 
and still doubt if it is a true Tea ; and as in Mr. George Paul’s 
Rose list, which I have just been looking through, he has 
suggested a new class of Hybrid Teas, so I am inclined to 
enlarge the list by putting in such Roses as Belle Lyonnaise, 
Climbing Devoniensis, Devoniensis, Gloire de Bordeaux, Ma- 
dame Berard, Gloire de Dijon, Madame Levet, M. Trifle, &c., 
and I should also class Maréchal Niel in this list as being 
neither a true Noisette nor a true Tea. Cheshunt Hybrid, 
Cloth of Gold, and one or two others have been in my opinion 
hitherto placed in their wrong class; and while I mention 
Cheshunt Hybrid, though I was a good deal called over the 
coals for not sufficiently appreciating it, yet I cannot help 
remarking it has not won its way into either seventy-two, and 
though undoubtedly a vigorous grower and a free bloomer 
has not the quality ever to make it an exhibition Rose, 
nor will it ever rise above the character of a good garden 
Rose. 
While speaking of “ WyLD SAVAGE” and his zeal for Teas 
I cannot refrain from saying a few words to back up my 
friends Canon Hole and Mr. Pochin. They have both of them 
the disadvantage of backward climate to contend with, and in 
my friend Canon Hole’s case (though in this he will not alto- 
gether agree with me) he has to contend also against a cold 
soil; and though a clay soil under good care may on the Briar 
and in favourable conditions produce the finest blooms, yet it 
is not fair to compare Roses grown by the ten thousand in 
warm climates at the early Rose shows and refuse the due meed 
of praise to the Roses produced under less favoured circum- 
stances at later shows. But I go rather further still, and say, 
though I do not profess, as ‘‘WyYLD SAVAGE,” to attend every 
principal Rose show, that I have seen both Reynolds Hole and 
the Rev. E. N. Pochin show as good forty-eights, thirty-sixes, 
and twenty-fours as any I have seen exhibited by any amateurs. 
“ Comparisons are odorous,” as Mrs. Malaprop says, and there 
is no wisdom in setting up Hercules and his competitor on a 
pedestal. In saying this I have no wish to detract from the 
merit of either Messrs. Baker or Jowitt ; and it was a great 
source of satisfaction to me, on meeting Mr. Baker as a coadjutor 
at the Crystal Palace this year, to find how entirely we were 
in accord as to our awards. 
Ido not glean that “WyLD SAVAGE” is altogether right 
about Catherine Mermet: it is 28 in one list and 23 in the 
other. But how about Belle Lyonnaise? It is 66 in one, I 
cannot find its name in the other, so that a second year does 
not make it superior to Gloire de Dijon in the general estimate ; 
and I cannot help saying with regard to the last old friend, 
that if it came out as a new Tea, called we will say Monkton. 
Wyld Hybrid, there would be as great an outcry as ever about 
it. Is there any Rose that blooms earlier, more constantly, or 
later ?—any which will stand all the vicissitudes of climate, 
soil, or stock as it will? At present I know of none; and if 
I were asked what one Rose a man ought to plant I should say 
old Glory. 
One thing: with due deference to “WYLD SAVAGE,” and 
without wishing to depreciate nurserymen, I do not think they 
are by any means better judges of Roses than amateurs ; and, 
as is often the case, mothers think their own children superior 
to anyone else’s, so many raisers of Roses are inclined to put 
too high an estimate on their own seedlings. It is very diffi- 
cult to look on one’s own productions with an impartial eye. 
One thing certainly strikes me as strange in the recent election, 
that only one Rose—Marie Baumann—has secured universal 
suffrage in the first twelve ; that only four Roses are mentioned 
in the first list of forty-eight varieties by everyone ; and that 
any elector should altogether omit such Roses as Alfred Colomb, 
Etienne Levet, Maréchal Niel, Marie Rady, Marquise de Cas- 
tellane, &c., out of the forty-eight and substitute some others 
in the place of them. I could name at least twenty that every 
rosarian should place in the forty-eight. In the second list 
of seventy-two twenty are named by all, and Alfred Colomb 
gains its more legitimate position, being two instead of seven. 
I cannot subscribe to the verdict that Marie Finger and Eugénie 
Verdier are identical, and I am equally sure that Exposition 
de Brie differs from Maurice Bernardin. I do not say the 
differences are great, but they are quite perceptible; and I 
fancy both Marie Finger, Ferdinand de Lesseps, and Expo- 
sition de Brie hold higher positions than they otherwise would 
have done had not all the votes been classed together. But 
this is only an opinion of my own, and is, like all private 
opinions, liable to correction. 
I should like an election of new varieties, say, each year of 
three years from the current year—?.c., in 1878 of Roses intro- 
duced into the trade in 1875, 1876, 1877, to name twenty-four, 
marking the first twelve, and to limit the electors to six 
amateurs and six nurserymen, the nurserymen to name the 
amateurs and vice versa. The election shows an inclination 
to enlarge on the merits of certain new Roses at the expense 
