December 21, 1893. ] 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
569 
these erratic particles of vegetable matter to induce them to remain 
quiescent, there can be nothing better or more satisfactory. 
But, unfortunately, both 1 and many others do not live in or near 
sylvan glades, where there are more than enough for everyone of the 
fallen leaves of autumn, so we must adopt some other plan to circumvent 
the machinations of Jack Frost, and, faute de mievx, we must adopt 
what is really the only other effectual mulch, i.e., either earthing up 
or the use of long or short manure. 
I do not think it is absolutely necessary to dig in this mulching 
after its primary use is over, nor do I adopt or advise so violent a 
method with the risk to roots involved therein, but in the spring I 
spread out the manurial covering over a larger surface than that on which 
it has rested in winter, and later on, during the early summer months, 
this mulch gets gradually absorbed and amalgamated with the soil in 
the process of gently hoeing or forking over of the surface. 
I know some advise the complete removal of the winter mulch and 
the use of strong manurial water as a stimulant, but I adopt the plan I 
mention, although I also give artiticial watering and help the Rose 
roots with concentrated manurial stimulants applied to the surface. 
I believe that on the question of watering I am not in agreement 
with “ W. R. Raillem,” but here again I can claim there is good reason on 
my side ; it is an absolute necessity for me to water, as if I did not clean 
my trees by artificial watering the foliage would get clogged and suffer 
from the impurities which are inseparable from the atmosphere of a town 
80 large as Croydon.— Charles J. Grahame, Croydon. 
Having tried “ J. A. W.’s ” (page 539) suggestion of burnt refuse as 
a protection for Teas I can thoroughly endorse all he says, and 1 think 
it is improved if mixed with road scrapings. I adopt three kinds of 
protection in the autumn for established dwarf plants. With the very 
tender sorts I put three or four spadefuls of soil in the centre of the 
plants ; with those of a more robust nature I hoe the bed roughly, and 
gather a few inches of soil round the stem; and with the very hardy 
Teas I hoe the ground, but do not stop here, as over all I place a pro¬ 
tection of long manure. My plan is to put the manure on fairly thick, 
and to occasionally lightly fork the top, and so keep it as dry and sweet 
as possible, the nutriment being washed down by rain and snow to the 
surface of the soil. Then in the spring I take off about two-thirds, and 
fork in the remaining manure lightly. 
“ W. R. Raillem’s” remarks are always valuable, but I think he 
under-estimates the value of manure so applied as instanced in his reply 
(page 540), to “ A Lover of Roses ” on page 510. My experience is that 
a winter top-dressing of manure can and does act both as food and 
protection ; also as the manure is not then too fresh I do not see how it 
can injure the roots, and the slight forking can surely do very little 
harm to the surface roots. In fact experience has convinced me that 
the more the surface is lightly disturbed the more the thread-like 
roots seem to grow and revel in the liquid manure and mulching which 
they receive when the buds are forming. 
Is “ W. R. Raillem” really serious when he advocates a covering of 
leaves ? If so how many feet in thickness should they be put on, as dry 
leaves have a habit of blowing away, and how would he overcome this 
difficulty ? I very much doubt whether leaves would act as a suitable 
protection, as they hold the moisture and tend to make the ground 
sodden and sour when put on in a dry state. I wish my leaves would 
all fall in a fortnight, but having Limes, Chestnuts, Elms, Oaks, Beech, 
and other trees, I think in my case it would be nearer the mark if I sail 
two months.—R. M. D. 
Manuring and Transplanting Roses. 
I HAVE read both of the interesting notes upon pages 510 and 540 
touching on this question. I cannot say that I entirely agree with 
either ; but “ W. R. Raillem’s ” remarks against the use of short 
manure as a winter mulch I can endorse from many years’ experience. 
We all endeavour to avoid surplus moisture at the roots of Roses during 
the winter; why, then, place short manure around the most vital 
portion of our plants ? Few materials will retain the wet more than 
the thoroughly decayed manure so frequently recommended as a mulch, 
and we should bear in mind that frost is doubly injurious when com¬ 
bined with wet; yet many still advocate a saturated substance as a 
winter protection. “ W. R. Raillem ” does well to call attention to the 
little use of forking-in an exhausted dressing during the spring, it 
being of small service except the ground be naturally heavy and with 
the object of lightening it. 
I would also like to know in what way the juices washed into the 
soil by rain can benefit Roses while at rest. We should not think of 
following this plan with pot Roses ; always affording stimulants while 
growth is being made, and the plant is in need of it. Winter manuring 
seems to me a great mistake. In the first place much of the juices are 
absolutely wasted, while all of the benefit derived from the rising 
ammonia is lost. By allowing the air and frost greater action upon the 
soil, and then mulching and forking in the manure carefully during 
spring, I am convinced that the same amount of labour and stimulants 
may be applied to fuller advantage. Wet manure is no protection to 
the base of a Rose. It is not needed excepting during severe weather, 
and at these times the whole body of the manure is frozen. The 
“ long ” or strawy manure is liable to be no more or less than a sodden 
mass in a very fev/ days after application. It also blows away, and 
makes the whole place untidy if dry ; and this at the very time when 
-ts presence is most needed. A quiet frost does little harm compared 
>0 the same W’hen accompanied by keen, frost-laden winds. These 
search the whole wood, and are particularly trying, and they demand 
a great deal of sap from the roots if the wood is to be kept plump. In 
proof of this, note how quickly unestablished plants shrivel during 
their prevalence. My observations have given me the impression that 
severe frosts, with a quiet or still atmosphere, do little harm provided 
the plants surrounding are not wet, This, and the waste already 
pointed out, has caused me to cease mulching with decayed manure 
during the winter. 
A little of the ordinary soil drawn around the base of dwarfs, and 
a few branches of Birch, Spruce, or Gorse fixed in the soil around 
the more tender varieties is far more rational. As “ W. R. Raillem” 
points out, the roots are already protected by the soil, and the wood is 
the chief part to shelter. The amount of wind and frost which a few 
branches will keep off is scarcely credible by those who have not tried 
this plan. They are so easily applied and removed, and they answer 
their purpose when most wanted, not being found yards away, brought 
up by the first impediment to their flight before the very frost-laden 
wind we wished to protect the Roses from. 
I have seen Roses wrapped up with fern and litter as carefully as 
if they were some occupant of the sub-tropical garden ; far more pro¬ 
tected than the same person’s Myrtles and Magnolias. This is unne¬ 
cessary, as well as being harmful. The wild Roses are among our 
hardiest shrubs, and none of our garden varieties need more than the 
severe brunt of a sharp winter turned from them. When over-protected 
the wood cannot be exposed to sharp spring frosts with impunity, while 
if covered too long we get premature growth of no value whatever ; in 
fact, only a severe drain upon the plants. My plan of placing a few 
boughs among them admits air and light freely, while acting as sufificlent 
break to severely keen winds.— Practice. 
Winners with Seventy-two Roses. 
We regret having to trouble you again, but as you will perceive from 
our last letter, we merely wished to correct a mistake on page 494 in 
” D., Deal's,” remarks, where he distinctly states that Messrs. Harkness 
and Sons carried off every first prize for “ seventy-two’s ” in the kingdom. 
Messrs. Harkness, in replying to our letter, state on page 540 that the 
prize offered at Tibshelf was for fifty varieties. Now the wording of the 
schedule is as follows, viz., ‘‘Roses, seventy-two blooms, fifty distinct 
varieties ; ” whilst the wording of the Elland schedule is, v z., ‘‘ Seventy- 
two Roses, twenty-four or more varieties.” We herewith enclose the two 
schedules referred to, and whatever Messrs. Harkness make of it, we 
still maintain and claim these prizes to be two of the ‘‘seventy-two’s” 
in the kingdom, and the Tibshelf ‘‘seventy-two” was the best and 
keenest contested of the season. 
We cannot perceive where Messrs. Harkness’ seven firsts come in in 
competition with us, and we still maintain having sixteen firsts to their 
two. If they had more firsts, then they were in clas es in which we did 
not compete. We trust this will now be sufficient to show that we won 
at least two of the seventy-two’s in the kingdom, and the only two for 
which we competed.— James Cocker & Sons. 
[Our correspondents have quoted correctly from the Tibshelf and 
Elland schedules referred to. We have returned them to Aberdeen.] 
Hybrid Teas. 
The report of the Committee of the National Rose Society says of 
the new catalogue that it appears to have been much appreciated, and 
that several foreign trade growers have already followed the Society’s 
lead in introducing into their own catalogues a separate section for 
Hybrid Teas upon similar lines to that adopted in the Society’s catalogue. 
As a member of the Catalogue Sub-Committee I might be reasonably 
supposed to be in thorough accord with the new classification adopted, 
or at all events to have nothing to say against it; but, unfortunately, I 
do not think the arrangement satisfactory. I said at first I did not 
think I could attend the meetings of the Catalogue Committee ; and, in 
fact, I was not present at any of them. Undoubtedly I was in fault, in 
that I ought to have declined altogether, or resigned later. Mr. Mawley 
was also so extremely courteous as to send me a proof of the matters 
decided on, so that I could give my opinions, and they were, I am told, 
duly laid before the Committee. Under these circumstances I am either 
an outsider who has a right to criticise, or in the position of a judge who 
is in a minority on the Bench, and who in such cases has the right of 
stating his own opinion, wherein he differs from his colleagues. I have 
also the assent of the Secretaries of the N.R.S. to my stating my views 
on the matter, it being understood that I wish to be quite loyal to the 
decision of the majority, and to be fair and accurate in every way. 
I think the catalogue is, and always has been, open to criticism on other 
points, but I will confine myself here to the classification question. The 
Committee seem to have made a change on an opposite principle to that 
which prevails in another part of the catalogue. On the one hand they 
retain the placing together of Teas and Noisettes in one class, and on the 
other they separate Hybrid Perpetuals and Hybrid Teas into two. This 
seems to me inconsis ent, and acting without principle. 
It appears to me to be impossible to classify by drawing lines of 
demarcation without definitions. What is a Hybrid Perpetual, a Hybrid 
Tea, a Tea, or a Noisette ? At least, as H.T.’s are now set up in a 
separate division, it maybe asked. What is a Hybrid Tea? Is it the 
first cross only between a true Tea and a Hybrid Perpetual ? If so, 
can it be proved that La France and Captain Christy are such first 
crosses? or is it any cross? If so, why are not Margaret Dickson 
(which through Lady Mary Fitzwilliam is a quarter Tea), Her Majesty 
(which is even said to be a first cross), and others, classified as Hybrid 
