JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
July 21, 1881. ] 
group it consisted in the light Palms being placed with too great 
regularity, which gave to the arrangement a lather formal aspect, 
and a few brighter flowers were wanted to add richness ; still the 
group was a charming one, and was much and deservedly admired. 
The third-prize group above alluded to was the most free and natural 
in arrangement of the whole. There was a total absence of packing 
and formalism ; in fact, if we suppose the groundwork of small Ferns 
had been grass a child might have crept all over the space round and 
under the other plants without injuring them. The central plant 
was a fine specimen Tuberous Begonia, relieved by silvery Caladiums 
and isolated clumps of Paris Daisies, the whole overhung by a back 
central Palm. In the front were three Dracaenas placed triangularly 
with a Carnation in the centre. Towards the margin Gloxinias, 
Panicums, and small scarlet Begonias w 7 ere arranged amongst the 
Ferns, and the two back flank plants were a pair of fine Cocoses ; alto¬ 
gether this was a rich, diversified, and meritorious arrangement. Mr. 
Fromow, nurseryman, Turnham Green, was deservedly awarded an 
extra prize. Mr. Darvil, gardener to C. Brown, Esq., Grosvenor 
House, Gunnersbury; and Mr. Stevens, St. John’s Nursery, Putney, 
arranged creditable groups in this fine class. Valuable and artistic 
groups not for competition were provided by Mr. Herbst, Richmond, 
who turned the fine Lilium Brownii to excellent account with Ferns 
and dwarf Palms ; by Mr. Roberts, The Gardens, Gunnersbury Park, 
whose plants were excellent and tastefully dispersed ; and by the 
General Horticultural Company, the group being large, varied, and 
most meritorious, the brightness of choice Crotons and Dractenas 
having a fine contrasting effect. The amateurs’ groups of 60 feet 
must be dismissed in a few words. By the want, we presume, of a 
more suitable position and more space they were packed on a high 
stage in three narrow tiers, and the effect was destroyed; indeed, 
exhibitors have no chance of arranging their plants effectively under 
such conditions. If they must have a stage let it be a foot only 
from the ground, and quite flat. The successful competitors were 
H. Perkes, Esq., Heathfield Cottage; J. Donaldson, Esq., Tower 
House; and B. Hardy, Esq., Gordon House, all of Chiswick. As a 
rule staging for groups is not required, and there is a great deal too 
much timber used in exhibitions generally. 
Mr. Croucher, gardener to J. Peacock, Esq., Sudbury House, Ham¬ 
mersmith, arranged a very interesting group of plants in the cut- 
flower tent; Cycads and Orchids being attractively associated, and 
succulents were curious in more ways than one. A venerable pair of 
Pilocerus senilis grey with age represented the “ old man and woman,” 
smaller plants “ the children,” and a mere dot “ the baby.” P. Dan- 
tivitzi, trim and stately, impersonated “ rich relations ” that stood a 
little aloof ; and three rather seedy-looking examples “ impecunious 
relations ” that lurked partly in the background. To complete the 
fancy, Odontoglossum vexillarium was submitted as typical of civili¬ 
sation, and Echinocactus grandicornis of savage life. A little dis¬ 
cussion was had as to whether Mr. Peacock’s plants or his gardener’s 
were the most curious examples of creation, and the question was 
left an open one. 
In the specimen plant classes Mr. Hudson overpowered all rivals, 
his plants, both ornamental-foliaged and Ferns, being of striking 
excellence. 
Amongst cut flowers Messrs. Lee & Sons’ six boxes of beautiful 
Roses, and Messrs. Cannell’s splendid contribution of Zonal Pelar¬ 
goniums and Verbenas, far surpassed any exhibits in competition, 
and added greatly to the beauty of the Show. Messrs. Hudson, 
Brown, and Harris showed good mixed stands, the last-named exhi¬ 
bitor winning a special prize given by Mr. Aldous for table decorations. 
The prize brides’ bouquets consisted almost entirely of Stephanotis 
and Ferns, and the epergnes generally were overcrowded with flowers. 
The show of fruit was of limited extent, but the quality was gene¬ 
rally good. Mr. Hudson was very successful, and his prize collection 
of six dishes included splendid Madresfield Court and good Muscat 
Grapes, a Queen Pine, Marcellus Melon, Bigarreau Cherries, and 
Lord Napier Nectarines ; and a most meritorious collection, not for 
competition, was staged by Mr. Roberts of Gunnersbury Park, includ¬ 
ing splendid Foster’s Seedling and good Black Hamburgh Grapes, all 
the other dishes bearing the stamp of good cultivation. 
Vegetables were not noteworthy, except the four dishes of Peas, 
Stratagem, Pride of the Market, Telephone, and Telegraph, staged by 
Messrs. Marriot and Richardson of Boston, who were awarded the 
prizes in the order named. These dishes were magnificent, the pods 
being marvels of high cultivation, such as have not been surpassed 
at any show, if equalled. 
Messrs. Charles Lee & Son arranged highly attractive groups in the 
open air, consisting of a fine asssortment of ornamental deciduous 
trees from their arboretum, with Roses, Euonymuses, &c. Specially 
noticeable were the fine variegated shrubs Acanthopanax variegata, 
suitable alike for forcing and border decoration, and Cornus mascula 
elegantissima, compact in habit and rich in colour. The Fairy Rose, 
Little White Pet, was also much admired, and should be grown by 
all who desire a profusion of small pure white flowers for cutting. 
Altogether the Show was very satisfactory, and the gardens were 
greatly enjoyed by the large number of visitors. 
Foxgloves. —We have these in various colours, from clingy 
yellow, various shades of pink to pure white, some spotted and some 
self-coloured, and they are just now amongst the most beautiful 
l — -. — 
57 
of flowers. We find them growing wild in clumps sheltered in 
front of some native shrub, a mass of wild Rose or Bramble very 
likely, and in a state of cultivation no position suits them better 
than in front of shrubs. The present is the time to plant out 
seedlings to flower next summer. Since I planted some five or six 
years ago they have become quite naturalised here.—R. P. B. 
THOUGHTS ABOUT ROSES. 
[Uttered at Sheffield, July 14th, 1881, by the Rev. S. Reynolds Hole.] 
Many years ago, in the palmy days of the Garrick Club, when 
Dickens, and Thackeray, and John Leech,and A’Beckett, and Douglas 
Jerrold, and Shirley Brooks, and many other bright stars no longer 
visible in this firmament, were its constant inmates, I was engaged 
there one evening, like a good gardener, in the act of fumigation—I 
was destroying a weed. I had two companions, and a conversation 
arose between them concerning a work which had been recently pub¬ 
lished, and had created a great interest—Buckle’s “ History of Civili¬ 
sation in England.” The dialogue ultimately resolved itself into an 
argument as to the future achievements of science and philosophy; 
one of the speakers, who was then among the most brilliant writers 
of The Times newspaper, prophesying unlimited power and happiness 
from the victorious march of intellect; the other expressing far less 
confidence in the capacities of human reason, maintaining, with 
Newton, that it always had been, as it was and would be, but as a 
little child picking pebbles on the great sea’s shore, and that for 
himself, the chief result of his knowledge was to show him how little 
he knew. My humble sympathies were all with him who expressed 
these latter views of the question. His name was William Makepeace 
Thackeray ; and my humble sympathies are with him now, when, 
after thirt 3 7 -five years of enthusiastic love among the Roses—thirty- 
five years of daily observation, anxious inquiry, careful culture—I 
come to communicate results. 
I feel much as I felt when, travelling on the underground rail, I 
misunderstood directions, and, crossing the wrong bridge, found 
mysef, after forty minutes’ absence, at the station from which I 
started. I go back thirty-five years—nay, to a yet more distant 
period, for there is a tradition in my family that my love of the 
Rose began with babyhood, and that I made a clutch at an artificial 
specimen that adorned my nurse’s cap (I can’t say whether the Rose 
was a Monthly Rose, but I have a strong idea the nurse was), and 
tried to devour it, and so to die of a Rose, without the aromatic 
pain, and I recall the same unsatisfied craving for the Rose in its 
perfection which I feel to-day ; and though since that distant date 
I have grown Roses by the thousand, and instituted Rose shows, and 
won silver cups by the score, and walked through miles of Roses as a 
judge, and written a book about Roses, I am here after all to con¬ 
fess that my knowledge as compared with my ignorance is as a 
penny squib to a comet, as an unfledged tomtit to a flying eagle ; 
that I have made mistakes innumerable; that I have planted too 
deep and too shallow, pruned too long and too short, too early and 
too late, manured too much and too little, exhibited flowers which 
were superannuated and flowers which had not arrived at rosehood ; 
that I have succeeded where I expected to fail, and failed where I 
hoped to succeed. 
The explanation is, that the Rose, like the only object of our ad¬ 
miration which excels her in beauty, that Flora, like the rest of the 
fair sex, is delightfully mysterious and difficult to understand. From 
the variableness of our climate, from differences of soil, from delicacy 
of constitution, lovely Roses, like lovely ladies, are by no means easy 
of cultivation. In both cases you may be too attentive, and then the 
objects of your affection exalt themselves unduly, or, as we gardeners 
term it, “ run to leaf.” On the other hand, if you have been neglectful 
or indifferent, when you go to gather Roses you will find thorns. You 
must be devoted, but not too demonstrative—hopeful, but not pre¬ 
sumptuous ; and then, when your loyalty and love are proved, you may 
win the smile of beauty ; even then uncertain and capricious, coming 
sometimes when we least expect it, and suddenly changing into a 
frown without a glimpse of explanation. Ah, my brothers, don’t you re¬ 
member how graciously and beautifully that Marie Baumann came out 
on the eve of the show 7 , when you had given up hope, and how on the 
contrary, that Marie Finger (will anyone inform me whether Marry 
Finger means the third of the left hand ?) on whom we relied so confi¬ 
dently, shut herself up, and remained motionless, as though in a 
swoon, despite every effort which was made to rouse her by blowing 
into her face and putting her feet in hot water ? 
But you will begin to murmur internally, “ Surely this man is not 
come all the way to Sheffield to tell us that he knows nothing,” if 
not to express your remonstrance, as when the blue ox of Artemus 
Ward rubbed some of his paint off against the central pole of the 
exhibition tent, and the spectators openly declared that “ that sort of 
thing would not go down in their enlightened district.” I hear you 
say, “ Let us have the results of your experience, however small they 
may be ; ” as when an Oxford examiner, being told by an under¬ 
graduate who had failed dismally, that he had not been questioned 
upon the subjects which he knew‘the best, tore off a tiny scrap from 
the paper before him, and handed it to the plaintiff, saying, “ Be so 
good as to write what you know on that.” 
Gladly and unreservedly I offer you the results of my experience 
with regard to the cultivation of the Rose. In the first place, as I 
