G8 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
[ July 28, 1887. 
dependently of any other reason, not liked it to have gone 
south. It is in good hands, and will nowhere ever be 
more highly valued than by its present possessor. 
Another feature in the Edinburgh Show which will 
cause it to be remembered by those who were present at 
it was the exhibition of new Roses; notably two—Earl 
of Duffer in and Sir Rowland Hill, both of them, I believe, 
most valuable additions, and so let me give to those who 
were not present some idea of them. Earl of Dufferin 
was raised at Newtonards in the county of Down in 
Ireland, and is the result of careful hybridising. It is 
of most vigorous growth, with fine well-developed foliage. 
The colour is a deep shaded crimson ; the form is cupped, 
high centre, and the perfume very strong. It had been 
awarded several certificates last season, and had been 
sent out by Messrs. Dickson, so that it could not compete 
for the gold medal for a Rose not yet in commerce ; but 
a committee of all the Judges, consisting amongst others 
of Messrs. Hall, Whitwell, Pemberton, George Paul, Cant, 
House, Harkness, and the two Secretaries of the National 
Rose Society, awarded it a first-class certificate, and I 
believe that it will prove a valuable addition to our dark 
show Roses. 
“ Ah !” someone will say, “ did we not always tell you 
that to carefully hybridise was the only way to get good 
Roses?” I am reminded of a story of two brothers who 
were brought up as witnesses in a case. They were both 
hale men of some fourscore years. One brother gave his 
testimony, and the Judge, addressing him as a fine fellow, 
said, “ I have no doubt you have been a temperate man 
all your life.” “Yes,” was his reply; “I have never for 
forty years drank any strong drink.” “Ah! I thought 
so,” was the rejoinder. The second brother was a ditto 
of the first, and the Judge addressed him in the same 
way. A titter ran through the Court, for the man was 
well known. “Well, to tell the truth, your lordship, I 
very seldom goes to bed sober.” For the next Rose, and 
one which also secured the gold medal of the National 
Rose Society, was a chance seedling, and not the result 
of any artificial hybridising. 
Sir Rowland Hill was raised by Mack & Son of Catte- 
rick Bridge, and is a most distinct variety. It bears a very 
great resemblance to an old Rose which was of a lovely 
colour, but too small ever to be of use as an exhibition 
flower—Souvenir de Dr. Jamain. Sir Rowland Hill is of 
the same shade of colour, a beautiful dark ruby claret, 
which does not fade into a dirty magenta colour as so 
many of the red Roses do. It is of good size and build, 
and in all respects will be a valuable addition. It is also 
said to be a good autumnal bloomer. Messrs. Dickson 
and Son, the raisers of Earl of Dufferin, also exhibited 
some other seedlings, amongst them one which has some 
elements of promise in it—Countess of Dufferin. It is 
of a light colour, very full, very vigorous, and good in habit. 
Of the new French Roses there is not much to report. 
The American Bride has proved itself to be a good Rose, 
but I apprehend that the honours of the year for new Roses 
will be awarded to those I have described above. 
Where our next provincial Show will be held is un¬ 
known, but nowhere will there be more pleasant memories 
than those connected with Edinburgh.—D., Deal 
THE ROYAL HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY. 
A RE-ORGANISATION SCHEME. 
The following outline of a scheme for re-organising or re¬ 
modelling the Royal Horticultural Society has been addressed in the 
form of a letter by Professor Michael Foster to the President, Sir 
Trevor Lawrence, Bart., M.P., for consideration and publication. 
The general plan is excellent, and the suggestions are valuable, 
though a few of the details would probably require some modifica¬ 
tion. It merits the earnest consideration of all who wish to see the 
Society placed on a more substantial basis. 
Dear Sir Trevor, —The resolution adopted by the meeting of 
Fellows on Tuesday, July 12th, was, in reality, a decision not only as to 
the home, but also as to the policy of the Society. By the resolution the 
Fellows indirectly expressed their intention that the Society should de¬ 
vote itself to the advancement of horticulture, and should undertake 
nothing that was not distinctly calculated to advance horticulture. I 
may now, therefore, venture to do, what previous to that decision would 
have been useless, to put down on paper some suggestions as to the 
organisation of the Society best calculated to secure iis object, the ad¬ 
vance of horticulture. I will divide my remarks into heads. 
I, The Fellows or Members of the Society. —These naturally 
fall into two categories :—1, Those who pursue horticulture as a pro¬ 
fession, “ the trade,” as it is sometimes called, and gardeners receiving 
salaries ; and 2, Those, like yourself and myself, who garden as an 
amusement and relaxation, the “ amateurs,” as we are called. Both 
these, as far as the Society is concerned, have identical interests ; they 
will both be benefited by its prosperity, and by its being managed so as 
to advance horticulture. It seems to me useless and mischievous to 
raise the question which class is the more important to the Society. I 
myself think the first body is the more important, but I refuse to raise 
the question. It is enough that they are both, though in different ways, 
essential to the Society. It follows that they should both take part in 
the management of it. 
In the few brief remarks which I made at the meeting I insisted, fol¬ 
lowing Mr. Shirley Hibberd, on the necessity that the Society should be 
national, not local, not even metropolitan. It is necessary that the 
organisation should be such as to allow provincial members to have due 
influence. 
II. The Functions of the Society.—T hese may be sub-divided. 
A. Judicial. —The forming and making known of authoritative 
judgments on the names proper to be applied to, and on the horticul¬ 
tural value of new plants (I throughout use the word “ plant ■” as short 
for flowers, fruit, shrubs, &c.), and on the value of cultural specimens, of 
horticultural appliances, and the like. Much valuable work in this 
direction has been and is being done by our several Committees, but 
there is, I venture to think, still room for improvement, especially in 
two directions. 
In the first place the bestowal of medals is ridiculously superabun¬ 
dant ; being showered down as they are, they have lost jail distinctive 
value. 
In the second place some means are needed for the verification of 
names. No plant ought to receive the Society’s medal, prize, or certifi¬ 
cate without the name under which the plant has been shown having 
been verified by competent authorities ; this will cause some additional 
trouble in the way of making arrangements that the plant shall be sub¬ 
mitted to competent authorities, but the award of the Society ought to 
be of sufficient importance to justify the trouble being taken. In the 
case of a new plant exhibited for the first time, and receiving an award 
as a new plant, still more trouble ought to be taken. I do not myself 
see how such awards can be safely made without some careful system 
of reference. A plant submitted for a certificate of being a new plant 
ought to be referred to competent referees, who should send in a written 
report, and no certificate should be given except upon such a report. 
These reports, with descriptions of the plants, and, if possible, drawings, 
and dried or otherwise prepared specimens, if preserved by the Society, 
would be of immense value. This of course means a more complete 
organisation of the Committees than we have at present, but to this I 
will return. 
B. Expository or Propagandist, 
(a.) Slwrvs .—It is unnecssary to urge that shows of the nature of 
our fortnightly shows must continue to be a prominent feature of the 
Society. These are shows to show plants, to instruct the public as to 
what is being done in horticulture, not to furnish a gala entertainment. 
Hence, though arrangements of plants may be made at these shows to 
illustrate their aesthetic value, the great object must always be to call 
attention to individual plants. 
I share with many the view that, at all events, during certain parts 
of the year, it is desirable that there should be intermediate shows in 
the intervening weeks ; or, rather, I would go further, and say that 
when we possess adequate accommodation we might, I believe, without 
very much trouble, by proper arrangement, provide a continuous show, 
open always, so that any horticulturists visiting London would always 
find some objects of interest to see. Everyone must be aware how 
much we lose by plants not happening to be in bloom on the days of 
the fortnightly shows. It seems, moreover, not impossible to adopt a 
plan, by which notice should be given of the plants likely to be on 
view at such and such a time. 
From what I hear, I am also inclined to think that the day of the 
week and the time of day fixed for the fortnightly shows may fitly be 
reconsidered. 
In spite of the disaster at Liverpool, I am still of opinion that 
provincial shows and meetings ought to be held, if not annually, then 
every two, three, or four years. This seems only just to the provinces, 
if the provincial horticulturists are to belong to the Society. But it 
ought to be understood that such a provincial show or meeting is really 
a visit of the society to the town or city where the show is held, for the 
