October It, 1883. J 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
309 
chaff along with one or two Eoses that will rank very highly in any 
eleciion return. It is true that in the general election of 1882 A. K. 
Williams achieved a most honourable position, and although it did 
run Marie Baumann very hard for premier position, I apprehend if 
the two Eoses were pitted one against the other, the older variety 
would win easily, at least as far as my experience goes. In constancy 
of bloom, in soundness of constitution, and in perpetuality of good 
blooms late in the season, there can be with me no comparison as to 
the respective merits, and the gentleman must retire with the best 
grace he may. Others, perhaps, have formed a more favourable 
opinion of their respective merits. I only give my own, merely 
adding that if both were brought together in the highest perfection 
simply as exhibition blooms it would be a difficult matter to assign 
the premier position to either. 
The returns in the present election show the necessity for a good 
Eose catalogue, such as we all hope the new edition of the National 
Rose Society’s catalogue will prove to be. The ages of some of the 
candidates for honours have been put back, and not a few of these I 
have been compelled to exclude. Some Roses, too, I fear are getting 
“ mixed ”—for instance, Constantin Tretiakoff in two catalogues 
before me has become Fretiakoff. 
But I must pass on to the results of the poll. In all there are 
thirty electors, nineteen amateurs and eleven nurserymen, and the 
table is given as usual, the first column giving the votes for each 
Rose as in the best six, the second as in the second best six, and the 
third as in the next twelve (amateurs). The same columns with an 
asterisk denote the same votes given by nurserymen. 
RESULT OE THE POLLING. 
of constitution, must be universally allowed to be one of the biightest 
gems of our national flower. The Teas are not as high as they might 
be, or, I might add, as they deserve. Some electors have a difficulty 
in contrasting the two varieties, and they settle the difficulty by 
omitting the Teas akogether ; but for this they must have obtained 
abetter position. It is a difficulty I do not feel, for I Bhould settle 
it by asking myself this question, 
forced so to do. 
Which should I 
up 
?” if 
On the whole revision, one is driven to the conclusion that a few 
jrnars hence a goodly number of these ninety-six Roses will have 
disappeared, and even among the three dozen tabulated there will be 
blanks. As some guide to value, and probable future of many, the 
first-class votes are valuable. Taking these votes only, the table 
reads thus— 
1. A. K. Williams, 30. 
2. Mad. G. Luizet, 26. 
3. Duchess of Bedford, 21. 
f Countess of Rosebery } 
I Madame Lambard J * 
Already a terrible fall. 
6. Duke of Teck, 11. 
7. Mad. Marie Verdier, 10. 
f Charles Darwin I ~ 
l Innocente Pirola j 
f Harrison Weir Y 
) Pride of Waltham f, 
"l Mrs. Jowitt r 
(. Etoile de Lyon j 
Mad. Eug. Verdier 
Lady Sheffield 
Merveille de Lyon 
May Quennell 
Yiolette Bouyer 
and 
Lady M. Fitzwilliam. 
!>3 
No. 
Name of Hose. 
Character 
of Rose. 
Year of 
Intro¬ 
duction. 
Raiser’s Name. 
Ama¬ 
teurs' 
Votes. 
ABC 
Total. 
Nursery¬ 
men’s 
Votes. 
A*B*C* 
Total. 
Grand 
Total. 
i 
Alfred K. Williams.... 
II.P. 
1877 
Schwartz . 
19 
0 
0 
19 
11 
0 
0 
11 
30 
2 
Madame G. Luizet.... 
II.P. 
1877 
Liabaud. 
17 
1 
1 
19 
9 
1 
1 
11 
30 
*3 
Countess of Rosebery.. 
H.P. 
1879 
Postans. 
8 10 
1 
19 
4 
5 
2 
11 
30 
*4 
Duchess of Bedford .. 
H.P. 
1879 
Postans. 
15 
2 
2 
19 
6 
3 
1 
10 
29 
6 
Duke of Teck . 
TT P. 
1880 
G. Paul .. 
6 
8 
5 
19 
o 
9 
23 
6 
Madame Marie Verdier 
H.P. 
1877 
E. Verdier. 
4 
5 
7 
16 
6 
1 
2 
9 
25 
7 
Harrison Weir. 
H.P. 
1879 
Turner . 
1 
6 
10 
17 
3 
0 
5 
8 
25 
**8 
Charles Darwin . 
H.P. 
1879 
Laxton . 
5 
6 
4 
15 i 
2 
3 
4 
9 
24 
9 
Pride of Waltham .... 
H.P. 
1881 
W. Paul. 
4 
4 
7 
15 
0 
3 
6 
9 
24 
10 
Mrs. Jowitt. 
H.P. 
1880 
Cranston . 
2 
4 
6 
12 
2 
2 
6 
10 
22 
11 
Madame Lambard .... 
T. 
1S77 
Lacharme. 
9 
6 
1 
15 
3 
0 
2 
5 
20 
12 
Yiolette Bouyer. 
H.P. 
1881 
Lacharme. 
2 
2 
6 
10 
1 
3 
5 
9 
19 
**13 
Mrs. Laxton. 
H.P. 
1878 
Laxton . 
0 
7 
8 
15 
0 
3 
1 
4 
19 
14 
Innocente Pirola. 
T. 
1878 
Madame Ducher. 
6 
4 
5 
15 
1 
0 
2 
3 
18 
15 
Etoile de Lyon. 
T. 
1881 
Guillot . 
3 
5 
4 
12 
1 
2 
3 
6 
18 
16 
Madame E. Verdier .. 
H.P. 
1878 
E. Verdier. 
1 
3 
8 
12 
2 
1 
2 
5 
17 
17 
Ulrich Brunner, fils .. 
H.P. 
1881 
Levet. 
1 
3 
6 
10 
0 
3 
4 
7 
17 
18 
Catherine Soupert .... 
H.P. 
1879 
Lacharme. 
0 
4 
7 
11 
0 
0 
6 
5 
16 
19 
Madame Isaac Perriere 
B. 
1880 
Margottin, fils .. 
0 
4 
5 
9 
0 
2 
4 
6 
15 
20 
Egeria . 
H.P. 
1878 
Schwartz . 
0 
0 
9 
9 
0 
0 
5 
6 
14 
121 
Lady Sheffield. 
H.P. 
1881 
W. Paul & Son.. 
2 
4 
1 
7 
1 
2 
3 
6 
13 
22 
Rosieriste Jacobs. 
H.P. 
1880 
Madame Ducher. 
O 
1 
6 
7 
0 
0 
5 
5 
12 
23 
Helen Paul . 
H.P. 
1881 
Lacharme. 
0 
2 
6 
8 
0 
1 
2 
3 
11 
24 
Merveille de Lyon .... 
H.P. 
1882 
Pernet . 
1 
1 
3 
5 
2 
1 
2 
5 
10 
26 
Madame Ducher. 
H.P. 
1879 
Levet. 
0 
2 
3 
5 
0 
S 
2 
4 
9 
*26 
May Quennell . 
H.P. 
1878 
Postans. 
1 
1 
2 
4 
2 
0 
2 
4 
8 
27 
Constantin Tretiakoff . 
H.P. 
1877 
Jamain.. 
1 
2 
1 
4 
0 
4 
0 
4 
8 
128 
Mrs. H. Turner . 
H.P. 
1880 
Laxton . 
0 
1 
4 
5 
1 
1 
1 
3 
8 
29 
Madame Welch . 
T. 
1878 
Madame Ducher. 
0 
1 
6 
7 
1 
0 
0 
1 
8 
30 
William Warden. 
H.P. 
1878 
Mitchell & Son . 
0 
1 
5 
6 
0 
1 
1 
2 
8 
31 
Madame A. Jacquier .. 
T. 
1879 
Guillot, fils .... 
0 
0 
6 
6 
0 
1 
1 
2 
8 
§32 
Mary Pochin . 
H.P. 
1880 
Rev.E.N. Pochin 
0 
2 
3 
5 
0 
2 
0 
2 
7 
33 
George Baker . 
H.P. 
1881 
G. Paul. 
0 
0 
5 
5 
0 
0 
2 
2 
7 
34 
Barthelemy Joubert .. 
0 
0 
2 
2 
1 
1 
2 
4 
6 
35 
Souvenir de V. Verdier 
H.P. 
1878 
E. Yerdier. 
0 
1 
4 
5 
0 
1 
0 
1 
6 
36 
Alfred Dumesnil. 
0 
O 
2 
2 
0 
1 
3 
4 
6 
Only nineteen Roses, and six of these receiving but three first- 
class votes, is not great promise of many “ perpetual ” varieties. 
The following have kindly made returns. Amateurs :— 
Miss Wa ( son Taylor, Headington, Oxford ; Revs. C. Bul- 
mer, Credenhill, Hereford ; A. Cheales, Brockham, Surrey ; 
H. H. Dombrain, Westwell, Ashford, Kent; and F. Page 
Roberts, Scole, Norfolk ; and Messrs. George Baker, Holm- 
fels, Reigate ; James Brown, gardener to A. J. Water- 
low, Esq., Great Doods, Reigate ; J. Burrell, Heighing- 
ton, Darlington ; John Choyce, Pinwell Grange, Ather- 
stone ; W. J. Grant, Ledbury ; Thomas B. Hall, Rock 
Ferry, Cheshire ; Edward Mawley, Addiscombe, Croydon ; 
Wm. Moore, gardener at Caedreglan Park, Cardiff; George 
Mount, Uarbledown, Canterbury ; F. C. Pawle, Norfficote, 
Reigate ; J. D. Pawle, Wray Park, Reigate ; J. Sladden, 
Badsey, Evesham ; and E. R. Whitwell, Barton Hall, 
Darlington. Nurserymen : — Messrs. Bunyard & Co., 
Maidstone ; B. R. Cant, Colchester ; E. Claxton, Allerton, 
Liverpool ; G. Cooling & Son, Bath; Cranston & Co., 
Hereford ; Curtis & Co , Torquay ; Dickson & Co., Upton, 
Cheshire ; H. Frettingham, Beeston, Notts ; Jefferies and 
Sons, Cirencester ; H. Merry weather, Southwell, Notts ; 
W. Rumsey, Joyning’s Nursery, Waltham Cross. 
To these many others besides myself will feel deeply 
indebted. One or two returns were useless, the dates 
taken no note of throughout, and received so late that I 
could not keep faith as to time of publishing if I had 
returned them. As it is, I have been sorely tried in doing 
so.— Joseph Hinton, Warminster. 
P.S.—September 29th.—By this morning’s post came 
Mr. G. Paul’s return. It bore the motto “ Better late than 
never ; ” but, alas ! the outcome of the returns was already 
in the printer’s hands. Yet I am sure all the readers of 
“our Journal” will be glad to see Mr. G. Paul’s list, I 
therefore give it in toto; and it is interesting to note 
how very slightly it differs from the collective opinion of 
the thirty electors :— 
* Sent out by William Paul & Son, 
** Sent out, by G. Paul. 
1 In Paul's catalogue, Postans, and William Paul & Son. 
J Sent out by Turner. 
§ Sent out by Cranston. 
1. A. K. Williams. 
2. Duke of Teck. 
3. Mad. G. Luizet. 
7. Merveille de Lyon. 
8. Charles Darwin. 
9. Mad. Eug. Yerdier. 
4. Countess of Rosebery. 
5. Mad. Lambard. 
6. Duchess of Bedford. 
10. Mrs. Laxton. 
11. Marie Verdier. 
12. Harrison Weir. 
Of the untabulated Roses named, four received five votes ; eleven 
received four votes ; and amongst these I ought certainly to note 
H.T. Lady Mary Fitzwilliam, 1882 (Bennett), for three of these 
votes are first-class votes ; nine others obtained mention three times, 
thirteen only twice, and twenty-three out of the total number named 
(ninety-six) have onty a single vote—nearly a quarter of the number 
named ! It is quite possible that some few of these ninety-six may 
have on the score of age no title to their votes, but I think this 
number is but small, as I have eliminated a large number. And here 
I may mention how deeply I am indebted to Mr. Ellwanger’s book on 
the Rose for information as to dates and raisers’ names. No other cata¬ 
logue that I have yet seen approaches it in information on these points. 
As all doubtless anticipated, A. K. Williams heads the poll, and 
is the only Rose that has in all of the lists first-class votes only. It 
is truly a glorious Rose, and, if it obtain greater vigour and strength 
13. Innocente Pirola. 
14. Egeria. 
15. Mad. Cusin. 
16. Pride of Waltham. 
17. White Baroness. 
18. Helen Paul. 
19. Yiolette Bouyer. 
20. Ulrich Brunner, fils. 
21. Madame A. Jacquier. 
22. Madame Welch. 
23. Lady Sheffield. 
24. George Baker. 
These twenty-four names differ but little from the colhct?d 
twenty-four, except in position ; Mad. Cusin, White Baroness, Mad. 
A. Jacquier, Mad. Welch, and George Baker being the only diTsr- 
ences, and three of these are in the thirty-six.—J H. 
STRAY NOTES. 
Eupatorium, ripsrium. —This, although not quite as showy as it con¬ 
gener E. odoratum, is nevertheless a very useful plant for affordin a supply 
of cut flowers and for decorative purposes during winter. It possesses 
