Jansary 2S, 1800. J 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
G5 
Neige are much better shaped than Madame Lacharme or Merveille 
of very small in comparison as to be completely out 
Madanw Prosper Langier (Verdier, 1875).—Of good strong stiff 
growth, with very distinct appearance and habit. Well spoken of as a 
useful Rose, but I could never get it to do at all with me, and have had 
to discard it long since. 
Madame Victor Verdier (Verdier, 186.1).—A very strong grower, 
foliage beautifully coloured in the spring. Not liable to 
mildew, but rather worried by rain. A well known crimson Rose, which 
by no means comes up to its reputation with me. It is free flowering, 
fo™s plenty of buds in the autumn, but I cannot honestly say that 
they come too much, nor are they as large as they ought to be in pro¬ 
portion to the growth. I have been gradually discarding it during the 
last three years, but I should gather from the general opinion that it 
does better with other cultivators. 
Magna Charta (W. Paul, 1876).—Exceedingly strong growth, with 
large foliage ; not very liable to mildew or much injured by rain. With 
me a coarse Rose, very large, double, and showy ; rough on maidens, and 
generally much wanting in refinement. Fairly free blooming consider¬ 
ing its size, and sweet scented, but a very bad autumnal. Hardy, and of 
strong constitution. 
Marechal Vaillant (Jamain, 1861), syn., Avocat Duvivier.—Of 
good growth and foliage. A fairly free flowering, hardy, good ordinary 
common Rose, with no particular manners or merit. 
• de Poman (Schwartz, 1882). —Of Victor Verdier race, 
with aU the special manners and customs of the family. Lighter than 
Mane Finger, but smaller, and not so good. 
Marguerite de St. Amand (Jamain, 1861).—Of fine thorny growth, 
with good foliage, very green in the spring. Not liable to mildew or to 
f rain. The blooms almost always come well, of a delight- 
fully fresh pink colour, and of regular but rather open shape, well filled 
in the centre. A capital Rose, one of the best of its colour, free bloom¬ 
ing, and a good autumnal; of large size, and good lasting quality. I 
am informed that it is an unfortunate custom of this Rose to be particu¬ 
larly palatable to rabbits, who will search out and attack it first among 
any number of Roses. 
Mar^ Paumann (Baumann, 186.8).— This is a Rose of great reputa- 
tion. The growth as a cutback cannot be called more than fair, and the 
foliage is not large. The wood is moreover weak and pliable, and unable 
to support a heavy bloom, which therefore hangs over with its face to 
the ground. This habit undoubtedly detracts from the appearance of 
toe flowers while on the plant, and they must be supported for show. 
f[.™'Jch injured by rain, but very liable to mildew. 
_ Always good in all seasons,” a very high quality claimed for this Rose, 
18 perhaps rather too strong an expression. It was very good last year, 
much better than the year before, for all Roses are more or less affected 
by the weather and the season ; still it is a wonderful Rose to “‘conie 
good, S’lid jn this respect is perhaps more reliable than any other, 
free blooming and a good autumnal, fair in petal, good in centre, of 
typical globular form, often very like Alfred Colomb (not only in 
shape, but also in colour), of large size, lovely smooth outline, and 
fair lasting qualities. It must be well cultivated, and will not do 
Manetti stock ; but though it cannot be called 
a hardy sort of strong constitution, it has been for many years, and 
appears likely to continue to be, one of the most ponular of Exhibition 
Roses. ‘ 
Chinft'f (Guillot, 1872).—One of the “weak robust” sort, like 
Madame Charles Wood in growth. Not liable to mildew, but suffering 
from rain. The blooms do not always come well, but when they do the 
petals are thick and good, the shape well imbricated, and the centre 
nicely filled. No use as a free bloomer or autumnal. Very good in 
lasting qualities, but (keeping the worst to the last) decidedly deficient 
in size. 
Marie Finger (Guillot, 1872).—Better, I think, than Mdlle. Eugdnie 
Verdier, which is held to be a synonym. Of Victor Verdier race, with 
^ manners and customs of the family, but decidedly one of the best 
of them. The growth is often marked moderate, but with me it is as 
good as that of any of the tribe. A most beautiful colour, often nearer 
” than any other Rose. A row in good bloom will 
often draw your lady visitors, who are more attracted by colour from 
even your brightest crimsons. Of large size, but not of very good last¬ 
ing qualities, the centre being rather weak, and the form soon lost. 
Very free blooming and an excellent autumnal. 
iZrnfy (Fontaine, 1865), syn., Comtesse de Choiseul and Mrs. 
Jowitt, IS much like it. Capital strong growth and foliage, not very 
Imble to mildew, but utterly destroyed by any rain, even when quite in 
the bud state. Requires dry hot weather, and then most brilliant and 
superb ; a striking contrast to the ugly, dull, brown rotting bal's which 
are seen in a showery time. The blooms are large and particularly 
heavy, and any poet who speaks of being “ pelted with Roses” as an 
aesthetical luxury may, I think, be convinced of error if he will allow 
me access to my “ Rady’s ” in a damp season. A free bloomer, but does 
not shine as an autumnal ; comes well as a rule if the weather is right 
with stout petals, very full centre, globular imbricated shape, brilliant 
red colour, and capital lasting qualities, but has a tendency to coarse- 
ne.ss on maiden plants. A good hardy sort, likely to be in demand after 
a dry season, and to be neglected after a wet one. 
Marie Verdier (Verdier, 1877).—Of short growth as a cutback, but 
fairly healthy and strong, with good foliage, very green in the spring 
Not very liable to mildew, and opens tolerably, but loses colour in rain. 
The blooms come generally well formed, with something of the cupped 
shape, the centre being well filled. Its strong points are the size, thick¬ 
ness, and smoothness of the petals ; in these particulars it is hard to be 
surpassed. Fairly free blooming, but cannot be called a good autumnal; 
of large size, lasting in shape, but not in colour. A very good show 
Rose, particularly noticeable for the length and smoothness of its 
petals. 
Mary Bennett (Bennett, 1881).—Fine shape, thick petals, good 
colour, and a good laster, but quite a bad grower. I cannot get it to do 
at all. 
Marquise de Ca.stcllane (Pernet, 1869).—Of robust habit ; some¬ 
times a very strong grower, with thick long thorny shoots and fine 
foliage, but rather capricious in this matter and difficult to please. I 
see one professional of note quotes the growth as “ moderate.” My own 
impression is that it used to grow stronger than it does now. My 
plants, all treated exactly alike, are most uneven, some being very weak 
and some very strong. I have known it do well in light soil, but am 
not prepared to say that it likes it. At any rate, it will not be of any 
use if it does not make strong growth. The blooms frequently come 
unevenly shaped, but they very large and most effective when good. 
Not liable to mildew or much injured by rain, early, free flowering if it 
does well. Not very good in lasting qualities, but a capital autumnal, 
coming of good size quite late in the season. 
Maurice Bernardin. —See Ferdinand de Lesseps. 
Merveille de Lyon (Pernet, 1882).—Of Baroness Rothschild race, in 
all manners and customs resembling it in every particular. The finest 
white H.P. Rose by a long way ; inclined to come with a slight pink 
shade in the autumn, but a grand Rose of the largest size. The blooms 
open quickly and are rather weak in the centre ; they must be cut 
quite small for exhibition. This race has a splendid hardy constiiition. 
I have no blanks in my cutback rows of this Rose and the Baroness. 
The plants are all alike and even ; none die or are ever “ sick or sorry.” 
A capital autumnal, and a great acquisition altogether. 
Miss JIassard, (Turner, 1875).—Of strong thorny growth. Hardy, 
fairly free blooming, and a pretty pink colour, but the shape is weak and 
loose. May perhaps be considered worthy of a place, as being one of the 
earliest. 
Monsieur Boncenne. —See Baron de Bonstetten. 
Monsieur Woman (Guillot, 1866).—The growth of this Rose is 
puzzling. One catalogue gives it as robust ; the majority call it “ free,” 
which may mean anything, but can generally be interpreted as “ not 
bad enough to be ciassed moderate,” and the National Rose Society’s 
catalogue gives it as “ very moderate,” this being the only H.P. thug 
stigmatised. I remember that I was much surprised when 1 first saw 
this, as I was then trying to grow Roses in light gravelly soil, and it is 
no exaggeration to say that, in a good sized collection. Monsieur Noman 
was one of my best growers, but the blooms were not first-class. Now 
that I grow it in better soil it is decidedly weak in growth, but the 
flowers are much better. The characteristic wood is very enticing to 
prune to, if you do not know “its tricks and its manners;” for the 
base of every shoot swarms with great strong red buds, looking as if the 
plant was going to grow like fun next year ; but the experienced 
pruner will leave very few indeed of these buds, and allow but few 
shoots to grow. It would be better, perhaps, to bud it annually, follow¬ 
ing the recommendation of the National Rose Society’s catalogue—“ best 
from maiden plants.” Not liable to mildew, but absolutely spoiled by 
rain, which will cause the blooms to gum and rot in the early stages, 
and stain the petals when they are expanded. It pays well for a cap or 
protection of some sort in showery weather. Fine in petal and shape, 
clear in colour and larse in size ; a very free bloomer, but not of much 
use as an autumnal.—W. R. Raillem. 
(To be conlinued.) 
Dressing Rose Blooms. 
In thanking “ D., Beal ” for his words of admonition to myself, and 
for the complimentary terms in which he writes of dressing Bose blooms 
provided it is successfully done, will you allow me space for a 
rejoinder ? 
First, as to my supposed departure from the usual course pursued 
by members of committee. In writing to you upon a suVdect which was 
di.scussed at the annual general meeting of the National Rose Society, I 
recorded opinions intended to have been made personally had I attended 
the meeting. So that un'ess I should have been out of order, because a 
member of Committee, in taking part in the public consideration of the 
question at the meeting—not a Committee meeting, remember, but a 
meeting of subscribers, the proceedings of which have been reported in 
your paper—I can hardly be precluded from stating those opinions in a 
letter to the Journal of Horticulture. If I have thus trespassed, and I 
plead ignorance to the fact that the motion was put forward by the 
Committee, I humbly apologise to all affected thereby, especially to my 
friend, “ D , Deal," to whom I appear to owe many thanks for his for¬ 
bearance in letting this point pass. 
Now as to the main point. Permit me to explain why I concluded 
that the decision in the case of Roses dressed “out of character” was 
“to be left to some other authority than that of judges.” It was 
because the clause which deals with overdressed Roses is added to rules 
which have been and may again be enforced by that “ other authority.” 
