26 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
[ January 12, 1893. 
National Kose Society.—Judging. 
Your correspondent E. R. Shanks (Journal of Horticulture 
pages 554-5) I suppose writes under a nom de 'plume, as his name is not 
on our list of members for 1892. I was much amused at his letter ; in 
parts it Is quite comic, although possibly written quite seriously. 
1 do not come under Mr, Shanks’ category of ‘‘ clergymen ” (although 
the son of one who was not a rosarian), “ lawyers,” “ doctors,” “ intelli¬ 
gent tradesmen ” (I wish I were one), or even growers of Roses for trade 
purposes ; but I have been a Judge for some years at our N.R.S. 
meetings, as well as at Croydon, Reigate, Sutton, Windsor, and this 
year at Earl’s Court and elsewhere. I do not think that we have any 
judge at our meetings w^ho is so small a grower as Mr. Shanks mentions 
of—“ 300 or 400 plants.” Nor can I agree with Mr. Shanks that the fact 
of growing a small number of Roses thereby debars a rosarian from 
having the judgment requisite to tell whether the Roses in a big class 
are good or not ; but the fact is and always has been, that the large 
amateurs’ classes are judged by “ big growers ” amongst the professionals, 
and in the same way the professionals’ large exhibits are judged by the 
amateurs of greatest experience and who grow a considerable number— 
more like 2000 or 5000 than 300 to 400. 
The selection of the Judges for these big classes is our first care, as 
we who are members of the N.R.S. Committee know how very important 
it is that the judging should be accurate. A professional Rose grower’s 
career may be made or marred by successful exhibiting or the reverse, 
and I think I may confidently state as instances that the very great 
reputations of both Messrs. Benjamin Cant and Frank Cant have been 
partly made and much helped by their superb exhibits on very many 
occasions ; also that such exhibits as other professionals this year have 
placed in evidence, notably those of Messrs. D, Prior & Son (of 
-Colchester) at Croydon, and of Mr. Merryweather (of Southwell, Notts) 
at Chester, have brought them more prominently to the front ; also 
that the reputations of great hybridisers like Messrs. Dickson of 
Newtonards, Ireland; Mr. Wm. Paul, and Mr. George Paul are 
maintained and enhanced by their victories and the numerous first class 
awards and medals gained at our N.R.S. Exhibitions. With the 
knowledge of these facts our judges are (to the utmost of our power 
and with the selection of such names as are at our disposal) most 
carefully arranged, and the best men possible decide ihe prizes in the 
classes they are supposed to be the best judges of and have had special 
experience in. 
In regard to the Chester matter cited, the delay mentioned was on 
that occasion of absolutely no importance. My reason for saying so is 
that the day was a miserably wet one, and the flowers did not suffer by 
the delay. Moreover, any blame should fall on the shoulders of those 
deserving it, and that is on the Committee at Chester, who mismanaged 
the Show, and thereby delayed the opening and judging. I was one of 
■those who “ critically examined ” the new varieties, and I may say that, 
as far as I can recollect the matter, the opinion of the majority had 
been expressed before one o’clock, and if any fault could be found in 
this particular case, it was in the fact that there were too many judges, 
and part of the delay was caused by the over-anxiety of one gentleman 
to have everybody’s opinion, which fact alone unduly prolonged the 
period of judging which Mr. Shanks complains of. 
It is the idea of some people that the bigger the grower the greater 
the opinion, and I think Mr. Shanks partly falls in with this view, but 
I do not agree wdth it, and I cannot see why a good medium-sized 
grower, or even a small practical grower of Roses for exhibition, should 
not be quite as good a judge as a grower of 3000 or 10,000 Roses. I may 
say that, from my own experience of Rose Show judging, I could 
instance several of the smaller growers who are infinitely superior in 
the quality of discrimination as regards the merits of Roses than many 
of those who grow their thousands. One reason for this superior expert 
knowledge is that an intelligent rosarian who has a comparatively 
limited number knows the merits and failings of all the Roses he grows, 
and that an exhibitor (our judges being taken from the best available 
of that class alone) usually grows only the best varieties, such Roses being 
the kinds shown at our meetings by the members who win our prizes. 
Crystal Palace Arrangements. 
In reference to “ W. R. Raillem’s ” well thought out remarks in your 
last issue (p. 4), I should like to say a few words. I am in agreement 
with him that the arrangements at the Crystal Palace are not at all 
sufficient to the requirements of our members’ exhibits. There is no 
good reason for this failing on the part of the C.P. executive, as the 
time given between the closing day for entries and the meeting are quite 
•ufficient to allocate properly the spaces for each class. As your corre¬ 
spondent pertinently puts it, any small societies would hear a good deal 
of complaint if their affairs were as inefficiently managed as the arrange¬ 
ments of the C.P. were at our meeting in 1892. But the question, I think, 
is even larger than this, as one would almost require to train specially 
(as matters now are at the C.P.) to run “ 100 miles in 100 hours ” to 
cover the distance one has to get over when you exhibit in several 
classes. 
The Provincial Show. 
I hope “ W. R. Raillem” is right in his belief that there is “more 
money ” at Worksop than in East Anglia. I doubt it; but those 
responsible at Worksop will no doubt be equal to the occasion, and will 
produce the inevitably necessary coin. But surely a cathedral city 
could be found for a provincial show in East Anglia which would meet 
your correspondent’s difficulty another year ; and, as far as I am 
personally concerned, I should like on all subjects possible (outside the 
suggested new change of date for our Metropolitan Show) to meet the 
views of those to whom I am at times opposed, even at the sacrifice 
of some personal advantage. 
The Proxy Question. 
“ W. R. Raillem ” has very properly said that there was no argu¬ 
ment used at our meeting against this proposal except that of trouble 
to the secretaries. I should not dream myself of giving unnecessary 
trouble to those gentlemen, but if that be the only difficulty I can 
hardly see that it is a proper answer to this proposed concession which 
it is suggested should be made to country members who cannot attend our 
meetings. As I mentioned at the meeting, either side might be sur¬ 
prised at the result of the use of proxies ; but I may remark that there 
are several, perhaps many, ladies members of the N.R.S., and they 
seldom grace (I believe that is the correct expression) our meetings with 
their presence. Ladies are not alway shy, but they have a natural dis¬ 
inclination to go wffiere they w’ould be in a very small minority. For 
them voting by proxy would be a boon, and I know that there are 
several who take as great an interest in the welfare of the National 
Rose Society as any of the sterner members ; moreover, they are keen 
judges of good Roses, and in fact there is one lady who helps our Execu¬ 
tive yearly in that capacity ; also as regards arrangement, colour, and 
form, we men are really “not in it” with them. For this portion of 
our Society proxies would be a desirable concession, and also for 
members in remote districts like the north of England, Scotland, and 
Ireland. 
Date of Metropolitan Show. 
I am quite confident that whichever side is conclusively proved to 
be right in the next few years in regard to the date of the Metropolitan 
Show—and both sides will have dates to favour them from 1893 to 1898 
—will be able to win over the doubtful members, or those not keenly or 
personally interested in the question. In the interval, I think the 
matter would better be left to rest undisturbed, as it is one which is not 
conducive to “ good blood.” The fact of the supporters of later dates 
having such fixtures as July 7th, 6th, and 4th, in 1894-5-6, should 
reconcile them to the position of letting facts prove or disprove their 
case, otherwise the question will become anything but conducive to 
hon camaraderie, and, if annually reproduced, be more a nuisance than 
an advantage to the Society. _ 
I would like to say in conclusion that, although the “ National Rose 
Society ” is not progressing “ by leaps and bounds,” it is steadily and 
even comparatively rapidly progressing. This year, for the first time 
in its history, it has passed the 500 in the roll of its members, and if we 
all would unite by personal efforts, the financial position could easily 
be made to appear most flourishing.— Charles T. Ghahame, Cro'ydon, 
The Medal Rose. 
As one of the medal Judges (not medal Judge) at the N.R.S. 
Exhibition, may I say one or two words ? I cannot agree with Mr. 
Raillem that the medal Rose is necessarily a proof of the excellence or 
otherwise of an exhibition. One swallow does not make a summer, and 
one Rose does not make or condemn an exhibition. I think it was the 
general opinion of rosarians that the last Crystal Palace (N.R.S.) 
Exhibition was an average one, although there was no H.P. of 
superlative excellence. The Judges may have been wrong, but it w^as 
their unanimous opinion that the Gustave Piganeau to which the medal 
was awarded was the best representative bloom of the H.P.’s. I may, 
perhaps, be allowed to say, that although we were fully aware that the 
centre of the bloom was not quite perfect, yet we could not describe it 
as a flower which “ had a decidedly split centre.” But I am glad to be 
entirely in agreement with Mr. Raillem that there is much need of 
reform in judging the medal Roses. 1 should much like to see the 
medal withheld if there were no flower of great excellence. This is the 
rule as to seedling Roses—why should it not be the rule as to cut 
blooms? [Other improvements which have been suggested would be 
valuable, but this is one which I should much like to see carried out. 
In conclusion I would like to say that I hardly think there can be 
found three men who desire the post of awarding the medals at the 
N.R.S. or any other Exhibition. The duty is one which no one covets, 
but which is undertaken in loyal obedience to the orders of the 
Secretary. It is a work of great importance, and one which should be 
carried out only by rosarians of great experience. It will be said that 
there is other work for them to do. Quite so. But let the medal 
judging be deferred until the general judging is over, and then I fancy 
that many a bloom which has been held together by worsted will have 
shot its ephemeral bolt, and the true lasting flower will gain its reward. 
—Henry B. Biron. 
The Rosarian’s Year Book. 
This annual, so welcome to rosarians, is just issued. It contains an 
excellent portrait of its editor. Rev. H. H. D’Ombrain, with appreciative 
notes historical and floricultural by the Very Rev. Dean of Rochester, 
