306 
AMERICAN AGRICULTURIST. 
NEW-YORK HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY. 
Third Conversational Meeting. Horticultural 
Rooms, 600 Broadway, Jan. 16th, 1854. Mr. J. 
C. Parsons in the chair. 
Subject —The General Cultivation of the Rose. 
R. R. Scott read an abstract of the minutes 
of last Conversational Meeting. 
P. B. Mead. In compliance with a resolution 
passed at last meeting, I have arranged the sub¬ 
ject for discussion this evening under several 
definite heads, so as to confine it within proper 
limits. 
Chair. The first division of the subject is 
Propagation; we are ready to hear any mem¬ 
ber who is disposed to speak. 
P. B. Mead. I suppose, Mr. Chairman, 1 can 
speak on this point as well as any one else, and 
certainly as well as no one. I will say that pro¬ 
pagation bv cuttings from the young wood is 
the best and most useful method in this climate. 
Roses on their own bottoms always make the 
best and most symmetrical plants. Budding I 
would not recommend. In fact, I can see no 
beauty or proportion in a bush growing on the 
top of a long, bare stick, five or six feet high. It 
looks like an elephant on the top of a bean-pole. 
If budded low, say from one to two feet, on the 
Eglantine or Sweet Briar, (Rosa rubiginosa,) or 
on the old Provence rose, they may be tolerable, 
but cuttings are the most successful, and pro¬ 
duce the best plants. Enough has been said 
about, the methods of striking them, at a previ¬ 
ous meeting, so that I need not enter into it now. 
I see Mr. Gajioee present, who grows fine roses, 
and I will be glad to give way for him, to state 
what course he pursues. 
A. Reed. I differ with Mr. Mead decidedly 
in the comparison he has drawn between a 
standard rose in a proper situation and managed 
with care, and an elepbant on a bean-pole. Now 
on the contrary, I am of opinion, and I am cer¬ 
tain many present will agree with me, that any 
reasonable number of well-kept standards, two, 
or ten, or twenty, as may suit the circumstances 
of the location, when in full bloom, form one of 
the most beautiful sights on a lawn, in front of 
a gentleman’s residence. Time spent in their 
management is well spent. I know that stand¬ 
ard roses are not seen in perfection in this 
country, and because for want of proper treat¬ 
ment they have not succeeded—they have fallen 
into disrepute. The intense heat to which they 
are generally exposed during the summer with¬ 
out shade, causes them to decline sooner than 
they would otherwise do; but it is an error to 
attribute this to their being unsuited entirely to 
our climate rather than to want of proper pre¬ 
caution. Lay ering at a proper season is also a 
successful method of propagating, and is well 
suited to common garden roses. 
P. B. Mead. I still hold that a rose, budded 
on a stock four or five feet high, is not a beauti¬ 
ful object. No other tree or plant with similar 
proportions would be tolerated, and why should 
there be an exception in favor of the rose. I 
know of no tree of any description which is 
considered beautiful or symmetrical when fur¬ 
nished with a long, bare stem, supporting spread¬ 
ing branches; there is no such object in nature. 
What single element of beauty does such a plant 
possess? It is deeidt-dly in bad taste, without 
proportion or s\ mmetry. Proportion is one of 
the elements of beauty ; a bush that is not well 
balanced in all its parts cannot be a beautiful 
object even when covered with bloom, while a 
well-formed bush is a pleasing object in itself 
without any flowers. 
R. R. Scott. I think such forms as Mr. Mead 
has so graphically described—long, bare stems, 
crowned with foliage at top—may be found in 
nature, and are considered objects of beauty and 
grandeur in their proper situations. The forests 
of the tropics abound in their palms, many 
species of which — such as the cocoa-nut, sago, 
and others — correspond with this description, 
and arc admired for their symmetry. The situ¬ 
ation and surrounding scenery or accompani¬ 
ments has much to do with their appearance. 
A. Reed. Mr. Mead is the first individual, 
with any pretensions to taste, I have heard con¬ 
demn well-managed standard roses in proper 
situations. 
» < J. Suttle. For my part, I have seen stand¬ 
ards of all heights budded, from three inches to 
nine feet; and I am of opinion that a properly- 
worked rose on a good stock, such as I have 
seen used, is as beautiful an object as I would 
wish to see. Plants of the garden roses will 
not 'furnish one-half the bloom, nor will the 
blooms be so perfect on their own roots, as if 
budded. I have seen specimens of the Boula 
de Nanteuil with two hundred blooms on each 
head. Youland d’Arragon, La Reine, Jacques 
Lafitte, and several others of that class make 
splendid objects under ordinary garden treat¬ 
ment ; planted in a border with good soil, and 
surrounded by other plants; indeed, they can¬ 
not be grown to such perfection in any other 
way. Tea roses are not as well adapted to this 
treatment as Bourbons or Hybrid Perpetuals. 
In all cases a right proportion should be ob¬ 
served in the choice of stocks, so as to suit the 
purpose for which the plant is required; for in¬ 
stance, for a border or shrubbery tall standards 
are quite appropriate, as they show their heads 
of flowers above the small shrubs around them. 
As a general rule there are more plants budded 
■it three feet than six, and from two feet six 
inches to three feet six is the average height. In 
England and France standards are in great de¬ 
mand. They are well adapted for lawns and 
grass plats, as they afford facilities for keeping 
the grass neat. Cuttings taken off at a proper 
season, however, always make the best plants 
for general purposes. With regard to the best 
stocks for budding, I prefer the common Dog- 
rose (Rosa canina ) The Provence rose spoken 
of* is the worst ever chosen, as the bark is quite 
hard. I have seen a plant of the Adelaide Moss 
bear ten flowers on the Dog rose for one on the 
Provence. 
P. B. Mead. I know there is great diversity 
of opinion among professional gardeners on this 
subject of budding ; when budded low I do not 
object to standards entirely ; there is no neces¬ 
sity, however, for having them so high; two feet 
is quite enough, and much better than five or 
six. There is something more to be desired 
than mere bloom, a well-proportioned bush is 
desirable, and is beautiful in itself without any 
bloom. ’ Something is wanted to cover the naked 
stalk, for a bare pole supporting a large head is 
unsightly. 
J. Suttle. I admit that four inches from the 
ground will produce as profuse bloom as six feet, 
and that there is no necessity for working them 
so high. But it is to be supposed that the gar¬ 
dener will perform the operations withjudgment 
and not as I have seen it done here ; dig a hole, 
put in the plant, set his foot upon it and it is 
planted, while it was actually resting on ferru¬ 
ginous, or iron gravel. Yet because a plant in 
such circumstances did not flourish, standards 
were condemned as unsuited to this country. 
Now, roses require good, rich soil, and a fair 
amount of attention to shade, and some manure 
which successful cultivators always supply. 
P. B. Mead. After all there is not much dif¬ 
ference of opinion between us. 1 still look upon 
the introduction of standards as a morbid at¬ 
tempt to convert a rose into a tree instead of 
a bush. It is properly speaking a bush, and 
any attempt to alter its character grates on my 
feelings. 
R. R. Sc.ott. The subject of proper stocks is 
a very important one, and has not been suffi¬ 
ciently discussed. There are several commer¬ 
cial growers here, who have had much experi¬ 
ence in that department, and could furnish some 
valuable information. 
J. E. Rauch. Budding is largely adopted by 
commercial growers, as they find it necessary to 
avail themselves of all methods to increase their 
stocks. Budding has fallen into disrepute with 
.aaggBBB^ ^ aEB^gaajaassBE„ . 
many for want of proper care, and proper select¬ 
ion of stocks. I agree with Mr. Suttle, and 
others, that the Provence is the worst that can 
be used; I never could keep roses when worked 
upon it any length of time. The Maiden’s Blush 
has also been used for stocks, but in late years 
a newly introduced rose, called Manetti, is con¬ 
sidered the best. Its advantages are its hardi¬ 
ness, it will grow on the poorest soil, and is 
easily raised from cuttings; it does not readily 
die out, and roses will succeed on it which can¬ 
not be kept alive if budded on the Eglantine or 
Dog rose stock. Generally speaking, I prefer 
roses on their own roots. Layering is a very ad¬ 
vantageous practice with hardy garden roses. 
Bourbon China, or Tea varieties, should be pro¬ 
pagated by cuttings of the young wood. 
P. B. Mead. I would refer to one topic—the 
formation of a rose arbor which is sometimes 
desired in country places. This may be ob¬ 
tained by procuring some robust running rose, 
and bending the shoots into the ground—leaving- 
four or five inches above; these will root readily, 
and grow twenty or thirty feet in one season. 
Ciiair. —The next topic is Soil and Manures. 
P. B. Mead. The best soil for roses is a 
sandy loam, rather leaning to sand than clay. 
I prefer it more sandy because it is warmer. 
Such soil, for example, as prevails on Long Is¬ 
land, or in Westchester County. Land that will 
produce a close, thick crop of blue grass, will 
grow roses well. If too wet I would underdrain 
it. This keeps the soil warm, and has a good 
effect in preserving tender roses through the 
winter. 1 have proved that Hermosa, and De- 
voniensis, and other tea roses, will stand the 
winter, and retain their bloom longer in Brook¬ 
lyn, where the soil is moderately sandy, than 
they will do in clayey soils such as that in 
the vicinity of Hoboken. On clay soils, espe¬ 
cially if too wet, the effects of drouth are always 
more perceptible than on sandy loam. A moist 
atmosphere is very suitable for roses, more so 
than a dry one. If the soil were too sandy, I 
would apply some alluvial matter which retains 
moisture, and collects ammonia. For manure I 
would choose hot-bed dung, which had been 
used during the winter, applying it in the 
spring; it is better used in a long state, but 
where neatness is desired, short manure is pre¬ 
ferable. In some instances a little manure 
would be required in the fall, when liquid could 
be used. I hope members who have experience 
in soils and manures, will say something further 
on the subject. David Scott is at home among 
soils, and we should like to hear him. 
David Scott. I agree with Mr. Mead that 
the rose will do better in dry soils in a dry sum¬ 
mer. His explanation of the cause of this I 
did not fully comprehend. 
P. B. Mead. When the atmosphere is dry, 
an undue evaporation takes place from the 
leaves of the plant and robs it of its energy, 
making it weak and sickly, and there is not a 
sufficient supply to support it. 
A. Reed. 1 have been fully satisfied with the 
correctness of the theory that underdraining 
benefits dry soils by supplying moisture to the 
roots of plants, but am not very clear as to how 
this takes place. I understand that the drains 
retain the moisture, and prevent it from passing 
off so rapidly, and also admit a free circulation 
of air. I would be glad to hear this explained 
satisfactorily. 
R. R. Scott. The theory upon which the 
practice of under-draining is founded, and which 
offers advantages to very dry as well as too wet 
soils, is well known. When there is a super¬ 
abundance of water in the soil it rises to the 
surface, and by its evaporation exhausts the 
sun’s heat, which is necessary to the growth of 
the plant. This evaporation on clay lands pro¬ 
duces baking of the surface during the dry sea¬ 
son, which is much greater of course where the 
sub-soil is wet; by under-draining, air is freely 
admit ted as the water escapes, and the advan¬ 
tage of a free circulation of air is well known. 
The benefits that arise from draining in the pre¬ 
servation of plants during winter, are still more 
