O.to’ fr 5, 1893. ] 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
803 
T he Exhibition of the National Rose Society, held at the Crystal 
Palace on the Ist of July last, as regards both the number 
and quality of the flowers staged fell far short of what we expect 
to see at “ the National.” In fact, we liive to go back nine years 
in order to find so small a display of Rose blooms. This year’s 
display has been likened to that of 1879, when instead of the 
season being a singularly dry, hot, and early one it was nearly 
as abnormally cold, wet, and backward. On that occasion, how¬ 
ever, instead of 4660 Hybrid Perpetual and Tea and Noisette 
Roses being staged, as was the case in 1893, there were then 
only 1880, or less than half the number. It was also in other 
respects much inferior, so that exhibitors as well as visitors will see 
what they have to expect should our fickle climate treat us to a 
Rose season as unprecedentedly late as that of 1893 was forward. 
It is the proud boast of the National Rose Society that on 
whatever date their metropolitan exhibition be held, or whatever 
the character of the season, they never fail to attract to their 
leading show the cream of all the Roses throughout the country 
which happen at that particular period to be in flower. This 
year our English rosarians have had to contend against conditions 
of weather, at all events as regards heat, dryness, and continued 
sunshine, without precedent during the seventeen years that the 
Society has been established ; and taking all three adverse con¬ 
ditions together, as far as I can gather unequalled during the 
present century. So that regarded from another and I think a 
more reasonable standpoint their Crystal Palace Show of 1893 
must be looked upon as having been a highly creditable one 
considering the very exceptional character of the spring and 
summer. The only wonder to me is that anyone could expect 
to see anything like an average exhibition after such a long and 
trying spell of drought and heat and in such a remarkably forward 
year. In fact, the calendar had become so utterly deranged that 
throughout the Rose season instead of May we had to read June ; 
instead of June, July ; and instead of July, August. 
Notwithstanding all these drawbacks there were to be seen 
scattered hero and there throughout the Show a fair sprinkling 
of choice blooms — blooms sufiiciently fine to satisfy even the 
most exacting of critics, and which any ardent Rose lover would 
travel many miles to feast his eyes upon. And this is an 
advantage “ the National ” possesses over all other Rose shows in 
that, drawing its supply of Roses from a much more extended 
area, there are sure to be certain favoured localities from which 
choice specimens may always be expected. In fact, there was 
even in the poor and scanty display of 1879 one grand bloom of 
Niphetos which, if my memory serves me rightly, I have never 
since seen equalled. At all events, such an impression did this 
flower leave on my mind at the time that I thought it worth 
while making a special pilgrimage to Hereford in order to worship 
the plant from which it had been gathered. 
The total number of Rose blooms tabulated for the purpose 
of this analysis has been about 15,000, the number of names taken 
down from the prize stands at each of the eight exhibitions being 
as follows . ^ggg ^gg^ ^g^^ ^gg^ ^ggg 
Hybrid Perpetuals... 10,33 1130 1247 1176 1396 1184 1121 1067 
Teas and Noisettes... 509 642 854 778 631 662 554 635 
1547 1772 2101 1954 2027 1846 1675 1702 
No, 693.—VoL, XXVII., Third Series. 
The effect of the abnormal character of the seasons upon our 
analysis will be at once seen on glancing down the tables and 
noticing the number of times the different varieties were set up 
in the winning boxes this year as compared with their average 
performances at the eight exhibitions. I may here explain that 
in order to bring these averages (which govern the relative posi¬ 
tions of the Roses in the tables) up to date and make them of 
more practical value, they have this year been recalculated on 
similar lines to those followed in my last Dahlia analysis. 
The Hybrid Perpetuals, which at none of the previous seven 
shows had been as numerously staged, were the following:— 
Alfred Colomb, Dupuy Jamain, Horace Vernet, Duke of Welling¬ 
ton, Camille Bernardin, Fisher Holmes, Earl of Dufferin, Duchess 
of Bedford, Reynolds Hole, and J. S. Mill. On the other hand, 
Madame G. Luizet, La France, A. K. Williams, F. Michelon, 
Captain Christy, Lady Mary Fitzvilliam, Marie Finger, Marquise 
de Castellane, Duchesse de Vallombrosa, and Star of Waltham 
were never before so scantily shown. It will thus be seen that 
for once the late-flowering varieties were specially favoured, while 
those which bloom early in the season were as a rule but 
indifferently represented. 
Mrs. John Laing, an English variety raised by the late Mr. 
Henry Bennett and first sent out by him in 1887, now heads 
the list of Hybrid Perpetuals. It is a grand all-round Rose, and 
well deserves the position it has for the first time gained. Both 
last year and this it was staged more frequently than any other 
H.P. in the Show. The fact is, that although distributed six 
years ago it is only during the last two seasons that plants of it 
have been grown in sufficiently large numbers by exhibitors 
generally to enable it to take the place in the table to which it 
was entitled, Alfred Colomb, a rather late-flowering sort, was 
almost as frequently staged this year as the premier flower, 
Camille Bernardin, Horace Yernet, Duke of Wellington, and 
Fisher Holmes were also to be found in an unusually large 
number of winning stands. 
Last year there were only four Roses on the list of Hybrid 
Perpetuals which were less than six years old. This year, how¬ 
ever, we have six—Gustave Piganeau, Sir R. Hill, Jeannie 
Dickson, Marchioness of Dufferin, Duke of Fife, and Margaret 
Dickson. Only one of these new sorts comes to us from France, 
the remaining five being all of British origin. Sir Rowland Hill 
(No. 36), a plum-coloured sport from Charles Lefebvre, and the 
sole representative of the year 1888, was staged twice as often as at 
any of the three previous exhibitions. Next in order of age comes 
Gustave Piganeau, an 1889 variety, which I ventured to predict 
last year would at no distant date occupy one of the leading 
places in the analysis, I, however, never anticipated that it would 
rise in the list as rapidly as it has done—at one bound leaping from 
No. 46 to No. 8. It is by no means a strong grower, but like 
Mrs. J. Laing is free flowering and dependable. I am rather 
surprised to find that Jeannie Dickson still remains very much in 
the same position as last year, but as likely as not this may be 
entirely due to the peculiar character of the season. It was sent 
out in 1890, and will be found at No. 47. Both of the 1891 
varieties, Marchioness of Dufferin (No. 53) and Margaret Dickson 
(No. 59), find places in the table for the first time. The past 
season seems to have suited the former admirably, but cooler 
conditions of climate are evidently required to bring the latter to 
perfection. The remaining new Rose, Duke of Fife (No, 59), a 
bright crimson sport from Etienne Levet, only came out last year, 
but should it prove constant is sure to become a general favourite 
when better known. 
That beautiful Tea Rose Catherine Mermet still heads the list 
of Teas and Noisettes. There is no other variety which can show 
anything like as steady a record or which appears less at the mercy 
of the seasons. Indeed, at the last seven exhibitions the number 
of blooms tabulated has varied only from thirty-nine to forty-six. 
No. 2349.— VoL. LXXXIX., Old Series. 
