JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER, 
338 
[ October 12, 1882. 
Society’s catalogue is hardly dealt with. Persanally I rejoice that 
some attempt has been made to stay the introduction of novelties 
at novelty prices, that are scarcely to be distinguished from old 
friends except by their clothing. If we say that two persons are 
very much alike we mean that the face and features are similar ; 
and however dissimilar the clothing and dress may be, we still 
consider them alike. So it seems to me with the Rose : if the 
blooms are so similar as to be taken for the same, the habit and 
foliage are surely secondary matters. Personally, then, I congra¬ 
tulate the compilers of the National Rose Society’s catalogue on 
their attempt and the lines on which they have 
gone. To small growers it would indeed be an 
advantage if every Rose worth cultivation and 
not considered “too much alike” was certifi¬ 
cated from the National Rose Society’s Com¬ 
mittee, and, at any rate as regards new intro¬ 
ductions, some such scrutiny might be advan¬ 
tageous. 
This present election will serve to show out 
of this class of Rose the most generally useful, 
and this will certainly prove advantageous to 
all beginners. Those limited in ground and 
pocket may select the better of the set and dis¬ 
card the rest. The catalogue of the National 
Rose Society must, however, as it appears to 
me, become an annual or biennial at the least, 
and taken as an exhibition catalogue it will 
surely need some additions. Only 166 H.P. 
Roses are named in the whole catalogue, count¬ 
ing all those named “ too much alike” or not. 
In former elections the number of Roses named 
has amounted to close on two hundred varie¬ 
ties ; and although by the sub-Committee’s 
first resolution very tender Roses or those of 
“ extremely delicate growth ” are almost ex¬ 
cluded, yet it seems to some amongst the 
electors, and I confess to joining the number, 
that the list of exhibition varieties must be ex¬ 
tended if the catalogue is to be considered 
complete. Whilst stating this as evidence on 
the part of some electors that the list of Roses 
considered exhibition varieties should be more 
comprehensive, I may also state that some of 
the electors have urged that future catalogues 
should go further in the way of classification 
on the “ too much alike ” plan. 
It will, I think, be generally conceded that 
A. K. Williams is by far the greatest acquisi¬ 
tion that rosarians and Rose-lovers have re¬ 
ceived for many years. Last year, when under 
five years old and probably but slightly known 
by some electors, it nevertheless at the first 
attempt obtained a position amongst the lead¬ 
ing dozen. This was no slight proof of its ex¬ 
cellence. From the tenor of some electors, and 
my experience agrees with them, it is not as 
robust as one could wish, but others have ad¬ 
vanced an opinion exactly the reverse. I 
trust the future will prove the fears groundless, 
for certainly this variety is a glorious flower, 
perfect in form and brilliant in colouring. In 
commenting on the election of 1881 in the 
“ Rosarians’ Year - Book ” I expressed the 
thought that this variety would be that which 
would in a few years contest with the fault¬ 
less Marie Baumann the pride of place. I 
little thought the prediction would so speedily 
be verified. For many days the returns placed 
the pair neck and neck, and only at the end 
of the papers was the old queen reinstated 
in that position which she has held for some 
years. Even the greatest admirers of A. K. 
Williams will allow that in one respect the 
lady is superior—she gives a larger proportion 
of exhibition blooms throughout the season. 
So amongst the Roses as amongst the human 
race, “place avx dames.” 
Altogether there are sixty-six electors, the 
following counties being represented — viz., 
Kent by nine ; Surrey, eight; Hereford, five ; 
Essex, Herts, and Sussex have each four; 
Cambridge, Cheshire, Devon, and Oxfordshire 
are represented by three; Glamorgan, Nor¬ 
folk, Notts, Wilts, Warwickshire, and York¬ 
shire have each two ; whilst one return has 
been received from each of the following 
counties—viz., Bedford, Berks, Derby, Dur¬ 
ham, Gloucester, Leicester, Lincoln, and Somer- 
RESULT OP THE POLLING. 
Position 
in General 
Election 
1881. 
No. Name of Rose. 
Date of 
Intro¬ 
duction . 
Raiser’s 
Name. 
Ama¬ 
teurs' 
Votes. 
ABC 
Total. 
Nursery¬ 
men’s 
Votes. 
A* B* C* 
Total. 
Grand 
Total. 
1 
1 Marie Baumann. 
1863 
Baumann .. 
40 
0 0 
40 
25 
1 
0 
26 
66 
11 
2 A. K. Williams. 
1877 
J. Schwartz . 
39 
1 0 
40 
25 
0 
1 
26 
66 
2 
3 Alfred Colomb. 
1865 
Lacharme .. 
39 
1 0 
40 
22 
3 
1 
26 
66 
10 
4 La France. 
1867 
Guillot, fils... 
35 
5 0 
40 
22 
3 
1 
26 
66 
3 
5 Baronne de Rothschild 
1867 
Pernet. 
34 
5 1 
40 
21 
3 
2 
26 
66 
(Charles Lefebvre. 
1861 
Lacharme .. 
38 
0 0 
17 
3 
1 
4 
*6 1 Marguerite Brassac.... 
1875 
Brassac .... 
2 
0 0 
■ 40 
1 
0 
0 
25 
65 
'•Paul Jamain. 
1878 
Jamain .... 
0 
0 0 
3 
0 
0 
5 
7 Marquise de Castellane 
1869 
Pernet. 
27 
9 4 
40 
7 
12 
5 
24 
64 
6 
8 Duke of Edinburgh .. 
1868 
Paul & Son.. 
23 
15 2 
40 
7 13 
4 
24 
64 
12 
9 Etienne Levet. 
1871 
Levet . 
26 
11 1 
38 
13 
7 
3 
23 
61 
f Marie Rady. 
1865 
Fontaine .... 
22 
11 6 
5 12 
5 
lu { Comtesse de Choiseul.. 
1878 
Moreau. 
0 
0 0 
0 
0 
0 
20 
11 Capitaine Christy .... 
1873 
Lacharme .. 
11 
16 10 
37 
9 
8 
7 
24 
61 
7 
12 Louis Yan Houtte .... 
1869 
Lacharme .. 
26 
9 3 
38 
10 
5 
7 
22 
60 
15 
13 Dr. Andry. 
1864 
E. Verdier .. 
1 
22 15 
38 
10 
5 
7 
22 
60 
27 
f Ferdinand de Lesseps.. 
1869 
E. Verdier .. 
0 
6 11 
3 
5 
2 
+ .. ] Maurice Bemardin.... 
1861 
Granger .... 
0 
3 4 
1 
3 
1 
G9 
1 Exposition de Brie .... 
1865 
Granger .... 
0 
4 4 
2 
0 
1 
. Zo 
48 
(,Sir Garnet Wolseley .. 
1875 
Cranston .... 
0 
2 3 
1 
2 
2 
14 
15 Franyois Michelon .... 
1871 
Levet . 
11 17 6 
34 
6 
13 
6 
25 
59 
16 
16 Madame Victor Yerdier 
1863 
E. Verdier .. 
8 
14 15 
37 
5 
8 
9 
22 
59 
46 
., - i Marie Finger . 
1873 
Raimbaud .. 
4 11 7 
1 
5 
2 
45 
11 \ Eugenie Yerdier. 
1869 
Guillot, fils... 
8 
2 6 
5 
3 
4 
17 
18 Comtesse d’Oxford .... 
1869 
Guillot, fils.,. 
8 
21 10 
39 
5 
5 
9 
19 
58 
13 
19 Mons. E. Y. Teas. 
1874 
E. Verdier .. 
8 
18 12 
38 
5 
6 
8 
19 
57 
22 
20 Madame G. Luizet .... 
1877 
Liabaud .... 
23 
11 2 
36 
10 
7 
3 
20 
56 
19 
21 Horace Yemet. 
1866 
Guillot, fils... 
7 15 12 
34 
7 
7 
8 
22 
56 
23 
22 Senateur Vaisse . 
1859 
Guillot, p6re 
3 
17 15 
35 
5 
8 
8 
21 
56 
18 
23 Dupuy Jamain. 
1868 
Jamain. 
5 
19 12 
36 
5 
a 
7 
18 
54 
29 
24 Marg’rite de St. Amand 
1864 
Sansal. 
i 
2 24 
27 
7 
12 5 
24 
51 
28 
25 Duke of Wellington .. 
1864 
Granger .... 
0 
6 27 
33 
1 
3 
14 
18 
51 
26 
26 Xavier Olibo. 
1864 
Lacharme .. 
1 10 19 
30 
3 
3 
12 
18 
48 
30 
27 Beauty of Waltham .. 
1862 
W. Paul .... 
2 
6 20 
28 
1 
6 
12 
19 
47 
47 
28 Annie Wood. 
1866 
E. Verdier .. 
1 
7 23 
31 
2 
1 
10 
13 
44 
54 
29 Duchess of Bedford .. 
1879 
Postans .... 
6 
7 11 
24 
1 
6 
12 
19 
43 
24 
30 Comtesse de Serenye .. 
1874 
Lacharme .. 
0 
8 12 
20 
3 
6 
11 
20 
40 
37 
31 Camille Bernardin .... 
1865 
Gautreau.... 
1 
8 18 
27 
1 
4 
8 
13 
40 
25 
32 Reynolds Hole. 
1873 
Paul & Son.. 
0 11 11 
22 
1 
6 
11 
18 
40 
36 
33 Duch. de Vallombrosa . 
1875 
Schwartz.... 
2 
5 14 
21 
3 
5 
9 
17 
38 
49 
, ( P. Camille de Rohan .. 
1861 
E. Verdier .. 
0 
1 14 
22 
0 
0 
H 
88 
34 1 La Rosihre . 
1874 
Damaizin.... 
0 
0 7 
0 
0 
5 
oo 
81 
35 Star of Waltham. 
1875 
W. Paul & Son 
1 
5 18 
24 
5 
1 
7 
13 
37 
41 
36 Le Havre . 
1871 
Eude . 
1 
8 20 
29 
0 
1 
6 
7 
36 
34 
37 Fisher Holmes. 
1865 
E. Verdier .. 
0 
5 21 
26 
0 
3 
7 
10 
36 
66 
38 Countess of Rosebery.. 
1879 
Postans .... 
0 
5 15 
20 
6 
3 
6 
15 
35 
50 
39 Marie Verdier. 
1877 
E. Verdier .. 
3 
1 15 
19 
2 
8 
6 
16 
35 
40 
40 Abel Carriere . 
1875 
E. Verdier .. 
2 
8 15 
25 
0 
3 
6 
9 
34 
55 
41 Victor Yerdier. 
1859 
Lacharme .. 
1 
3 17 
21 
0 
2 
11 
13 
34 
33 
42 Pierre Notting. 
1863 
Portemer.... 
0 
4 17 
21 
1 
2 
8 
11 
32 
46 
43 Duchesse de Morny .. 
1863 
E. Verdier . 
1 
4 15 
20 
1 
5 
5 
11 
31 
38 
44 John Hopper . 
1862 
Ward . 
1 
1 15 
17 
1 
2 
8 
H 
28 
76 
45 Charles Darwin . 
1879 
Laxton .... 
0 
3 10 
13 
0 
7 
8 
15 
28 
82 
46 Duke of Teck . 
1880 
Paul & Son.. 
3 
1 11 
15 
3 
2 
7 
12 
27 
63 
47 Madame Lacharme... 
1872 
Lacharme .. 
0 
1 17 
18 
0 
0 
9 
9 
27 
75 
48 John S. Mill. 
1875 
Turner. 
1 
3 10 
14 
1 
1 
7 
12 
26 
51 
49 Emilie Hausberg. 
1868 
Leveque .... 
0 
6 10 
16 
1 
3 
6 
10 
26 
58 
60 Gdnhral Jacqueminot.. 
1853 
Rouselet .... 
1 
2 11 
14 
1 
1 
9 
11 
25 
56 
51 Lord Macaulay . 
1863 
W. Paul & Son 
0 
4 11 
15 
1 
2 
6 
9 
24 
52 
52 Mons. Noman. 
1866 
Guillot, pfere . 
0 
2 15 
17 
0 
0 
7 
7 
24 
53 
(Duke of Connaught . 
1876 
Paul & Son.. 
0 
3 11 
14 
1 
0 
8 
9 
23 
69 
( Harrison Weir. 
1879 
Turner. 
0 
2 10 
12 
1 
1 
9 
11 
23 
59 
55 Due de Rohan. 
1861 
Lev&que, fils. 
1 
1 13 
15 
0 
1 
6 
7 
22 
56 Prince Arthur. 
1875 
Cant. 
0 
3 11 
14 
o 
4 
4 
8 
22 
63 
57 Mrs. Baker . 
1S76 
Turner. 
0 
4 15 
19 
o 
1 
9 
3 
22 
73 
58 Edouard Morren. 
1868 
Granger .... 
0 
3 14 
17 
0 
0 
5 
5 
22 
83 
59 Constantin Tretiakoff . 
— 
Jamain. 
0 
2 8 
10 
4 
1 
5 
10 
20 
57 
60 Mrs. C. Wood . 
1S61 
E. Verdier .. 
0 
0 9 
9 
0 
0 
11 
11 
20 
61 Madame C. Crapelet ., 
1859 
Fontaine .... 
0 
3 11 
14 
0 
1 
4 
5 
19 
62 Sultan of Zanzibar .. 
1876 
Paul & Son.. 
0 
3 9 
12 
1 
0 
e 
6 
18 
79 
+ ( ,, f Penelope Mayo . 
1878 
Davis . 
0 
0 8 
o 
0 
3 
^ (Duchesse de Caylus... 
1864 
E. Verdier .. 
0 
2 4 
14 
0 
0 
i 
4 
18 
59 
64 Mrs. Laxton. 
1878 
Laxton .... 
0 
3 8 
11 
3 
1 
2 
6 
17 
71 
65 Thomas Mills . 
1873 
E. Verdier .. 
1 
3 12 
16 
0 
0 
1 
1 
17 
66 Elie Morel. 
18G7 
Liabaud .... 
0 
1 4 
5 
0 
2 
9 
11 
16 
87 
67 Abel Grand . 
1865 
Damaizin.... 
0 
1 8 
9 
0 
0 
7 
7 
16 
77 
68 Hippolyte Jamain .. 
1874 
Lacharme .. 
0 
1 9 
10 
1 
0 
4 
5 
15 
69 Magna Charta. 
1876 
W. Paul & Son 
0 
1 7 
8 
0 
2 
5 
7 
15 
62 
70 Auguste Rigotard .... 
1871 
Schwartz .... 
0 
1 6 
7 
0 
1 
7 
8 
15 
71 Mrs. Jowitt. 
1881 
Cranston .... 
0 
3 2 
5 
2 
3 
4 
9 
14 
61 
72 Devienne Lamy . 
1868 
Levgqueet fils 
1 
1 9 
11 
1 
0 
2 
3 
14 
74 
• 3 Marie Cointet. 
1872 
Guillot, fils... 
0 
3 5 
8 
0 
2 
4 
6 
14 
78 
4 Th^rfese Levet. 
1866 
Levet . 
o 
0 9 
9 
1 
o 
2 
3 
12 
68 
75 Jean Liabaud . 
1875 
Liabaud .... 
0 
2 7 
9 
0 
0 
3 
3 
12 
*' The Roses bracketed together here are considered as too much alike.” The first named in all 
cases receives the greatest number of votes. 
