JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
[ November 3, 1892. 
39 1 
pots. It is obvious that they are more under the control of the grower 
and can be more readily examined if anything appears to be wrong with 
the roots. Again, it is sometimes advantageous to change their position 
In the house, and watering can be carried out with greater ease and 
rcetainty.— Enfieldian. 
Roses for Early Forcing. 
There are not many varieties of Rose that will give an adequate 
return for the trouble and care which early forcing involves. Among 
Hybrid Perpetuals I should sayGdn^ral Jacqueminot is the most suitable 
for early work, but these do not lend themselves very readily for this 
purpose. The Teas and the Hybrid Teas furnish us with the best 
varieties for early flowering, but the number available is not large, 
although they include among them some of the best known Roses we 
have. Of Teas proper the best one for early work, whether planted out 
or in pots, is Niphetos. The pure colour and floriferousness of this 
variety make it indispensable where early Roses are required. Anna 
Ollivier follows on in point of merit. Souvenir d’un Ami, Safrano, 
and Isabella Sprunt are good when bright yellow Roses are in 
requisition. 
Of the Hybrid Tea class Lady Mary Fitzwilliam ranks among the 
very best of early Roses, although it is seldom included among those for 
flowering at Christmas. It requires some management to produce it in 
a fit condition for the purpose, and it does not break very freely, but 
the cultivator can rely as a rule upon obtaining two flowers to every 
pruned shoot and three occasionally, very few coming blind. This 
variety would probably be popular as an early Rose if it possessed 
a more vigorous habit of growth. This sort concludes our list of early 
flowering Roses with the exception of Mar6chal Niel, with which I hope 
to deal in a future issue.— Enfieldian. 
Notes on Some of the Newer Roses. 
I CAN offer a few notes on some of the newer Roses which may be 
useful to those about to purchase, for, though I have been unable to 
visit any of the Rose nurseries this season, or even to attend the N.R.S. 
Show at Chester, I have grown several and seen blooms of others. 
Hybrid Perpetual3. 
Augustine Guinoisseau (Guinoisseau, 1889) is called a white La 
France, and certainly seems to be one. Now, in “ E. M.’s ” analysis (for 
which I must take the opportunity of thanking him and of generally 
agreeing with his remarks upon the different varieties), we find La 
France taking the second place on the list of H.P.’s, and might therefore 
expect a whi e La France to be also a fine show Rose ; but it does not 
seem to have that character at present, and I had no blooms with 
pretensions to show form. Still, La France itself does not do very well 
with me, and another year we may see its white cousin taking higher 
rank. 
Catharine. —The late Rev. H. T. Frere had a light coloured sport 
from Comtesse d’Oxford, which he thus named, and exhibited a few 
years ago for the gold medal. They were very poor specimens, shown in 
•wretched condition, but I begged a plant or two in memory of him after 
his death, and this year succeeded in getting a representative bloom. It 
is quite good, but not distinct, being neither more nor less than Pride of 
Waltham. 
Gustave Piganeau (Pernet et Ducher, 1889) has deservedly 
attained such popularity as hardly to require further notice as a 
new Rose. As “E. M.” says, its growth as a cut-back is the principal 
doubt, and I am bound to say that I fear it will be found a poor 
grower. 
Jeannie Dickson (Dickson, 1890) is a Rose of first-class quality, 
and, as far as I have seen at present. I consider it the best of the 
Irish H.P.’s. 
Marchioness of Dufferin (Dickson, 1891) is of grand size and 
growth, but not, I think, of such fine form as the last named. My 
blooms were, however, considerably spoiled by rain, and further trial 
will, I hope, show this variety to better advantage. 
Marchioness of Londonderry (Dickson, not in commerce).— 
Messrs. Dickson were kind enough to send me a bloom of this very large 
Rose. I heartily hope it will prove to be all that Mr. Graham and 
“ J. B.” anticipate. I was abundantly satisfied as to its size, fulness and 
.fragrance, but not as to other necessary qualities for a good Rose. It is 
something the colour of Devoniensis, ivory white, is not quite so showy 
as paper white and perhaps more likely to look dingy, but on the other 
hand possibly better able to stand a little rain. 
Margaret Dickson (Dickson, 1891).—I had three dozen strong 
maidens on Briar cuttings of this Rose, and, judging from the examples 
shown by the raisers, thought I was going to have a real good thing. I 
do not know when I have been so disappointed ; the growth was very 
strong, and most of the plants flowered, but I had not a single bloom fit 
to show. As exhibited, Margaret Dickson resembled a fine Merveille de 
Lyon with its one great weak point—the centre abundantly filled with a 
symmetrical point. My blooms utterly failed in this particular; they 
.were even more hollow than Merveille de Lyon itself, smaller in size 
.and shorter in petal, though on strong stout healthy stems 4 and 5 feet 
high. I am unable to account for this, Dor can Messrs. Dickson, who 
have continued to show it in fine form. I hear that there have been 
some complaints of the plants not blooming, but this is sure to be the 
case when a Rose much in demand has been propagated from unbloomed 
shoots. Nearly all my plants bloomed, so the disappointment was the 
greater. However, one must give a new Rose time ; many suffer at first 
from over-propagation if much esteemed, and I have not lost my faith 
in Margaret Dickson. 
Mrs. Arthur Wilson (Swailes).—This is a cross between Gabriel 
Luizet and Mdlle. Eugenie Yerdier, with the wood of the latter and 
sometling of the flower of the former. I had a few good plants, but 
was unlucky in not getting a representative bloom. I fear it is no 
advance upon existing varieties. 
Mrs. Paul (Paul & Son, 1891). —This Rose quite answered my 
expectations. A fair proportion of the blooms come with a well defined 
centre, showing up grandly against the stout, broad, smooth outer petals, 
and making exhibition flowers of fine form, though rather patchy in 
colour. But it does not seem to me to be free-flowering or a good 
autumnal. My second growths have shown no sign of buds, which is 
odd in a member of the Bourbon race. Perhaps it will improve in this 
respect. 
Salamander (W. Paul, 1891). — I have not seen this year any 
maiden blooms of this Rose, but have had some little flowers from a 
purchased plant, and even the smallest has been of good form with a fine 
pointed centre, and I have good hopes that it will prove valuable. It 
appears to be of quite fair average growth. 
Teas. 
Cleopatra and Ernest Metz have both “ won their spurs ” 
handsomely, but the former is a very bad grower with me, even as 
a standard. It is most difficult to find buds sufficiently good for 
propagation till quite late in the season, and even then the working 
them is almost as bad as threading a needle. 
Ethel Brownlow (Dickson, 1887), is not now a new Rose, but I 
mention it because I am surprised to see that it was not shown suffi¬ 
ciently to figure in the Rose Analysis. My plants did very badly up to 
1891, when they all suddenly took to growing well, and the habit is now 
quite different with me to what it was three years ago. The plants suffered 
from the weather this year in common with other Teas, but appear 
to be rapidly improving and coming to the fore ; the best specimens I 
have ever seen having been exhibited this season. There can be no 
doubt that a good specimen is quite first class, and I look upon it as one 
of the best of the Irish Roses. 
Waban (Wood & Co., 1891). —I have not seen a good specimen of 
this Rose, but the only bloom I had was quite distinct in colour, being 
at first of a dark red. If really a sport from Catherine Mermet, I think 
that high anticipations may be held of it. 
Roses at the Crystal Palace. 
Of the new Roses shown at the Crystal Palace, the first place must 
be given to Mrs. W. J. Grant. One or two of Messrs. Dickson’s new 
Roses have appeared to me to be wanting in the high centre, which 
especially gives “ quality ” to a Rose ; they have been all Rose and no 
point. Mrs. W. J. Grant, on the other hand, as shown at the Palace, 
was all point and no Rose. But it seemed likely that this was 
merely because the flowers were not sufficiently developed, and that 
this was so was shown later, I am told, at Chester. It was certainly 
very promising and very distinct. Corinna was shown again by Mr. 
W. Paul. I think it will prove good, though perhaps not quite up to 
the gold medal standard. 
Henry Gow and Captain Hayward are both strong growers, and at 
least one fairly good bloom was shown of each. They were decidedly 
better, I should say, than a large proportion of the French Roses 
annually sent out. Would it not be well for the N.R.S. to give certifi¬ 
cates to those which reach a certain standard of merit, though not 
worthy of a gold medal ? 
Clara Watson, shown by Mr. Prince, looked a good deal like Souvenir 
de Paul Neyron. It seemed to be of poor growth, which makes a great 
deal of difference in its value, for a Souvenir de Paul Neyron of vigorous 
growth would be quite an acquisition. 
Spenser and Lady H. Grosvenor, as shown by Mr. W. Paul, seemed to 
me to be too flat. I fear I have a “ fad ” for a high-pointed centre as 
giving quality to a Rose. 
I have heard a capital account of the Duke and Duchess of Fife, 
upon which Messrs. Cocker should be congratulated. The former, a 
crimson scarlet Etienne Levet, must surely be a great acquisition. 
Madame Caroline Testout, H.T., and Elise Fugier, T., were shown by 
Mr. G. Paul at the Palace, and both are highly spoken of. The latter, 
which has received a good deal of commendation, appeared to be 
better shaped than Niphetos and more inclined to the form of Innocente 
Pirola. 
I hope someone will be able to supplement or correct these imperfect 
notes, or give some information upon new Roses which I have not seen.— 
W. R. Raillem. 
Tea-scented Roses from Cuttings. 
The article of Mr. Dunkin (page 349) on Tea Roses reminds me of 
plants I now have in 6-inch pots advancing into bloom. The varieties 
are principally those he enumerates. They are from cuttings taken off 
forced plants in April. After the shoots had flowered they were taken 
off with a heel, leaving three pairs of leaves to each cutting. They 
were inserted three or four around the sides of a 60-sized pot and placed 
in the propagating case. When rooted the plants were placed singly 
in the same sized pot, grown in a warm pit, and eventually trans¬ 
ferred to the 6-inch pots. The plants ate now a good size, arranged 
near the glass in a structure where the night temperature ranges from 
55° to 60°. They are advancing finely into bloom, and I hope to cue 
