Novembgr 27, 1890.] 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
468 
better unplunged, but all can be provided ready, and the plants 
•placed close to where they will be wintered. When plunging takes 
'place the plants must be placed close together, and in their present 
•stage they are better standing sufficiently far apart, so that air can 
have free access to them. 
Much feeding during the spring will be saved by top-dressing 
the plants before they are introduced into the forcing house, or in 
the case of Jate batches before they begin to grow. For this pur¬ 
pose fibry loam should be broken up moderately fine, and mixed 
with equal quantities of cow manure. Failing to obtain the latter, 
fresh horse droppings rubbed through a half-inch sieve will answer 
the same purpose. One 10-inch potful of soot may be added to 
each barrowful of the compost. Wood ashes may be used in place 
of the soot where the latter cannot be obtained good, or equal 
quantities of both may with advantage be used. If the loam is 
deficient in lime a 5-inch potful to each barrowful may be incor¬ 
porated as the work of top-dressing proceeds.— Wm. Bardney. 
In brief answer to “ J. B.,” I would say first of all that I am sure 1 
for one would not laugh at his planting a choice Rose by candlelight, 
but should heartily admire his enthusiasm. At the same time I would 
suggest that it would have been better to have “ laid it in ” by candle¬ 
light, and to have waited, even three months if necessary, for a spare 
quarter of an hour of daylight, in which to plant it at less disadvantage. 
Again, I think he is mistaken in thinking that “ a man of means can 
leave his Tea Roses unprotected from frost till the last moment as it 
were.” I should expect to find such a one caught unawares, and for 
myself, if I had help, I should cover them up earlier than I do. With 
regard to his main contention, I still think there is no grievance. As 
was well stated a year or two ago in the Journal by a leading amateur 
in response to a similar complaint, it is “ pluck, not protection,” that is 
wanted. “ An Exhibitor” and “ J. B.” should bring their views before 
the annual meeting of the N.R.S., and I think they will find no disp~>si- 
tion to stifle discussion or to neglect the prospects of small growers ; but 
they should be prepared to propose something definite themselves. 
The suggestion of “ An Exhibitor,” if I rightly understood him, was 
that there should be a general numbering of plants among amateurs, 
and that we should show in classes according to our returns. When I 
stated in answer to this that victory did not by any means necessarily 
rest with big battalions, and added a private opinion that a man with 
1000 Roses might at his best show as good a twenty-four as the man 
with 2000, I was told “ any schoolboy ” could refute such reasoning. 
It was not meant as reasoning, and still less as arithmetic ; but if he 
could see the statistics of the National Shows he would find that it has 
not seldom been proved. I did not answer at once, as I gave “ An 
Exhibitor ” considerable credit for standing to his guns in response to 
an unexpectedly heavy volley, and he admitted he had been mistaken 
a3 to the 3-acre business. 
But even “ J. B.” does not uphold “ An Exhibitor ” in his proposal. 
It is not the number of plants grown, but the number of men employed 
that he objects to ; but, although no doubt “ D., Deal,'' was right in the 
exceptional case that he recorded because it was exceptional, 1 have no 
hesitation in saying that among leading amateurs “six men” are even 
more visionary than “ 3 acres.” Apparently his suggestion is for classes 
for amateurs “employing no regular gardener;” and although he is 
quite wrong in placing me “ in the very front rank of exhibitors,” this 
protection would not shut me out, and neither would it exclude, unless 
I am much mistaken, two or three at least to whom this position could 
not be denied. No, I am wrong ; he does not like the usual formula 
“ not employing a regular gardener,” but apparently wants protection 
for those who cannot afford even occasional help. I do not quite see 
how this is to be managed ; he should formulate his requirements. A 
class “for those who allow no one else to touch their Roses or Rose 
beds ” might not be satisfactory, and “ for those who do not pay 
income tax ” might be invidious. 
It is true that a business man who cannot give daylight to his Roses 
when necessary is very seriously handicapped in show competitions ; but 
I fear a class “ for those who can only attend to their Roses by candle¬ 
light ” would not answer. 
Seriously, I would heartily support any proposition that would 
encourage such true amateurs and take away any real grievance, but I 
think that limitations as to space, plants, and men would not be 
successful.—W. R. Raillem. 
Local Rose Exhibitions and the Amateur Class. 
I must confess I feel highly gratified to think that there are others 
besides myself who feel the smart of so great a monopoly at our Rose 
shows. Remembering it is by discussion that knowledge is gained and 
grievances redressed. It cannot be denied that the schedules of the 
National and many of the provincial and affiliated societies as at present 
constituted are a monopoly, inasmuch as there is every facility and 
encouragement provided for the larger growers, but none for the smaller. 
I venture to quote a passage from the “ Rosarian’s Year Book,” 1890, 
at page 16, commencing at line 16, by the Rev. H. T. Frere, who says 
we want more Rose growers and exhibitors, as they are the feeders of 
the National, and the young ones are either timid or wanting in energy, 
and adds : “ We ring changes of the prize list on too small a peal year 
after year. A, B, C, D, &c., never an E or F.” I must say I thoroughly 
endorse his sentiments, but what chance is there for any small grower 
to exhibit at any of the large shows as matters stand now ? Is there 
any wonder at timidity, or even lack of energy, seeing that the schedules 
are framed in such a manner as to obstruct the smaller growers ? What 
inducement or encouragement is there ? None. 
I think it is quite time that the peal of changes were extended. 
Why should not the Committee of the National uphold its dignity 
worthy of the title it now holds, by making it thoroughly national, 
setting a good example, and preventing any infringement in the classes? 
But so long as the smaller growers are open to such ungenerous treat¬ 
ment, how can they expect the young exhibitor to join their ranks with 
any degree of success ? Let the Committee make fair distinctions between 
the classes of growers, giving each according to his class a chance of 
honourable merit, perchance realising his ambition to win a prize. I 
think it would be the means of putting an end to a grievance of long 
standing, and induce more persons to join the Society. The influx 
would be greater at the turnstiles, more friends of the exhibitors, 
besides an increased following of the general public ? Taking all this 
into consideration the affair would undoubtedly be more remunerative, 
decidedly more national, and give greater satisfaction and more 
encouragement to the young and rising exhibitor, stimulating him to 
greater exertions, knowing that he is honourably handicapped, and 
justice and fair play meted out to him.— An Exhibitor. 
IN MEMORIAM. 
The late Mr. Shirley Hibberd. 
We shall all be the poorer for the loss of this genial friend and 
gifted comrade in the gentle art. Leaving to others to estimate or 
measure up if they can his distinguished services to horticulture, I 
would pay grateful tribute to his social and philanthropic labours on 
behalf of gardeners. To see, hear, and converse with Shirley Hibberd 
was like a draught of cold water to many hungry, thirsty, provincial 
gardeners. He had also in a special degree the rare merit of clothing 
the dry bones of horticultural theory and practice with an alluring light 
and a cultured sweetness that won and kept for him a wide circle of 
readers ani hearers to the last. Peace be to his memory, and may his 
words and deeds live after him in a race of young botanists, gardeners, 
and writers, whose works shall show that they have sat at the feet and 
learned of Shirley Hibberd.—D. T. Fish. 
Our late good friend and fellow worker in a common cause has 
left a blank that can never be filled in his own unique way. Only 
one Shirley Hibberd can be produced in a generation. He was a 
man of generous impulse and vivid imagination. I sat by his side at 
the Strawberry Conference, where we both read papers in the miserable 
Si. Stephen’s Hall of the Royal Aquarium last July. When Mr. Hibberd 
stood up to read his paper I felt the draught from the open window at 
the back, and observed its effect on his hair. Very quietly, but imme¬ 
diately, I had the window closed. After reading for about half an hour 
he sat down, placed his hand behind his head, and in tones of the deepest 
concern whispered to me, “The draught has been terrible. All the 
time it has been cutting my head off, and my neck is like ice. I must 
take a severe cold.” I assured him the draught did not reach him for 
more than one minute, as the moment he stood up I had the window closed. 
“ Very well, then,” was his emphatic response ; “ if that is so I shall not 
take cold. It is all imagination. A wonderful thing is imagination; 
I don’t know how I should live without it. I thought my neck was as 
cold as ice, when all the time it was as warm as toast. Thank God I" 
shall not take cold, so that matter’s settled.” Nor did he. I should 
like to say more about him, but the shows of the “ golden flower ” he 
loved, and which was the theme of his last public discourse, block the 
way.—J. Wright. _ 
The remains of Mr. Shirley Hibberd were interred in the Abney 
Park Cemetery on Saturday last, in the presence of about 200 of his 
friends and admirers. He had no relatives, except his bright little 
motherless daughter “ Nellie,” about five years old, who has for some 
time been under the loving care of Mrs. A. F. Barron, and we are 
glad to hear her future is provided for. Mr. Hibberd’s coffia was 
covered in wreaths and floral offerings from Mr. and Mrs. Barron, Mr. 
E. Charlton, Messrs. Cannell & Sons, Mrs. Fitch, Mr. and Mrs. 
Knighton, Mrs. Charles Turner and family, Mrs. Dixon, Mr. G. 
Bunyard, B. S. Williams & Son, Mr. and Mrs. G. Gordon, Messrs. W. H. 
and L. Collingridge, Mr. G. Stanton (Ivy), Mr. James Crute, Mr. and 
Mrs. Jackson, Dr. Hogg, Messrs. Sutton &c Song, the United Horticul¬ 
tural Provident and Benefit Society (an anchor), Miss Roberts, Mr. and 
Mrs. Mitchell, and there was a basket of flowers from his child. 
Among those present in the cemetery we noticed Rev. W. Wilks, 
the representative of the Royal Horticultural Society ; Dr. Maxwell T. 
Masters, Mr. II. J. Veitcb, Mr. and Mrs. BarroD, Mr. G. Gordon (Mr. 
Hibberd’s able assistant for more than twenty years), also Messrs. Jv 
