January 12, 1893. ] 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
87 
opened bids fair to drift into numerous side issues. I quite believe it to 
be for the advantage of us all that the Editor should offer every facility 
for a complete discussion of any genuine grievance that may exist; but 
the query that has arisen in my mind on reading the correspondence 
is, Are some of the complaints that have been made well founded? 
The expediency of holding the Society’s Shows at the Aquarium is a 
perennial nuisance. Every year the question crops up either in the 
Press or at our meetings ; the objectors make no alternative proposition, 
the same reasons are given why we go to that building, and time is 
wasted in listening to a complaint which for want of more generous 
patrons we are unable to remedy. There is, in a word, no company or 
public body in the Metropolis that offers ns the same encouragement to 
hold our Shows as the Aquarium Company does. 
If Mr. Goodacre’s letter may be taken as a sample there are one or 
two curious statements in it that seem to demand an answer. He says 
we need not exclude the Press from our meetings, by which observation 
his readers might think that the meetings of the Society are held in 
secret, which is not and never has been the case. At the Floral meet¬ 
ings acknowledged representatives of the gardening Press are by the 
seventh regulation of that Committee allowed to be present, and it is 
rare indeed to find one of those meetings where three or four of the 
regular staff of the gardening papers are not in attendance. Similarly 
at the General Committee meetings, ever since the formation of the 
N.C.S., all the gardening papers of any pretension at all have been 
represented, and with the exception of one or two of the penny papers 
who do not report horticultural meetings of this kind, they have given 
accounts of the business done. If there be a case where for a time a 
paper has been unrepresented, the fault lies certainly not with the 
Society or its officials. So much for the Press exclusion, 
Mr. Goodacre greatly exaggerates when he says an endless number 
of certificated varieties are consigned to the rubbish heap after a year’s 
trial by the growers. There are many perhaps that have been pushed 
aside by newer and improved sorts in the course of a few seasons, but 
the proportion is not greater than could be expected in the law of 
progress. Certification is a mark of present merit, not a hall-mark for 
eternity. 
As an amateur who has tried the experiment of importing new 
varieties direct from the raisers, I do not see how we can expect it to 
be otherwise than that a large number of certificates should be awarded 
to trade growers. They certainly do not receive more than their share ; 
and if the same firms’ names appear more frequently than Mr. Goodacre 
approves of, let it be borne in mind that the business of importation to 
any “extent worthy of the name, is carried on within the London radius 
only by about half a dozen firms at the most. There are few provincial 
nurserymen that can afford to indulge in this costly branch of business, 
and as their novelties are usually a year behindhand, of course the 
original importers stand the best ehance of being first in the field with 
any flower that is new and striking. The number of worthless flowers 
thrown away by the trade far exceeds anything like the number of 
certificated flowers discarded by other growers. 
In the Beauty of Exmouth case it would be interesting and instruc¬ 
tive to know how many of our critics would act in defiance of legal 
advice; and seeing that both parties are willing to substantiate their 
sides of the question by sworn statements, the Sub-Committee not being 
judges or a legally constituted jury, but only ordinary business men, 
have as much right to give credence to the member complained of as to 
the one complaining. They, however, in point of fact, do neither, 
but, pointing out the difficulty that has arisen, recommend no further 
action be taken. Even supposing a member of the Society were guilty 
of the grossest irregularity, and proved to be so, there is no rule by 
which his expulsion could be effected. This to my mind would be the 
only practical solution in a case where indisputable proof of wrongdoing 
should be brought home to a member. But before resorting to such a 
course of action something better than word against word, and stronger 
than oath against oath, would be required ; there ought to be a pre¬ 
ponderance of evidence on one side or the other, and not an equality. 
A review of the correspondence suggests many reflections, but I have 
perhaps occupied sufficient space for the present.— C. Harman Payne. 
1 SEE Mr. Godfrey is dissatisfied with the Chrysanthemum people 
generally. It reminds me of some people when finding fault with the 
world, and when such is the case it is rather a pity, in my opinion, they 
ever had anything to do with it, and must be in a disagreeable 
position. 
The discussion respecting the granting of a certificate to the Beauty 
of Exmouth is reflecting discredit not only on all those who comprise the 
Committee and have to carry their duty into effect, but also the Society 
that elected them. If there is one person in the universe more against, 
and would at once openly denounce anything discreditable or unfair in 
working for the public good on either of the Floral Committees with 
which I have the honour of being associated for many years, it is 
myself. It was I who asked to have the bloom of Florence Davis 
brought to the table for comparison with that of Mr. Godfrey’s. Why 
did I do this ? Simply because, as there always ought to bo, a discus¬ 
sion as to the relative merits of the plants and flowers brought before 
us. Surely there is nothing wrong in this. 
I must say I have a dislike to hearing expressions of undecided 
opinions, especially on committees. I often hear persons say, “ I hardly 
know whether I like that flower or not.” I pity their want of discrimi¬ 
nation and decision. In this case two committees differed, and that 
difference of opinion brought out the facts, and they acted accordingly. 
No one now has the slightest doubt of the correctness of the discussions. 
What on earth can anyone wish for different or better than this ? 
Whatever one of the Committeemen did or said in his business capacity 
never ought to have been mixed or even mentioned in connection with 
it. All b^artering is quite apart from the functions of the Society. As 
far as I heard and saw, nothing was said beyond what a member of that 
body had a right to say. There is nothing to call for an inquiry what¬ 
ever on the part of the Floral Committee of the National Chrysanthe¬ 
mum Society, and I hope none will be made. 
I think I have missed but three meetings since its formation, and if 
any country member can show that he is better qualified, or has the 
prosperity of the Society more at heart, and acts more openly and 
correct (I feel 1 can also include all my colleagues) than myself, I 
should be glad indeed to see him acting in my place ; he would be just 
the person wanted to silence all cavils, endow the Society with pro¬ 
sperity, and make it not only thoroughly national, but the “World’s” 
Society, with the greatest possible speed.—H. Cannell, Swanley. 
Princess May. 
I ENCLOSE a late bloom of Princess May. What do you think of it for a 
late bloomer? It is not so large as those produced earlier, still not very 
small for January.—N. Molyneux. 
[The bloom referred to is 6 inches in diameter, with long, partially 
incurved glossy pearly white florets. It is the finest white Chrysan¬ 
themum we have seen at this period of the year.] 
John Lambert Once More. 
Were it not that Mr. Lambert is so wide of the truth in the 
insinuation contained in his remark, “ That where I judge he finds 
Golden Queen of England substituted for John Lambert,” I should not 
trouble to occupy space in the Journal in such an idle controversy. 
My wish when writing to the horticultural Press is to benefit the 
public and not gratify the personal pique of any individual. Mr. 
Lambert and I judged together at the last Liverpool Show, and he knows 
perfectly well that as we found the names so we left them. In answer 
to the question in Mr. Lambert’s last paragraph I may say I adapt 
myself to circumstances. I am content to abide by the ruling of the 
N.C.S. catalogue or I can depend upon my own judgment, whichever is 
required.—E. Molyneux. _ 
I WISH to endorse all that Mr. Hopkins said last week in the 
Journal of Ilortictdhtre (page 13) in reference to John Lambert. 1 
have grown that variety side by side with Golden Queen for the last 
two years, and find it unquestionably the better one. Several Chrys¬ 
anthemum growers of this district are of my opinion, and I think it 
hardly fair to the raiser that its superiority is not universally recognised. 
—J. Downes, Berhswell Hall Gardens, Coventry. 
Secretary Faeson and Miss Marechaux. 
I send you a bloom of a Chrysanthemum, Secretary Farson, which, 
according to Vaughan’s description, should be yellow, thus: “large 
yellow ball with tubular petals, like L. C. Maderia, but larger in size 
and clearer yellow.” It promises to be a grand variety, but I hardly 
think it can be styled an incurved, if so, it will be a monster. I also 
send you flowers of Miss Marechaux, the best white incurved variety 
for Christmas I have yet met with. I have grown it for about eighteen 
years, and never found its equal. This variety never mildews like the 
“ Tecks,” and the plants can be grown very closely together, as it 
makes small foliage and wiry stems. You will observe the flowers are 
not fully out yet.—W. Wells. 
[The bloom of Secretary Farson is of great size, but more of a 
golden bronze than a yellow. The florets incurve, but more experience 
is needed to determine its classification. The flowers of Miss Mare¬ 
chaux are charmingly fresh and pure. The variety has long been 
regarded by many growers as one of the best Christmas Chrys¬ 
anthemums.] 
New Chrysanthemums. 
The ably written notes by Mr. Molyneux are undoubtedly very 
useful to all Chrysanthemum growers, and are looked for year by year 
with much interest. Notes coming from such an able cultivator should 
induce other skilful growers to give their experience, as varieties differ 
according to the situation the grower may be located in. It is my 
opinion that this would help to do away with the tediousness of perusing 
the many lists that are now placed before the public. The following is 
my experience with a few recently introduced varieties :— 
Flora Macdonald. —The blooms of this have been rather rough this 
season, and too late to be seen on many boards, yet it is well worth a 
place in all collections. 
Oeta. —This was also too late this year. The plants appear to want 
stopping the first week in May, for the bloom is a long time coming to 
perfection even after showing colour. Nevertheless it is a very pretty 
flower, the colour of a bright Mrs. Coleman, the florets incurving very 
tightly. It is a good front row bloom ; the plant is of rather dwarf 
habit. 
Ami Iloste. —This was grand with us during the past season. This 
should almost dislodge Mrs. Shipman, as it is much like it in colour, and 
being more than twice as large, deep in build, and well formed, it is 
good for early shows. 
C. B. Whitnall. —This seems likely to turn out a good thing ; colour 
