392 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
[ November 5,1S91. 
will not do at present. The colour has been a bright paper-white with 
me, but I saw a half-opened bud at Mr. Frank Cant’s, which was 
decidedly of a pale yellow. It seems to me to be an improving sort. 
Gustave Piganeau (Pernet & Ducher, 1889) is a Rose which, having 
been finely shown, has been much talked of, and probably largely pro¬ 
pagated this year. For a very full-sized flower it has a better shape 
than Ulrich Brunner, and a large majority of the blooms seem to come 
uniformly good. I see it is marked “very vig.” in one of the best 
catalogues, but my two or three plants (maiden) have been of quite 
moderate growth, and have made but little wood. Undoubtedly a very 
fine Rose, and one of the best of its year. 
James Brownlow (A. Dickson, 1889).—A stout, but by no means a 
free grower with me, that must, I fear, be reckoned as one of the few 
failures of the Irish firm which lias given us so many excellent novelties. 
It seems a fresh shade of colour, but the few flowers I have had have 
been coarse aud ill-shaped, and “ one more chance because of the bad 
season ” is all I can say for it. 
Jeannie Dickson (A. Dickson, 1890) is of a very different type indeed. 
As is a handsome lady to a rough coalheaver, so is Jeannie Dickson to 
James Brownlow. The very leaves seem to speak of refinement, and 
the blooms are first-class in every way, though possibly wanting in 
stoutness of centre in hot weather. A fine autumnal, for I cut a lovely 
specimen on October 5tb, and as I survey my budded stocks my sole 
source of dissatisfaction is that I have not propagated more of this 
charming variety. 
Lady Arthur Hill (A. Dickson, 1889) is a fine handsome grower 
with grand foliage. I have found the blooms a little disappointing, 
Being generally smaller than one would expect from the growth and 
foliage. This has perhaps something to do with my treatment, for 
Beauty of Waltham, the seed parent, either does not do justice to me, or 
I do not to it; at any rate, the result is seldom satisfactory. There is, 
nevertheless, decided quality in Lady Arthur Hill, the petals being 
smooth and of stout substance, and the blooms having capital staying 
powers. 
Lady Helen Stewart (A. Dickson, 1887) is another Irish Rose of 
which somewhat the same may be said. It is a good grower, but not so 
otiff and strong or fine in foliage as Lady Arthur Hill; much darker in 
colour, and again hardly up to first-class form in size. The blooms of 
both these Roses are rather inclined to be flat— i.e., they have not the 
long petals and high centre of Jeannie Dickson. 
Madame Henri Pereire (Vilin, 1886).—This Rose has been well 
shown, and I believe it to be good. My plants bloomed at a time 
when every Rose was much below par, and in an ordinary season I 
should have been disappointed with it. It is of rather a common 
colour, but seems sufficiently distinct. 
Madame Joseph Dcsbois (Guillot, 1886).—Th's being a white Rose, 
•easily damaged by rain, was quite spoiled this year with me. The 
petals are fine, though sensitive, and the blooms are of very large size, 
but rather loose and deficient in staying qualities. 
Mdlle. de la Seigliere (Maindron, 1886).—A very fine grower with 
me, but the flowers are not of first-class shape, being somewhat of the 
cupped form. It is a little like Madame Eugene Verdier outside, and 
that class of Rose will often do injury to a refined stand. 
Marchioness of Dufferin (A. Dickson, 1891).—I did not see this 
Rose as shown at Hereford, but I saw those at the Crystal Palace, and 
I have two plants, one of which has bloomed. Here, again, the per¬ 
fection of shape seems to be the lacking quality, the “ globular form” 
being carried rather to an extreme in the specimens I have seen. The 
blooms are of ample size, and the growth seems good, but I fear there is 
■gome tendency to mildew. 
Margaret Dickson (A. Dickson, 1891).—I have seen no blooms of this 
but those which have appeared in public, but I hope that we shall be able 
to retain the very high opinion that was generally formed of it last year. 
It was stated in the last issue of “ The Rosarian’s Year Book” that the 
foliage of this Rose, being stout and almost leathery in character, will 
be certainly a strong resister of mildew. The argument seemed a 
strange one. I do not think we know anything of mildew that will 
warrant such a conclusion ; on the contrary, the stoutest foliaged Rose 
we have, Her Majesty, is notoriously the most liable, while Gdnhral 
Jacqueminot and its allies, which have quite thin leaves, enjoy almost 
-as much immunity as any. As a matter of fact, Margaret Dickson is, I 
fear, decidedly susceptible to mildew. The plants I have have suffered 
from it, and some strong run-out shoots from budded stocks have been 
badly attacked. Nevertheless, I quite hope and believe that this Rose 
will be decidedly our best white H.P. 
Monsieur Trievoz (Schwartz, 1888).—This is a Rose of good growth 
and fine foliage, very much like Comtesse d’Oxford. There may be a 
sufficient variation in colour to mark it as distinct, but I unfortunately 
missed seeing at their best the two or three good blooms I had. 
Mrs. Paul (G. Paul & Son, 1891).—I am sorry not to be able to 
report on this Rose. That it is a grand grower, and a flower unique in 
its way, may be taken for granted. I have some grown-out sh ots 
which are untouched by mildew. 
Salamander (W. Paul & Son, 1891).—I was disappointed at seeing 
no specimens of this Rose at the Crystal Palace this year. I hope it 
will prove worthy of its name, and able to stand the fire of a hot 
.season. 
Silver Queen (W. Paul, 1887).—This is much like Queen of Queens 
to a casual observer, and a good season is required for a better 
■comparison. 
Souvenir de Rosierlste Gonod (Ducher, 1889).—There is no doubt 
whatever as to the power of growth possessed by this Rose. Two great rows 
of maidens at Mr. B. R. Cant’s were a sight for their luxuriance, and a 
wonder in that they had no sign of a bloom. A large majority of his 
cutbacks had also failed to flower. It appears to be a capital Rose when 
you get it, but not celebrated at present for freedom of flowering. 
T. W. Girdlestone (A. Dickson, 1890).—This will, I hope, be better 
as a cutback. The growth and foliage are good, and the buds large, but 
all my blooms were coarse and of poor shape. One promised well, but 
the rain spoiled it. It is the sort of Rose which is likely to do better as 
a cutback.— W. R. Raillem. 
(To be continued.) 
POTATOES. 
A note of mine on this subject in your columns last spring caused 
Messrs. Daniels of Norwich to send me several varieties of Potatoes for 
trial with the view of testing their adaptability for culture iD Ireland. I 
grew them side by side, giving no special treatment other than that 
given to older kinds. Our soil is sandy with a decidedly moory tendency. 
The district is mountainy. Needless to add, I did not taste all in one 
day, but had them day by day, jotting down my opinion of them as soon 
as the ceremony was completed. 1 flatter myself that the cook’s abilities 
are beyond question, and on that score they suffered no injustice. 
Dreadnought. —A singularly handsome disease-resisting Potato, a 
good cropper, but as an eating Potato the quality was only second rate ; 
must try it another year. 
King Kidney. —This proved a fair cropping variety with large 
tubers, very floury, and of excellent flavour when cooked. A few had 
hollow centres ; a good disease-resisting Potato, admirably suited for 
culture in Ireland. 
Remarkable. —Certainly a remarkable cropping variety with large 
and handsome tubers, well adapted for exhibition, and a splendid eating 
Potato. Thi 3 kind cannot be too strongly recommended for culture in 
Ireland, being the very thing for the peasant’s “ haggard.” 
Universal. —An enormous cropper, and a good disease-resister, but 
does not cook well ; I cannot, therefore, advise anyone to plant it 
extensively. I shall, however, give it another trial. 
The Daniels. —This variety, the result of a cross between Magnum 
Bonum and White Elephant, gave me an agreeable surprise, as neither 
of these varieties is of any use here either as disease-resisters or for 
eating purposes. Their “ bairn,” however, turned out like them in 
being an enormous cropper with large tubers of even size and handsome 
form and not a trace of disease; of first rate quality when cooked, 
being very floury, first rate exhibition Potato. 
Daniels’ Table King.—So far I must pronounce this variety the 
best of all. It is the most floury Potato I have seen in Ireland, and 
what i 3 of equal importance it is of first rate flavour, very prolific, in 
size and shape a gem for the exhibition table, while not a diseased tuber 
was found when lifting them. 
The Bruce. —This is another most excellent all-round Potato that 
everyone should grow. I hear excellent accounts from gardens in which 
the staple soil is clay. 
Golden Floubball. —I must give this variety another trial, 
although its behaviour this year offers no great inducement to do so. It 
was a very light cropper, the tubers are very unshapely, but when cooked 
of excellent quality ; no sign of disease among them. At present, how¬ 
ever, I would not recommend anyone to grow it unless they have 
abundance of spare land. This is not a very good year for Potatoes, for 
although the crop is generally a heavy one the quality in many cases is 
very indifferent when cooked. Disease is as usual very prevalent among 
the staple varieties ; it is therefore very satisfactory to find the kinds 
under notice so free of disease. Among the whole of them I do not 
think we have had a dozen diseased tubers.— R. Weller, Glenstal 
Gardens , Limerick. 
THE PROPOSED NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL 
FRUIT SHOW IN LONDON, 1892. 
A meeting of horticulturists was held in the Cannon Street Hotel 
on Friday, October 80th last, at 3 p.m , Sir James Whitehead, Bart.., in 
the chair, to consider the desirability of holding a National and Inter¬ 
national Fruit Show in London in 1892. There was a good attendance, 
the following being present—Mr. A. H. Smee, Carshalton ; Mr. H. R. 
Williams of the Fruiterers’ Company ; Dr. M. T. Masters, Mr. John 
Wright; Mr. John Laing, Forest Hill ; Mr. George Gordon ; Mr. G. 
Bunyard, Maidstone ; Mr. J. Douglas, Ilford ; Mr. J. Cheal, Crawley ; 
Mr. W. G. Head, Crystal Palace ; Mr. H. Cutbush, Highgate ; Mr. F. Sander. 
St. Alban’s; Mr. Elphins’one, Shipley Hall Gardens, Derby; Mr. G. 
Reynolds, Gunnersbury Park Gardens; Mr. J. Hudson, Gunnersbury House 
Gardens; Mr. Cuthbertson, Rothesay ; Mr. B. Wynne, Mr. H. Herbst, 
Mr. R. Dean, Mr. A. Dean, and Mr. Lewis Castle of the British Fruit 
Growers’ Association, with several others specially interested in the 
subject who had been attracted to the meeting by the advertisements 
in the gardening papers. 
The following report of the proceedings appears in the City Press 
for October 31st. 
Sir James Whitehead, in addressing the meeting, said he had asked 
those present to meet him in order that they might discuss a very 
important subject. There would doubtless have been many more present 
that afternoon if it had not been for other engagements—he alluded 
particularly to the several friends who were visiting Mr. Haywood in 
