October 12, 1893. ] 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
831 
our American cousins say, I stop “light here,” and begin to pack 
up for home. 
“ No you don’t,” sounded an imperative voice, “ there is to be a 
meeting to-night of the Gardeners’ Society, and all the best men 
will be there.” This implied that in the opinion of the speaker 
gardeners are the best men around Southwell. Well, the meeting 
was a good meeting of good men, and Mr. Merryweather delivered 
a good lecture on fruit growing generally, and the capacity of the 
district for sharing more largely in the general supply of high 
class produce. Your correspondent ventured modestly to suggest 
that the lecturer was right, then hastened away, as he began to 
feel his “ out of town ” exercise rather trying, and was glad to get 
to London for quietness and rest.— A City Man. 
National Rose Society—Mr. Mawley’s Analysis. 
The analysis of the Rose seasons of 1886-1893 by Mr. Mawley 
(page 303) is very interesting and of great service to exhibitors ; but I 
should liie to call attention to some of his deductions, which, I think, are 
partly based on erroneous premises and incorrect arithmetical calculations. 
Mr. Mawley compares the Crystal Palace Rose Show of the N, R S. in 1893 
with that of the same Society in 1879. Although a member of the 
National at the time I have no recollection of the Show of 1879, but I 
think f )r a fair comparison of the two years it would be also desirable 
and necessary to have the comparative number of members and the 
number of classes open to exhibitors in each year. These I cannot give, 
not having a report for 1879 ; but the members’ subscriptions to the 
Society in that year were £217, and for the current year should be at 
least £380. Last year they were £368, and 1 am aware of a consider¬ 
able addition to the roll of subscribers since the last balance-sheet was 
published. Another point also to be fully con-idered is the enormous 
strides taken in horticultural affairs and increased interest in Rose grow¬ 
ing since 1879. If, for instance, one only went back even five years and 
compared the position of the R.H S. (the leafing Society of horticul¬ 
ture) and its list of members in 1887 with its roil now, it would show 
how this interest has increased. These facts all taken together prove 
that a bad Show in 1893 is a much more important item than an in¬ 
different one in 1879, a date at which the strong revival in flower culture 
was really only in its initial stage, and I therefore take exception to the 
statement that visitors and exhibitors should as a matter of course 
expect bad Shows in a season—a glorious season, too, in many respects 1 
—like that of 1893. The remedies are numerous and obvious, and there 
were splendid R ses seen this year at other places, notably on the 
24th June at Reigate, although there were not many instances of good 
flowers at the Crystal Palace on the Ist July ; but as long as our Society 
is bound down by hard and fast rules, and, so to speak, tied to the 
Crystal Palace, so long shall we be subject to the caprice of fortune in 
regard to the weather at the date to which we are fixed six months in 
advance. 
In going into the analysis, of the average number of times certain 
Roses have been shown, Mr. Mawley has made a serious error in regard 
to Gustave Piganeau. Last year, as he himself states, it was forty-sixth 
and shown eight times ; he now says, “ at one bound ” it has leaped to 
No. 8. But it has done nothing of the kind. It was as I say shown in eight 
boxes last year and in twenty-four boxes this year, so that according to 
arithmetical average it has been shown sixteen times, and should be 
bracketed as twenty-third and not eighth. I should also like to know in 
how many of the professional and big amateur boxes it was shown, as I 
should think that the twenty-four exhibits came almost entirely from 
these sections. 
I also find that Ernest Metz should not come in the Tea Rose 
analysis at No. 7, but bracketed at No. 15 with “ Madame Hoste,” as the 
average for 1892-3 is 21—viz., 12 -p 30. My view of Ernest Metz is 
quite in agreement with that recently expressed in your Journal by 
Mr. D'Ombrain (page 201). The Rose is app<rently a great pet of 
some of the professionals, although, strange to say, they have not 
hitherto shown it to great advantage or to any extent in the N.R.S. 
class specially set apart for it at our metropolitan meeting. 
There is no doubt, and in this 1 entirely agree with Mr. Mawley, and 
have elsewhere stated so, that Horace Vernet and Mrs John Laing have 
been most satisfactory Roses to many exhibitors this year. I do not 
suppose Horace Vernet has ever been so frequently and so splendidly 
staged as it has been in 1893, and the flower which won the N.R.S. 
medal at the Crystal Palace for Messrs. Harkness was probably the 
finest specimen shown during the year. 
I am surprised that Mr. Mawley has not named Mr. B. R. Cant’s 
Prince Arthur amongst the H.P.’s which have been a great success this 
season. It has seldom been seen to greater advantage, and with Roses 
such as Duchess of Bedford and Earl of Dufferm as well as Horace 
Vernet (which three are difficult of culture) shared the honours amongst 
the deep reds. 
In reference to what Mr. Mawley says about the peculiarity of the 
season in certain varieties and his deductions therefrom, I should not 
describe Dupuy Jamain or Duke of Wellington as late-flowering 
varieties in any year, nor would I class La France merely as an early 
bloomer, but as a true perpetual, flowering early and late ; and as to 
A. K. Williams, I may mention that in the N.R.S. new catalogue that 
Rose is specially described (why, I cannot tell) as “good in autumn.” 
A. K. Williams is always good, but it is better in the summer than 
autumn with most people. 
I am very pleased to see that Mr. Mawley has at last brought the 
beautiful Rose Ethel Brownlow into his analvsis, and literally and 
truly “ at a bound ” it takes the position of No. 20. If that position 
were on the year’s exhibits Ethel Brownlow would be No. 14. There is 
no Rose which excels it in beauty of form and colour, and its rival in 
these qualities I consider to be Comtesse de Nadaillac, which in 1893 
has been the Tea Rose most frequenily shown, the hot weather suiting it 
to perfection.— Charles J. Grahame, Croydon, 
Every Rose lover will unite in tendering hearty thanks to “ E. M.” 
and those who assisted him for the interesting analysis of our favourite 
flower in the last issue. Personally I have never felt that this was the 
best way of arriving at, say the best twenty or thirty Roses for an 
intending aspirant for Rose fame to select; but it is none the less 
interesting on that account. I have always thought that it showed 
rather the Roses that stood best the test of certain seasons ; this has 
been particularly brought out in the present analysis. I fancy that any 
exhibitor would prefer Ulrich Brunner to Marie Baumann, and yet the 
average is nearly four higher in the former. Only our old departed 
friend “Rushton” Radcliffe, I think, would agree with this, and he 
never could forgive her modest behaviour in hanging down her 
head, and on this account would never place her amongst the first 
forty-eight! 
Then a season that is inimical to a certain Rose has an effect of a 
very damaging character on its position for many years. La France, fo • 
instance, has disagreed with this dry season, or vice versa. Although it 
often refuses to unfold in wet weather, certain it is that in the early 
and in the thickest portion of the exhibition season the specimens of 
La France were not only few and far between, but they were also 
mediocre in character. Marquise de Castellane being one of the 
earliest in bloom, I suppose had retired from the fray before the 
National; whilst Marie Finger with me declined to exhibit her charms 
till late, but then I thought her finer than usual. Gustave Piganeau is 
a great acquisition. It may not be a very good grower, yet it gives 
many blooms and these decidedly large, and it is in my experience one 
of the very best autumn bloomers. I should think this will be 
considered the Mrs. John Lainir year, and it is one of the brightest gems 
in the Rose crown of my old friend who was too early taken from us, 
the late Mr. Henry Bennett. A curious circumstance connected with 
this Rose and showing how much it enj lyed the past season was the fact 
that at one of the West of England Exhibitions (Bath, I think) in the 
class for any variety of Rose, twelve blooms, there were five stands, and 
every one of them was Mrs. J. Laing. I looked down the list to find 
Augustine Guinosseau. Though so similar except in its colour to La 
France, with me it has this season given more beautiful flowers than 
La France, and yet my plants of the larter are as four to one. I am 
disappointed to see her only conspicuous by her absence. 
In the Tea classes Catherine Mermet will always be hard to beat. 
Her sports will probably be her most dangerous competitors, but it 
must not be forgotten that by the date of the National Exhibition the 
great beauty of its most dangerous rival, Mardchal Niel, is a glory of 
the past. I apprehend very few exhibitors would place Mar6chal Niel 
at its best at No. 9. In form, substance, and eolour it is the equal of 
Catherine Mermet, whilst in size it surpasses her without the shade of 
coarseness which size sometimes brings with it. Mardchal Niel requires 
a sort of protection when grown in the open ; its weight makes it a 
hanging flower, and the peculiar formation of the seed vessel is provo¬ 
cative of decay in wet weather. The stem is inserted into a hollow as 
it were, and in dripping times this hollow is generally full of water, and 
this proves, in my experience, a fertile source of decaying blooms. Hence, 
were I growing iviarbchal Niel against an outside wall I should always 
endeavour to give a foot of shading at the least overhead. The sports 
of Catherine Mermet seem to follow the good example set by the parent. 
The Bride and now Ernest Metz are splendid Roses. Will Waban, 
another of the tribe add to the eclat of the parent? I have only seen 
it on starved plants, and therefore hard to judge ; but form, substance, 
and colour are there, and I think it must soon be found in the 
analysis. 
“ E. M.” (page 303) will forgive my suggesting the date of Cleopatra 
as too recent. This must be the case unless my friend Mr. II. Bennett 
sent me a plant before he put it into commerce, as, unless I make a 
great mist..ke, it was in 1888 when be stmt it to me. It is certain to 
rise above its present position. “ E. M.” has this year, I think, added 
very much to the value of the analysis by giving, for the benefit of 
beginners, a select list of good varieties. I’o this list few will take 
exception ; but they may wonder with me why, in the face of the 
analysis, Catheiine Mermet, Comtesse de Nadaillac, and The Bride are 
omitted from the Tea list! Still, thanks many to “E. M.” and his 
^ helpers.—Y. B. A. Z. 
