340 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER . 
[ October 18, 1863. 
like it on the Coltsfoot and Marshmallow and the Hollyhock, and also 
on the common Groundsel. I should like to know if they are alike or of 
a different kind.—G eo. Clements. 
THE ROSE ELECTION. 
GAEDEN EOSES. 
Feom various causes this election of garden varieties is scarcely 
satisfactory, at least to myself. Some few among the voters have 
understood the limitation of age in the newer varieties election to 
apply also to garden varieties ; these returns, having evidently been 
framed on a misunderstanding, 1 have set aside. But again, another 
set I cast aside on first thoughts but afterwards included them, as, 
although they greatly modify the ultimate result of the poll, yet they 
are not really misleading in the general total. The returns in 
question wholly ignore the Tea and Noisette Roses, and in fact appear 
to have answered the question as though it had been “ The best 
garden varieties among exhibition Roses of Hybrid Perpetual 
•character,” instead of “ What are the best garden Roses ? ” To me 
it appears that this question is open enough to include any variety of 
Rose, and I am at a loss to understand how some of the Teas cannot 
be inserted. What, then, it may be asked, are the good qualities of 
garden Roses ? I will try to answer this question according to my 
light. Firstly, then, it appears to me absolutely necessary that 
garden Roses should possess vigour of constitution. It is not probable 
that in ordinary gardens the Roses will be petted and taken care of 
through the winter ; on the contrary, with rare exceptions they will 
be allowed to take their chance. Here and there one or two, 
being special favourites, may obtain some extra care, and therefore I 
should not be surprised at any list of twenty-four varieties containing 
two or more tender Roses, but I should expect these to be exceptions. 
Then they need to be free-blooming, and this may be produced either 
by perpetuality of bloom during the whole season, or by the excessive 
abundance during a shorter period, as in some of the summer Roses. 
Yet again, variety of Rose is essential, and as nearly allied to this 
requisite, distinctness. These qualities I should expect to find in a 
list of twenty-four varieties, and according to my humble and very 
fallible judgment, few, very few, of the lists sent appear to be framed 
■on these principles. 
I have in this election kept the two classes of voters distinct, not 
so much because I considered it necessary, but that it renders the 
return more interesting to compare the opinions of the two different 
■classes of voters. These opinions are curious ; for instance, Boule 
de Neige, Senateur Vaisse, and Mrs. Bosanquet, in all of which, 
although the nurserymen are only as two to three in proportion, the 
nurserymen’s votes are far in excess of the amateurs'. Bouquet 
■d’Or is a notable instance of the opposite kind, as no nurseryman 
mentions it. 
The columns are the same as in the other election. 
solitary admirer, and yet the number of voters amounts to but 
twenty-eight. I certainly had made up my mind before the receipt 
of the lists that the lovely Banksian Roses would have had a few 
admirers, but they are amongst the solitary. Rose de Meaux again 
has but two friends, one being our esteemed friend “ D., Deal," the 
other the returning officer. This, too, was most unexpected to me. 
list appears to me to meet my ideas of “ garden ” varieties 
other, although that of Mr. J. Sladden is also of 
a similar character. As they may interest some of our readers, I give 
these two lists :— 
“ D., Deal's, 
more than any 
" D., Deal's.” 
1. Gloire de Dijon 
2. Celine Forestier 
3. Reve d’Or 
4. Chesliunt Hybrid 
5. Princess L. "Victoria 
6. Blairii No. 2 
7. Common Cabbage 
8. Rose de Meaux 
9. Common Moss 
10. Rosa Mundi 
11. Settina 
12. William A. Richardson 
13. Rosa rugosa 
14. Souvenir de la Malmaison 
15. Cramoisie Superieure 
16. Lamarque 
17. Paul Ricaut 
18. Persian Yellow 
19. Jean Cher pin 
20. Stanwell Perpetual 
21. Crested Moss 
22. Madame Plan tier 
23. Longworth Rambler 
24. Paquerette. 
Mr. J. Sladden's. 
Gloire de Dijon 
Souvenir de la Malmaison 
Mrs. Bosanquet 
Common China 
Aimee Yibert 
John Hopper 
Jules Margottin 
Queen of the Bourbons 
Crimson China 
Celine Forestier 
La France 
Belle Lyonnaise 
Madame Plantier 
Felicity Perpetuelle 
Crimson Bedder 
Fisher Holmes 
Blairii No. 2 
Baronne Prevost 
Common Cabbage 
Charles Lawson 
Paul Yerdier 
Dupuy Jamain 
Fulgens 
Common Moss 
Personally I am surprised that La France, one of the freest 
bloomers and most fragrant varieties, finds no place in the first list, 
but possibly its habit of declining to open in rough weather may have 
told against it. Still, either of these lists, containing different 
varieties as they do, yet seem to my view the fittest returns of 
“garden” Roses. 
It must be confessed that this list of “ garden ” varieties, as brought 
out by the returns, has an unmistakeable aroma of the exhibition tent. 
Indeed it is not until we reach No. 25, the common or old Moss, 
that we arrive at a variety that has not figured in some exhibition 
stand during the last five years, whilst from 13 to 18 in¬ 
clusive we find some of our best exhibition sorts of Rose ; and out 
Order. 
Name of Eose. 
Character 
of Eose. 
Date of 
Intro¬ 
duction. 
Raiser’s 
Name. 
Ama¬ 
teurs’ 
Votes. 
ABC 
Total. 
Nursery¬ 
men’s 
Votes. 
A* B* C* 
Total. 
Grand 
Total. 
1 
Gloire de Dijon . 
T. 
1853 
.Taco tot. 
14 
2 
o 
16 
9 
o 
q 
2 
La Prance. 
ir.p.or h.t 
1867 
Guillot, fils. .. 
10 
3 
0 
13 
9 
1 
0 
10 
23 
S 
Jules Margottin. 
II. P. 
1853 
Margottin . .. 
7 
4 
1 
12 
4 
1 
2 
7 
19 
4 
General Jacqueminot.. 
ii. r. 
1853 
ltousselet .... 
4 
4 
1 
9 
6 
3 
1 
10 
19 
6 
Souv’r de la Malmaison 
B. 
1843 
Beluze . 
4 
4 
4 
12 
2 
4 
1 
7 
19 
-6 
Cheshunt Hybrid . 
II.T. 
1873 
G. Paul. 
4 
2 
4 
10 
1 
2 
3 
6 
16 
7 
Boule de Neige. 
H.P. 
1867 
Lacharme .... 
0 
4 
2 
6 
0 
3 
7 
10 
i 16 
8 
Duke of Edinburgh .. 
II.P. 
1868 
G. Paul. 
3 
5 
1 
9 
3 
2 
i 
6 
15 
9 
John Hopper . 
H.P. 
1862 
Ward. 
3 
5 
2 
10 
2 
5 
1 5 
10 
Dupuy Jamain. 
H.P. 
1868 
2 
3 
4 
9 
1 
! 10 
11 
Dr. Andry. 
H.P. 
1861 
E. Verdier.... 
i 
0 
6 
7 
2 
0 
3 
5 
12 
12 
Celine Forestier . 
N. 
1860 
Trouillard 
i 
2 
4 
7 
0 
2 
3 
5 
12 
13 
Marie Baumann. 
H.P. 
1863 
Baumann .... 
3 
2 
3 
8 
3 
0 
0 
3 
i ii 
14 
Alfred Colomb. 
H.P. 
1865 
Lacharme .... 
2 
3 
2 
7 
2 
1 
1 
4 
H 
15 
Madame Victor Yerdier 
H.P. 
1863 
Victor Verdier 
2 
3 
2 
7 
0 
2 
2 
4 
ii 
16 
Charles Lefebvre. 
H.P. 
1861 
Lacharme .... 
1 
3 
3 
7 
1 
0 
3 
4 
ii 
17 
Marquise de Castellane 
H.P. 
1869 
Pernet . 
2 
i 
5 
8 
0 
1 
2 
3 
! 11 
18 
Baronne de Kothschild 
H.P. 
1867 
Pernet . 
3 
2 
1 
6 
2 
1 
1 
4 
10 
19 
Senateur Vaisse . 
H.P. 
1859 
Guillot, pere.. 
1 
3 
0 
4 
3 
3 
0 
6 
10 
20 
Prince C. de Eolian .. 
H.P. 
1861 
E. Verdier.... 
1 
1 
4 
6 
2 
0 
2 
4 
10 
21 
Mrs. Bosanquet . 
Beng. 
— 
Madame Peau 
1 
0 
2 
3 
1 
2 
3 
6 
9 
22 
Fisher Holmes. 
H.P. 
1863 
E. Verdier_ 
I 
0 
6 
7 
1 
0 
1 
2 
9 
23 
Homer . 
T. 
1859 
Moreau-Robert 
0 
2 
8 
5 
0 
1 
3 
4 
9 
24 
Charles Lawson . 
H.C. 
1853 
— 
0 
1 
6 
7 
0 
1 
1 
2 
9 
25 
Common Moss. 
— 
— 
_ 
1 
1 
4 
- 6 
0 
0 
2 
2 
8 
f 
Beauty of Waltham . . 
H.P. 
1862 
W. Paul . 
1 
1 
1 
3 
0 
0 
4 
4 
7 
1 
Princess L. Victoria .. 
H.Cl, 
1872 
Knight . 
1 
1 
3 
5 
0 
0 
2 
2 
7 
28 
Marie Van Houtte .... 
T. 
1871 
Ducher . 
0 
3 
0 
3 
0 
2 
2 
4 
7 
29 
Duke of Connaught .. 
H.P. 
1875 
G. Paul . 
0 
1 
3 
4 
0 
2 
i 
3 
7 
30 
Bouquet d’Or .. 
N. 
1872 
Ducher. 
0 
2 
4 
6 
0 
0 
0 
0 
6 
31 
Victor Yerdier. 
H.P. 
1852 
Lacharme .... 
0 
0 
1 
1 
0 
1 
4 
5 
6 
Of the remainder, eleven Roses obtained five votes ; ten varieties 
reached four votes ; eighteen others were mentioned three times ; as 
many as thirty-five had but two votes, and it will scarcely be believed 
that in the total of 182 Roses named, seventy-seven, very nearly 
half, were only mentioned once. It seems to me, writing only from 
memory, that in no previous election have so many Roses had but a 
of the thirty-one tabulated very few indeed would not pass muster 
where seventy-two varieties were asked for. 
Again I thank most heartily those who have assisted me by making 
returns. We may not absolutely hit the exact truth, 
and the collective opinion may not always be correct, 
but it is a sure move in that direction.— Joseph Hinton, 
Warminster. 
WHITE ELEPHANT POTATO. 
Like your correspondent Mr. Harrison, I find that th e 
White Elephant Potato is, on heavy soils, a wonderful 
cropper, and I can safely say no other Potato grown here 
can match it for cooking qualities and flavour. I obtained 
2 lbs. from Messrs. Daniels Brothers, Norwich, three years 
ago (to whom, I think, this Potato owes its publicity), from 
which I had over 80 lbs., many of them weighing fty lbs. 
each, and I have this year an immense crop of large sound 
Potatoes ; but I find that if they are left in the ground too 
long after showing ripeness they are liable to disease. 
Therefore take them up in good time and you have the 
remedy. 
The first year I grew them I exhibited a dish of them 
at our local show, and was told by the judges that they 
were cattle Potatoes, only fit for pigs. Since then some of 
these judges have grown them; and to show the fallacy 
that even judges are liable to fall into, I will just relate 
that I managed to get a dish of these very Potatoes pre¬ 
pared for the judge that took the greatest objection to 
them, and upon his being questioned as to the quality he 
declared it was a good, dry, floury Potato, and no better 
could be wished for. I have this year grown about 
eighteen different varieties, and took all the first prizes 
in our Cottagers’ Show. My judgment is, there is no 
Potato for a poor man to surpass the White Elephant.— 
Louis Bissenden. 
Pansies and Violas. —Your correspondent “ H., Notts," has con¬ 
tributed notes on the above flowers. Can any of your correspondents 
tell us the difference between Pansies and Violas as sold and grown, 
and I might also say exhibited, at the present time ? I once put this 
