October 23, 1890. J 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
861 
before it starts into growth as freely as before the transplantation. 
This is seen in all transplanted trees, whether evergreen or deciduous, 
ornamental, forest, or fruit trees—the older they are and less frequently 
transplanted the longer time takes to recuperate. Standard Apple and 
other fruit trees have bad roots compared with those on dwarfing 
stocks, and because a tree has few roots many branches will enable it to 
recuperate is to me one of those things that “ no fellow can understand.” 
If I plant a standard Apple tree with good roots and leave it unpruned 
it will make some wood growth besides forming fruit buds in the first 
year, and in the second it will blossom, affording some fruit, if a free 
bearer much ; if a shy or non-early bearer little or none, and on the 
abundance or otherwise of the crop depends the wood growth. When I 
plant a Cherry against a wall and do not shorten its shoots at planting 
or soon afterwards it forms blossom buds or spurs at almost every joint, 
including the terminal, and gives a plentiful crop of Cherries the 
following year. A Plum, Apricot, Peach, or Nectarine behaves in a 
different way, making growth as well as forming fruit buds ; but a Pear 
is just as liable to get stunted as an Apple or a Cherry. Unpruned they 
go at once to fruit in the free early bearing varieties, and become “ mop¬ 
sized,” practically useless. Mr. Bunyard is quite right in that, but 
labours at a disadvantage in writing for farmers. If they plant a tree 
it is in a hole on grass ; if it bear in the second year they let it, and kill 
’the goose that lays the golden eggs. Mr. Bunyard bravely puts an end 
to all that. Cut away the fruit for three years at least, and give the 
grower a tree that he cannot well spoil ; but then our author advises 
the non-pruning at planting for all standard trees. “ Plums, from the 
nature of their roots, may be pruned the first year of planting.” This 
is a philosophy that I can make nothing of, for if a tree has abundance 
■of fibres it will feel the effects of lifting less than a tree will with poor 
roots. Trees with few roots and long shoots left unpruned are much in 
the same condition as Raspberry canes left their whole length at plant- 
ing—evaporating their lives away instead of pushing fresh canes. 
Valuable hints on pruning old and neglected trees follow, spurs not 
being forgotten. Chapters are devoted to Apples, Plums, Pears, 
Cherries, Walnuts, and Chestnuts (the “t” being left out), bush fruits, 
Kent Cob Nuts and Filberts, Strawberries, Rhubarb, extra fruits, 
packing, &c. Altogether a handy volume, full of information pertain¬ 
ing to hardy fruit culture, and though written evidently in the 
“ farming” interest most of the teaching is of general application. We 
are told what to avoid as well as what to do to insure a profitable return 
on investments in fruit cultivation. 
Though personally unknown to me, I take this opportunity of 
expressing my thanks to the author for his practical work. — 
Cl. Abbey. 
We are to have a new Rose, Jeannie Dickson, this season ; next year 
we are promised Margaret Dickson. Let me beseech the grower to be 
merciful, and not confuse our weak minds with all the members of the 
family. Which of us has not been inclined to use strong language about 
the numerous “Verdiers,” “ Margottins,” and “ Duchers,” &c., who 
have been immortalised by good, bad, and indifferent Roses 1 — 
Duckwing. 
Local Rose Exhibitions and the Amateur Class. 
May I venture to offer a few remarks in answer to the letter of your 
correspondent, “ An Exhibitor,” in reference to the above-named sub¬ 
ject ? In the first place, he complains of indefiniteness respecting the 
word “amateur.” Surely it is clearly enough defined by the National 
Rose Society’s rule—viz., “ That no person be allowed to compete as an 
amateur who sells Rose plants or Rose blooms.” This explanation of 
the word has, I fancy, been considered sufficiently definite by the 
majority of exhibitors. He next states that “ there are gentlemen who 
grow and cultivate 2 or 3 acres of Roses,” which means that there are 
exhibitors who grow between 16,000 to 24,000 plants ! this calculation 
being based on the fact that 2000 odd trees can be easily grown in a 
quarter of an acre. I have visited most of the amateur exhibitors’ 
gardens, and I am nearly certain that there is not one who grows more 
than 7000 odd trees (Teas and H.P.’s included), if so many. Your 
correspondent next complains of the unfairness of these leviathans 
showing against the smaller fry. But has it ever occurred when there 
are large classes available 1 If so, the exhibitor ought to be ashamed 
of himself for stooping so low. 
If your correspondent would look at the schedules of the various 
Rose societies, he would see that the classes are so arranged to avoid 
this colliding of “ whales and minnows.” And as to the question of 
employing labour in amateur Rose growing, I do not think for one there 
is very much in it, for it does not at all follow that because owing to 
the size of his collection an exhibitor is obliged to employ three or four 
men, or more, he therefore grows better Roses than one who perhaps 
has only one man. To my mind one can grow too many Roses. The 
consequence is the trees do not and cannot receive that personal super¬ 
vision which a more reasonable collection obtains, therefore I do not 
think your correspondent need be alarmed. If he grows a moderate 
collection of between 1000 and 2000 trees, and attends to them closely, 
he will find himself able to more than hold his own against amateurs, 
and very often nurserymen too, especially in Teas.—F. R. B. 
I AM surprised at the letter of “An Exhibitor,” alike at his premisses, 
his deductions, and his conclusions. His first complaint (and it is a 
very old and vexed one in every society or association) is that the word 
“amateur” is not sufficiently defined, that “at present there seems to 
be no limit.” The definition as given by the National Rose Society is, 
“ No person shall be allowed to compete as an amateur who sells Rose 
plants or Rose blooms, nor any person in the employ of a nurseryman.” 
“ An Exhibitor ” may not see at first how this definition hinders an 
amateur from growing as many Roses as he likes, but I think he would 
soon find out if he attempted “ 2 or 3 acres.” In this extent he would 
probably have quite 4000 or 5000 maiden Roses every year, and what 
is he going to do with these plants or his cutbacks when autumn comes 1 
Is he going deliberately to burn 4000 or 5000 plants ? Giving them 
away would involve a great deal of trouble, and if he only grows enough 
maidens to fill up the blanks among his cutbacks he would find supply 
and demand would not always fit very well, and also that he had not 
nearly enough maidens for show in proportion to his stock. It would be 
a tyrannical interference, in my opinion, to limit a man’s title to be 
called an amateur by the number of Roses he grows. 
The next idea is that “ there are gentlemen who grow and cultivate 
two or three acres of Roses.” I thought I knew a little of most of the 
leading amateurs, but I am not acquainted with these gentlemen. Mr. 
Budd of Bath (who has not, I fear, met with quite his usual success 
this year) told us in the last number of the “ Rosarian’s Year Book ” 
the extent of his Rose garden, “ about an acre,” and the number of 
his Roses, “ between 8000 and 9000, and 1500 Briar stocks,” and this, I 
think (though I do not grow a third of that quantity), would make 
about as many Roses in a given space as could be grown to perfection. 
I should be astonished to hear that anyone now occupying a leading 
position as an amateur grows more Roses than this, and should expect 
to find that the majority, even of those at the top of the tree, have not 
nearly so many. Would it surprise “ An Exhibitor ” to learn that the 
gentleman, who has certainly beaten more nurserymen than anyone else 
in the last six years, grows about 3000 Roses, and has no gardener ? I 
should very much doubt, however, if it is common, as “ An Exhibitor” 
says, for those who cultivate not more than 1000 Roses to do so without 
aid. 
Again, is “ An Exhibitor ” such a novice that he does not know 
that it is not my lord’s gardener, with his eighteen or twenty trained assis¬ 
tants under him, who wins big prizes, or is looked upon at ail as a dreaded 
rival ? Why it is just the man who does do everything himself—helped 
by his sisters or daughters perhaps—who is likely to win the amhteur 
trophy, to beat good nurserymen, or to make three figures in prize 
money. And depend upon it such a one would do it easier with less 
than an acre than he would with three acres of Roses. I have no doubt 
that the man with 1000 Roses ought to be able to show, at his best, as 
good a twenty-four as the man with double or treb’e the amount. 
“ An Exhibitor” asks “ Is it fair for these two amateurs to compete 
in the same class ? ” “ There ought to be a class, especially for large 
growers.” “ Committees of local Rose exhibitions should ponder 
this,” &c. I almost feel inclined to ask him if he has even the schedule 
of a Rose show. I can only think of one show, Manchester, where there 
are not protected classes for amateurs ; that is just what he desires, 
special classes for large growers. At the National Metropolitan Show 
there are no less than seven classes, each entirely protected against all 
the others, and almost every local show that I know of, however small, 
has followed the example. Why should the small grower contend 
against the larger when there are classes especially protected for him 1 
I fail entirely to see that there is any grievance, and think either “ An 
Exhibitor ” must very much have misunderstood matters, or I have very 
much misunderstood him.—W. R. Raillem. 
In reply to the letter of “ Exhibitor ” in the last issue of the Journal 
upon amateur classes at local Rose shows, it would probably be conceded 
that if his facts could be accepted as accurate, he would have some 
ground for his complaint of being swamped by “ gentlemen who grow 
and cultivate two or three acres of Roses.” But this complaint is no 
new thing ; it crops up every few years, and is founded on the fallacy 
that exhibitors in the largest amateur classes grow several acres of 
Roses and keep an army of skilled assistants to cultivate them. There 
may be such growers. There may be such gardens ; and truly they 
would form an Eldorado, a Promised Land of Roses, and it would be 
worth a journey of any distance to see them ; but where do they exist 
except in the lively imagination of “Exhibitor?” Birkenhead and 
Darlington in the north, and Hereford, Bath, and Exeter in the west, 
know them not. In the south Steyning sends her Roses from twenty or 
thirty poles of ground, and beautiful though the gardens of Reigate may 
be, the two or three acres of Roses are wanting both there and at 
Sunningdale. Nor can diligent search discover them at Havering or 
Ipswich in the east, or at Berkhamstead, Bedford, or Hitchin towards 
the midlands. To descend from these ideal visions of many-acre Rose 
gardens to prosaic facts, “Exhibitor” will perhaps recollect that there 
were six competitors in the amateur trophy class at the July Show at 
the Crystal Palace of the National Rose Society, and it seems reasonable 
to presume that some of these two or three-acred growers will be found 
among them ; but speaking from personal knowledge of the gardens of 
