Jannary 10,1895. 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
35 
greater failure can well be looked for than when peraoni, clever in other 
directions, embark capital in a trade for which they have only a faddiah 
fancy and no practical knowledge. Sir Walter Scott found that out to 
hia coat, and he was, or ia not, the only eminent romanciat who has 
had similar experience.—A. D. 
“ The Eosarian’s Year Book.” 
We have to acknowledge “ The Eoaarian’s Year Book for 1895,” 
which, as most Kose growers know, is ably edited by the Kev. H. H. 
D’Ombrain. The frontispiece is a life-like portrait of Mr. Edward 
Mawley, Mr. D’Ombrain’s co-secretary. The body of the work contains 
articles on the following subjects by the authors mentioned, “ Does 
Exhibiting for Money tend to Demoralisation ? ” Mr. C. J. Grahame ; 
“ The Eose and the National Eose Society in 1894,” the Editor ; 
“ Neglected Eoses,” Mr. A. Piper ; ” Hybrid Tea Eoses,” the Editor ; 
“An Up-to-Date Eose Garden,” Mr. Geo. Paul; “The Book of 
the Eose; a Eeview,” Mr. C. J. Grahame; “The Hardiness of Tea 
Eoses,” Mr. D. T. Fish, N.E.S., F.E.H.S.; “ Eose Culture in the North 
Midlands,” Mr. H. V. Machin ; “ The Eose Weather of 1894,” Mr. E. 
Mawley, F.E.M.S. The work is published by Messrs. Bemrose & Sons, 
Ltd., 23, Old Bailey, and remains at the same price as before. Is. 
National Eose Society. 
It would have been better for Mr. D’Ombrain’s own standing with 
the Society than from any idea of gratifying me, as “ D., Deal,” says 
(page 13), that he should have replied and explained his position in 
regard to his attitude at the annual meeting, more especially in regard 
to his opposition to Mr. Machin on the plea of no room, and his 
immediate volte-face in favour of Mr. Foster-Melliar, and also his 
extraordinary action to Mr. Jeans and the Portsmouth Town Council. 
It is unusual in a public discussion to refer to a private letter, 
and it is considered to be in very questionable taste to do so, but 
“ D., DmZ,” refers to one I wrote to him, not to “ some of us.” This 
letter he distorts, as I said Mr. D'Ombrain had by his action put some 
nails into the N.E.S. coiSn. My letter in your issue of the 
27th December, which Mr. D’Ombrain thinks refers to what I wrote to 
him in regard to “driving a big nail into the cofBn of the N.E.S.,” has 
nothing to do with anything as yet published. It refers to quite 
another matter, which for the present I withhold, but am ready to bring 
forward at any moment. 
Our senior Secretary, with a complacency which is charming, finishes 
his letter by saying, “ My motives were simply what I thought best for 
the Society.” That is—first, he considers it best for the Society that he 
should say at the annual meeting that the V.-P. list was long enough 
already, and for that reason oppose one gentleman of high social 
standing and a leading rosarian, and within five nunutes support the 
claims of another rosarian for the same position of V.-P. Secondly, 
that it is “ best for the Society ” to hold a show at Eeading in 1896 
within eighteen miles of Windsor, where the Southern Show was held 
in 1894, when an offer had been received from the Town Council of our 
leading naval seaport to hold the meeting in their town. 
Mr. D’Ombrain does not vouchsafe to Mr. Jeans the courtesy of one 
word of apology or explanation, and his apologist, Mr. Strange, fairly 
gives our senior Secretary away. 
Both Mr. D’Ombrain, who was in communication with Mr. Jeans 
and Mr. Mawley, who was in correspondence with Mr. Spittal, knew 
as well as your readers, last October that the Portsmouth Town 
Council had passed the resolution to invite the N.E.S. to Portsmouth 
in 1896. Mr. Strange with, a simpMcity of mind which does him credit, 
while it is amusing, lets the'^^cat out of the bag, as he says, “ Immediately 
after the November Committee I had an intimation that if Eeading had 
renewed the invitation for 1896 it would probably be favourably 
considered.” In the cause of good faith and in the real interests of the 
Society I ask our members to again read Mr. Jeans’ letter to you in the 
Journal of the 27th December, page 685. I think a more remarkable 
misuse of authority than this invitation by the officials to the Eeading 
rosarians has never been perpetrated, and as a man of thirty-three years 
business experience I can say with the absolute conviction that I am 
right, that such a proceeding would never be permitted in a public 
company. 
I shall be much surprised if the gentlemen more immediately 
interested in the lamentable occurrence at the recent annual meeting 
and prior thereto, are willing to ignore the indignity placed upon them. 
In any case the letter of Mr. Strange leaves the matter now 
fully exposed to the light of day, and the fact of Mr.D’Ombrain specially 
attending the Eeading Committee shows what he had made up his mind 
to do, although he told Mr. Jeans to stay away from the annual 
meeting, and soothed him with the impression that his interests were 
safeguarded. —Charles J. Grahame. 
N.E.S. Trophy Classes. 
In the early autumn of last year there was a good deal of corre¬ 
spondence in your columns on the above subject with a view to a possible 
re-arrangement of certain details. But one phase of the subject was 
not touched, and as it is a matter in which an improved arrange¬ 
ment might quickly and easily be made I should be glad to see some 
expression of opinion on it. The challenge trophies are held for one 
year only, and then, unless the exhibitor is strong enough and fortunate 
enough to repeat his success, they pass into other hands, leaving no 
tangible memento of the victory once gained. This certainly seems 
hard, and I know some of the winners feel it very much. Writing to 
me some time ago one gentleman who has twice won the amateur trophy 
said, “ During the last twenty years I have had fifteen challenge cups 
in my possession, and yet, now that I have partially given up exhibiting, 
I have nothing whatever to show for my pains.” 
With a view, therefore, to avoiding this state of affairs, and pro¬ 
viding permanent satisfaction to the winners in these important classes, 
I should like to suggest that in addition to the challenge trophies to be 
held for the year, the gold medal of the Society, to remain the property 
of the winner, should be given as the first prize in each of them. If I 
am told that these medals cost £2 apiece, and that five of them (three 
at the C. Palace show and two at the Northern) would mean too great 
an addition to the prize fund, then I would say that while the amount 
of the second, third, and fourth prizes remains the same, the money for 
the first prize might be reduced by £1, and thus the expense of the 
medals be jointly borne by the funds and by the trophy winners. 
I would not omit the trade growers from the proposed arrangement, 
because as a matter of business it is of even more importance to them 
than to amateurs. Our good old friend, Mr. B. E. Cant, has secured the 
trade trophy six times, and he, rightly enough, makes the most of this 
fact; but if, when visitors call on him, he could open a neat little case 
and say, “This is my collection of N.E.S. medals awarded to me when 
I won the challenge trophy,” it would be of far more value to him than 
just a line in an advertisement. 
I feel somewhat diffident about broaching this subject, because I am 
never likely to be an aspirant to championship honours ; but if other 
exhibitors, and especially those more immediately concerned, think 
favourably of the suggestion and will give us their views on the matter, 
I think it might be brought before the Committee with a fair prospect 
of being adopted in this year’s schedule.—J. B. 
[The suggestion appears worthy of consideration.] 
Eegulation 13. 
Mr. Grace does not clear up the mysteries of his first letter in his 
second one, but he “ gives himself away ” as freely as before. He tells 
us now that he has never exhibited under false colours, but his first 
letter shows that he at least sympathises with those who do, for he 
says (page 536), “ To enforce it (Mr. Lindsell’s resolution) means the 
exclusion of scores of ardent amateurs,” and I cannot see how the 
enforcing the regulation would exclude them, unless they wished to 
show contrary to its provisions. What does he call this sort of thing— 
showing in amateur classes under false pretences and contrary to the 
regulations, and trusting, I suppose, that no one will have the moral 
courage to denounce it ? That he himself is not wanting in courage is 
plain, for I should not have thought it possible that anyone would dare 
to write in defence of such a thing, and complain of its being found 
fault with. I had no idea that there were any provable cases of 
infraction of the rule, but he says he knows it is widely set at naught. 
I will not be behind him in moral courage, and will say openly what I 
call it—dishonesty. I am quite sure the Society has never meant that 
this regulation should be a dead letter, and I will do all in my power to 
enforce it. _ 
Mr. Grace says (page 14), “ Doubtless the rule was originally framed 
as a protection for the small grower and in order to prevent large 
growers from sweeping the board.” Certainly not. What possible 
connection is there between the two subjects ? It was obviously framed 
for the definition of an amateur as opposed to a professional. Why, it 
is one of the most important regulations in the list. It is, and always 
has been, the most burning and difficult question in any amateur 
association, and every such society which has had to deal with it (as, for 
instance, the Amateur Athletic Association and the Amateur Eowing 
Association) has met the difficulty successfully only by making the line 
between amateur and professional most hard and strict, and enforcing 
actual punishment for every infraction of the rules. 
A little further on (page 14), it appears that Mr. Grace calls private 
gardeners “ professionals.” Here again he is in conflict with regula¬ 
tion 13. Amateurs are those who do not sell. If they do sell they are, 
for exhibition purposes, not amateurs but professionals. There does, 
however, for a moment appear a glimmer of reason in the complaint that 
poor amateurs, who have no assistance, have to contend against trained 
and taught gardeners backed by wealth and plenty of help ; but he 
once more gives his own cause away by saying (page 14), “ the true 
amateur is not afraid of meeting professional skill but professional 
numbers,” though in the same paragraph he had already alluded to 
“ the new and most sensible regulations for dividing exhibitors into 
classes according to number of plants grown by them,” which was 
expressly framed to prevent the small man being overborne by numbers. 
Mr. Grace so well displays the weakness of his own case that it seems 
hardly necessary to point out that the experienced amateur is by no 
means afraid of private gardeners, however large their establishments 
may be, knowing that, with very few exceptions indeed, they have so 
much other work to do as to be unable to beat the amateur who makes 
