July 27, 1893. ] 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
73 
to appear to make these even more prominent than the legitimate 
subjects of his communications. That is the Society paper style. Some 
persons enjoy public familiarities, others do not. It is not long since I 
had the pleasure of a handshake with the genial President of the 
National Rose Society, and I have had many such pleasures over a 
long series of years, but I should shrink from publicly proclaiming 
anything like “ intimate personal friendship ” on the ground of such 
acquaintance. The same remarks apply to Mr. William Paul. I hold 
both these gentlemen, and notabilities of the Rose world, in great 
respect; but why should I tell it from the housetops to a circle of 
readers who care nothing about my connections ? I could not do it 
except under the shelter of a nom de plume, and that is not doing it at 
all in the sense to which the reference applies. 
A word about these terrible noms de plume and the heinousness of 
“ anonymity.” Permit me to say I think there is a great deal of cant 
written on this subject. All the best leading articles in the world are 
unacknowledged by the writers of them. Would Mr. Williamson or his 
supporter denounce a limes leader that praised them or their work 
because the writer, whom we will call John Smith, did not append his 
name to it ? Does your correspondent first alluded to (I try to avoid 
introducing his name needlessly) object to the letter of “ Audi Alteram 
Partem,” and think it should have had a place “ elsewhere,” because 
the writer prefers to withhold his name ? the same writer, be it noted, 
applauding the “ courage ” of the gentleman he defends, but whose 
example he does not follow. 
Again, let me ask why did the courageous writer, who is so fond of 
introducing names, withhold the particular name of the great rosarian 
who praised an article so highly for its *• literary merit and marvellous 
accuracy?” It seems even Mr. Williamson can suppress a name when 
it answers his purpose, though, considering his proclivities, he might be 
supposed to be the last man to do so. 
I am sorry he has introduced this subject, but having done so the 
rejoinder is imperative. Please let it be understood that I do not wish 
for your correspondent to disclose the names of either of his two 
admirers whom he conceals. He is quite justified in doing so, and there 
are plenty of names without them. Critics should do all they can to be 
consistent, and writers on Roses or anything else treat the subjects 
fairly on their merits and not make them vehicles for scattering compli¬ 
ments in prodigal profusion on friends and acquaintances ; or, may I add, 
for speaking scornfully of the work of others, as for example the N.R.S. 
catalogue. Give credit where credit is due for good work well done by 
all means, but do not overdo it, or in the estimation of many it will 
degenerate into mere laudation of no value to anyone. Mr. Williamson 
evidently has the pen of a ready writer and is apparently sympathetic. 
Let him steel himself against his tendency to flatter individuals, and let 
his pen be guided more by his head, less by his heart, and he will shine the 
more in horticultural journalism. I may not live to see, yet I suspect the 
time will come when he will acknowledge that someone has done him 
a service in this discussion, though at the present moment he cannot be 
expected to admit that his friend is—A Jubilee Rose-geower. 
N.R.S. Worksop Show, 
Let me first congratulate your representative on the admirable 
report he has written on this Show, and also on the very keen discrimi¬ 
nation he has generally given evidence of in that report. Although I 
do not agree with every item of his account, yet I do with the greater 
part of it, as being far above the average in appreciation of merit in 
Roses. 
My reason for writing this letter is in consequence of his remarks 
on the thirty-six trebles of the large trade growers. He says, “ Both 
were splendid stands. Messrs. Dickson had the cleanest flowers and the 
most variety, but Messrs. Harkness had the heaviest blooms.” Of course 
he may mean variety of colour by “ most variety,” but there must be 
and only be thirty-six varieties in this class, so that the expression 
“ most variety ” hardly correctly applies ; but when he goes on further 
to state that Messrs. Harkness had the heaviest blooms as contrasted 
with the freshness of those of Messrs. Dickson he brings me to the 
subject of this letter. 
There has been grave dissatisfaction on many occasions this year, 
and I have myself, although fairly successful at all the shows I sent 
flowers to, been a sufferer by this very method of judging Roses by 
weight as opposed to freshness. It is an utterly incorrect system, and 
one which I regret to say the professional element of the N.R.S. are 
more prone to give attention to than amateurs, although some of the 
N.R.S. amateur authorities sin also. It is time that attention should be 
drawn to this question, and that some discussion took place in some 
leading horticultural paper. I dislike judging with people who ignore 
the Rose ” in the most perfect phase of its possible beauty ” (N.R.S. 
definition of a good Rose), and surely freshness is an absolute necessity 
for this desideratum, and not mere size. See also N.R.S. rules for 
points—“ Where flowers are of equal merit judges shall consider arrange¬ 
ment, freshness,” &c. ; and this, 1 state, some judges ignore ! I am not 
averse to saying in public that although my vote may be outweighed by 
the majority (when there are three), I always have and shall give 
preference to the exhibits that are staged fresh to those that are merely 
large, this being the true reading of our rules, and the method that 
should be carried out at shows under N.R.S. rules. I would like to 
emphasise the fact, however, that all Messrs. Harkness’. flowers were 
fresh, and that consequently in the instance which has called forth 
these remarks the question of freshness versus size did not apply. Both 
boxes were beautiful, and throughout their exhibits at Worksop the 
same may be said of Messrs. Harkness’ and Messrs. Dicksons’ flowers. 
—Charles J. Grahame, Croydon. 
The Feagrakce of Roses. 
It was the immortal Shakespeare who said, in the most romantic of 
all his dramas—“Romeo and Juliet”—“A Rose by any other name 
would smell as sweet.” Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that certain 
names of Roses, such, for example, as La France and Marie Baumann, 
are suggestive of fragrance, while others are not. And doubtless the 
want of fragrance in a flower, however imposing in appearance, is a 
serious limitation, almost as regrettable as the lack of moral sweetness 
in a beautiful woman. Some Roses indeed are so very impressive, so 
commanding in their size and substance and splendour of complexion, 
that we almost forget their utter ignorance of odour in the contempla¬ 
tion of their almost imperial majesty, and among these we may reckon 
Baroness Rothschild (“ who would be white if she were not always 
blushing, as if in the consciousness of her beauty,” says the Dean of 
Rochester), the White Baron.;ss, and Merveille de Lyon. The two 
beautiful Roses last named are closely affiliated to the first, and, unless 
in colour, partake of the parental qualities and characteristics, a fact 
which may be learned by any rosarian without reference to the cata¬ 
logues, by comparing their nature and manner of development. 
In my own garden, where for the sake of their colour not less than 
their fragrance, the fairest flowers are partially shaded from the oft-times 
too exacting sun, Roses are arranged according to their parentage; an 
interesting experiment, and a valuable one also, as I have already 
learned from experience, for the study of their attributes. There White 
Lady, which I have frequently eulogised for its exquisite perfume, finds 
itself in close proximity to Lady Mary Fitzwilliam ; while Margaret 
Dickson, the most superb and majestic of ivory-white Roses, is not far 
distant from Merveille de Lyon, though considerably nearer to the 
prolific Lady Mary, from whom her fragrance is derived. On the same 
principle, Augustine Guinoisseau, one of the most fragrant of modern 
Roses, blooms sweetly beside the silvery pink La France. The colour of 
the former is white, delicately and most gracefully suffused with rose. 
It is a very abundant bloomer, and its pendulous habit is a valuable 
characteristic, constantly giving it the appearance of being much fuller 
and more perfect than it is. Though I do not profess to be a great 
authority on Rose eultivation, I do not hesitate to recommend this 
“ almost white La France ” to those of my readers to whom it is a 
stranger by reason of the qualities to which I have referred. 
Among Teas and Noisettes two of the most attractive are L’Ideale 
and Souvenir de S. A. Prince. Mrs. Paul, a gold medallist of the 
National Rose Society, and probably the finest of modern Bourbons, has 
a most delicious fragrance, much resembling that of the old Monthly 
Rose; it is also remarkable for form and substance, and is altogether a 
distinct and splendid acquisition. Among other comparatively recent 
productions which I fin 1 irresistibly fascinating by reason of their 
sweetness of odour and aspect are Mr. Paul’s Corinna and Salamander, 
Mr. Cant’s Prince Arthur, the beautiful Aberdonian Duchess of Fife, 
Lady Ethel Brownlow, Mr. Cranston’s Crimson Bedder, and the late 
Mr. Bennet’s Mrs. John Laing. There is unquestionably at present a 
strong and growing aversion to inodorous Roses, and I doubt not that 
ere long a Rose without fragrance will be accounted an anomaly.— 
David R. Williamson. 
Old Roses at Kirkconnell, Dumfries, N.B. 
There are many interesting plants in Mrs. Maxwell-Witham’s 
garden at Kirkconnell, and on a recent visit there I noticed the 
beauty of the great bushes of the old Roses which have been in the 
garden for many years. They are mostly in great masses, which have 
been for long unmutilated and allowed ample room. It is in masses 
such as these that the old Roses are seen to most advantage, and one is 
led to wonder if our newer flowers such as Her Majesty will ever lend 
themselves to such grand effects as are produced by the older sorts. 
The old Maiden’s Blush—a mass of bloom—is about 6 feet high. 
One known as Carmine Rose grows about 8 feet. A white one called 
8t. Margaret’s Rose, which always flowers about June 10th (St. Mar¬ 
garet’s Day), is very fine. Swiss Boy is also very pretty. One which 
is said to be exceedingly rare is known as “ Kirkconnell Favourite,” 
and one bush was measured 5 feet high and 16 feet through—a mass 
of beautiful pink flowers. The York and Lancaster is also growing 
luxuriantly. The Scotch Roses—yellow, marbled, blush, white, and 
dark pink—also form magnificent clumps, which are very beautiful 
in their season. Rose Celeste and Maiden’s Blush are great favourites, 
the former being deliciously fragrant. The little Cinnamon Rose, 
growing in a hedge, is also much esteemed for its fragrance. A beautiful 
white spicy-scented Rose called “ Plum Cake ” is also in the garden, 
while the white Provence Rose also does well. The front of the house 
is covered with a fine tree of Dundee Rambler, planted nearly sixty 
years ago, which covers the house with a mass of beautiful flowers. 
Some rare single Rosea are grown outside the garden, and the old 
Crimson Velvet Rose flourishes, while the Ayrshire Roses climb luxuriantly 
in suitable positions. 
Roses of the most recent introduction, such as the beautiful Gustave 
Piganeau are likewisj appreciated at Kirkconnell, but after all these 
great masses of garden Roses from their beauty and associations must 
always remain a feature of the greatest interest in such fine old gardens 
as this.—S. Arnott. 
