October 19, 1882. ] JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 359 
the following positions, Nos. 8, 21, 32, 35, 39, 42, 43, 65, 72, 80, 84. 
I suppose that with most admirers of our national flower, if two 
Roses—a Hybrid Perpetual and a Tea—were equally good, the 
latter would carry away the votes. There is no gainsaying their 
exquisite beauty; they have a charm peculiarly their own, and 
they have one quality vastly in excess of their Hybrid Perpetual 
brethren—they, in sporting phrase, can stay. Who has not 
wished on the eve of an exhibition that some of his Perpetuals 
would retain their glories for the judge? Alas, how often have 
the hopes and wishes been blasted ! and yet of Teas one might 
safely predict that the morrow will find the bloom in as great 
perfection as to-day. Now, too, that additional colours are being 
found amongst the newer varieties, and that it is gradually being 
established that they are not after all so very delicate, there is 
little doubt their admirers will increase. 
Gradually various electors have stated their opinions, maintain¬ 
ing that it was unfair to these varieties to expect them to compete 
with the others, and urging that they should enjoy a separate 
election. This has now been accomplished, and I here give the 
result. Sixty-four electors have voted—thirty-nine amateurs and 
twenty-five nurserymen. The table contains first the position in 
the present election, the name, date of introduction, and raiser of 
the Rose, the amateur first ten and second ten votes, and the 
nurserymen’s first and second-class votes. 
Three other Roses had six votes, two others only five each, four 
were named four times, eight had three votes, seven two votes, 
and twenty-five received only a solitary mention. Altogether 
just seventy-nine were mentioned, counting the “ too much alike ” 
as single ; but counting these in each case as a Rose, the number 
tabulated in the Tea portion of the National Rose Society’s 
catalogue only amounts to fifty. 
Possibly in this section my returns show more demurring to 
the Roses named as “too much alike.” I quote from one of 
these as regards Madame Bravy and Alba Rosea :—“ For instance, 
Alba Rosea is a thin-petalled papery Rose, beautiful in shape and 
colour ; Madame Bravy is a thick-petalled waxy flower, less good 
in shape, much stronger in colour.” I pass over the foliage, as 
the compilers have tested only the blooms. This gentleman is a 
close observer. But it may be asked, Do we not find on the same 
tree two blooms of some Roses, apparently distinct, influenced 
probably by some atmospheric condition ? 
In both the elections there is but one Rose whose certificate 
has invariably been endorsed A1—that Rose is Catherine M ermet. 
She is indeed most captivating, deserving her position. 
In former elections many electors when naming Devoniensis 
have added in brackets “climbing,” and my own ideas certainly 
were that it would distance its lesser counterpart, on the principle 
that if two things are equally good the quantity obtainable would 
decide in favour of one of them. To my surprise up to almost the 
last my own return was the only one favourable to the climber. 
The electors are the same, with the exception that Messrs. Gall, 
Frettingham, and Proctor have not voted on the Teas; and Messrs. 
Cooling’s list could with some little trouble be added, and therefore 
was included. 
In the next issue I hope to compare the lists as arranged from the 
voting papers, with the opinion entertained by the great rosarian 
of America, Mr. Ellwanger.— Joseph Hinton, Warminster. 
A NOTEWORTHY HARVEST FESTIVAL, 
Seeing how wide-spread is the most commendable practice of 
holding harvest thanksgivings, it would be out of the question for 
the Journal of Horticulture to take more than a general notice of 
them ; at the same time our old friend is read by great numbers 
who are either interested or take an active part in decorating the 
sacred buildings where these services are held. For this reason, I 
hold, especial mention should be accorded noteworthy examples 
of decorative art; and further, if some of those who frequently 
give the readers of the Journal the benefit of their 
experiences would make seasonable suggestions as 
to what may be done in the way of decorating 
places of worship on special occasions they would, 
I feel certain, be widely appreciated. Each fes¬ 
tival, such as Christmas, Easter, and Whitsuntide, 
and last but not least harvest thanksgivings, has its 
appropriate style, or at all events certain kinds of 
material for the purpose ; and, if I might be allowed 
to suggest it, why not depute a competent writer to 
offer timely suggestions upon each ? Mr. Luckhurst, 
in particular, is well qualified for the task, and it is 
certain his hints would be acted on by some, and 
probably supplemented by others. 
It generally happens this class of decorations is a 
“ labour of love ” to those concerned, and in this case 
it is apt to be overdone —that is to say, they make 
their wreaths, festoons, and devices too neatly ; in 
fact, spend too much time over them, thus spoiling 
the effect, owing to the churches more especially 
being large and heavy, requiring a heavier style. 
Or, again, if the structures be light and permanently 
and extensively adorned, by decorating too freely 
they hide or disfigure the admired features of the 
internal constructions. Both these extremes are 
offending to good taste. 
At the grand old church of St. John’s, Frome, 
however, the ladies and gentlemen interested con¬ 
trive to create a most beautiful effect without mar¬ 
ring the features of one of the most richly decorated 
churches in Great Britain. Freely were the requi¬ 
site plants, flowers, and fruit provided, and freely 
yet most tastefully were these grouped and arranged, 
the whole with the splendid service in connection 
therewith being most vividly impressed on my 
memory. On each side of the altar were disposed 
beautifully flowered plants of Begonia insignis, these 
being fully 3 feet high and of proportionate circum¬ 
ference, and were particularly effective in the even¬ 
ing when the church was lighted. About the altar 
itself were disposed miniature sheaves of corn and magnificent 
bunches of Black Hamburgh Grapes, and more of the latter with a 
background of coloured Grape foliage were suspended to the ends of 
the choir stalls. Most beautiful was the low carved stone chancel 
screen. This was surmounted with neat well-flowered pot plants of 
Begonias Weltoniensis and Knowsleyana, on each side of the gates 
being pretty groups formed with a mixture of the plumes of 
Pampas Grass and flowering spikes of Gladioli. The screen was 
further festooned with Ferns, Dahlias, Allamandas, Bougainvilleas, 
and other flowers. The pot plants were surrounded with Apples, 
Tomatoes, Grapes, and crosses formed with corn were freely inter¬ 
spersed among the wreaths. At the base of the pillars on each 
side of the chancel were disposed handsome groups of fine-foliage 
and flowering plants. 
The pulpit was tastefully decorated with black and white 
Grapes and other fruits and cut flowers in variety, and many 
plants, fruits, and vegetables were effectively grouped at its base. 
Nothing but white flowers, fruit, and Ferns were employed in the 
baptistry, and the effect was most chaste and pleasing. Floral 
RESULT OP THE POLLING. 
No. 
Name of Rose. 
Age. 
Raiser. 
Ama¬ 
teurs’ 
Votes. 
Total. 
Nursery¬ 
men’s 
Votes. 
Total. 
Grand 
1 Total. 
1st 
2nd 
1st 
2nd 
Ten 
Ten 
Ten 
Ten 
1 
Catherine Mermet. 
1869 
Guillot, fils .... 
39 
— 
39 
25 
— 
25 
64 
2 
Mardchal Niel . 
1864 
Pradel. 
36 
3 
39 
25 
— 
25 
64 
3 
Souvenir d’un Ami .... 
1846 
Belot Defougfere 
25 
14 
39 
19 
4 
23 
62 
4 
Marie Van Houtte .... 
1871 
Ducher. 
35 
3 
38 
20 
3 
23 
61 
5 
Souvenir d’Elise . 
1854 
Marest. 
36 
1 
37 
22 
1 
23 
60 
Devoniensis . 
1838 
Foster. 
22 
12 
18 
6 
Climbing Devoniensis.. 
1858 
Pavitt. 
2 
— 
— 
— 
7 
Madame Lambard. 
1877 
Lucharme .... 
23 
12 
35 
16 
8 
24 
59 
8 
Niphetos. 
1844 
Bougere . 
17 
16 
33 
20 
5 
25 
58 
f Madame Bravy . 
1848 
Guillot, p6re .. 
12 
8 1 
5 
6 ' 
*9s 
Alba Rosea. 
1862 
Lartey. 
5 
7 
34 
2 
5 
54 
Josephine Malton. 
— 
— 
2 
- j 
1 
— 
^Madame de Sertot .... 
— 
Pernet . 
— 
- J 
— 
1 . 
10 
Jean Ducher . 
1874 
Mad’me Ducher 
20 
14 
34 
7 
11 
18 
52 
11 
Perle des Jardins . 
1875 
Levet . 
15 
17 
32 
11 
7 
18 
50 
12 
Rubens . 
1859 
Robert . 
11 
20 
31 
3 
16 
19 
50 
Belle Lyonnaise . 
1869 
Levet . 
7 
24 
31 
4 
12 
16 
47 
Souvenir de Paul Neyron 
1871 
Levet . 
7 
21 
28 
4 
15 
19 
47 
15 
Comtesse de Nadailiac. . 
1871 
Guillot, fils .... 
14 
14 
28 
7 
8 
15 
43 
16 
Madame Wiliermoz .... 
1845 
Lacharme .... 
7 
18 
25 
12 
6 
18 
43 
17 
1872 
Ducher . 
11 
21 
32 
3 
7 
10 
42 
18 
Innocente Pirola. 
1878 
Mad’me Ducher 
10 
14 
24 ; 
3 
9 
12 
36 
19 
Caroline Knster. 
1872 
Pernet. 
3 
17 
20 
1 
9 
10 
30 
20 
Gloire de Dijon. 
1853 
Jacotot. 
4 
11 
15 
6 
8 
14 
29 
21 
Mad. Hippolyte Jamain. 
1869 
Guillot, fils .... 
4 
11 
15 
— 
10 
10 
25 
Adam . 
1833 
Adam . 
— 
9 
11 
1 
7 
President . 
1860 
A. Paul A Son . 
— 
2 
— 
4 
23 
Bouquet d’Or. 
1872 
Ducher. 
1 
16 
17 
1 
4 
5 
22 
24 
1870 
Levet . 
2 
9 
11 
2 
7 
9 
20 
25 
Madame Margottin .... 
1866 
Guillot, fils .... 
1 
11 
12 
8 
8 
20 
26 
Triomphe de Rennes . . 
1857 
Lansezeur .... 
2 
7 
9 
1 
5 
6 
15 
27 
Celine Forestier . 
1858 
Leroy . 
— 
4 
4 
1 
5 
6 
10 
28 
Jean Pernet . 
1867 
Pernet . 
— 
6 
6 
— 
3 
3 
9 
29 
Amazone . 
1872 
Ducher . 
1 
5 
6 
— 
2 
2 
8 
30 
Madame Falcot . 
— 
- 
4 
4 
4 
4 
8 
* The asterisk denotes “ too much alike.” 
