82 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARD^jNER, 
July 2fl, 1894. 
- A Nobleman’s Fkuit Stores. —It is reported that “ the 
Earl of Harrington has opened a fruit and vegetable store in Parliament 
Street, Westminster, for the sale of the produce of his estate at Elvaston 
Castle, near Derby, the experiment having been undertaken, it is 
understood, on the advice of his chief agent, Mr. Gilbert Murray.” 
- Coffee in Central Africa. —We learn from a daily con¬ 
temporary that Mr. H. H. Johnston tells a wonderful story of the origin 
and growth of the Coffee plantations in Nyassaland. When, some six¬ 
teen years ago, Mr. Buchanan was going out to Central Africa as horti¬ 
culturist to the Established Church of Scotland Mission the Curator of 
the Edinburgh Botanical Gardens presented him with a sickly little 
Coffee tree. This tree reached the Shir^ Highlands alive, and being 
planted at Blantyre throve mightily, flowered, bore fruit, and became 
the parent tree of the 5,000,000 which are now producing thousands of 
pounds’ worth of berries. The mother tree, Mr. Johnston says, is still 
living in the gardens of the Scotch Mission at Blantyre. 
- Dwarf Peas. —On a breadth of Carter’s Daisy Pea Mr, 
Burrell has growing at Claremont I saw hanging the other day a really 
wonderful crop. Would that the pods and peas were of a deeper green, 
as in these days it is a fact that colour goes a long way in securing 
popularity. Still the variety serves to show what splendid Pea crops 
can be had from plants of very moderate height, for Daisy is there 
about 2 feet. English Wonder is another of these most valuable dwarf 
Peas. On rich ground, and staked, it grows about 16 inches in height 
and produces an immense quantity of pods, if rather shorter than Daisy 
yet greener and of the best quality. With these two, Chelsea Gem, 
Robert Fenn, a very fine but too little grown Marrow, and Omega, that 
best of all Laxton’s Peas, we have dwarf sorts that cannot be excelled 
for relative productiveness and quality by any others in cultivation. 
—A. D. 
- Huyton and Roby Show.— On Thursday last the second 
annual exhibition of the above Society was held on the 19th in a field 
adjoining the new public offices. Last year the Society gave in prizes 
about £60, but at the present show the money was increased to £80, in 
addition to two handsome silver challenge vases for twenty-four and 
twelve Roses, the thanks of the Society being due to W. H. Crook, 
Esq., Hawthorndale, Huyton, and Joseph Royston, Esq,, The Orchard, 
Huyton, for the two latter valuable prizes. As compared with last year 
the exhibition of flowers, fruit, and vegetables was greatly in advance, 
more particularly the Roses. The silver vase for twenty-four Roses was 
won for the second time by Mr. W. Wharton, gardener to Joseph 
Royston, Esq,, thereby becoming his property, whilst that for twelve 
varieties was secured by Mr. R. Pinnington, gardener to Mrs. Banner, 
Black low House, Roby, who has also to win it twice in succession or 
three times in all before it becomes his own. 
- Labels. —In common, doubtless, with many others I have 
received a sample label from Mr. C. T. Druery of Gracechurch Street, 
and well known as an eminent “ fernarian.” It is made of some metal 
or slag inches long by 1 inch wide, and stout. The written surface 
is coated with enamel, and is coloured green, on which appears the 
name in fine writing and in white. That the label is of a most enduring 
nature there should be no doubt, but we do know unfortunately that 
even the hardest of enamel does chip or flake under the influence of 
weather after considerable exposure. That, however, may not be 
a feature of this form of label. Barring that, as a suspended label 
it does seem to be specially useful and desirable. In the circular 
issued with the label the price as per sample seems moderate. The one 
before me is purposed to name an Apple tree, but would, fixed on a stout 
iron standard of any length, serve to name equally well any description 
of rock, border, or other fairly permanent plants ; or suspended on some 
suitable material would do for all descriptions of fruit trees, choice 
trees and shrubs, or Roses. The difficulty here lies not in the label, 
but in the material employed for fixing it to the tree, and Mr. Druery 
may well exercise his ingenuity in that direction, for every gardener 
knows that even stout wire, whether plain or galvanised, in time decays. 
The label falls, it is lost in the soil or leaves, and is rendered useless. 
One objection applies to this label, as to all long labels. It is made to 
hang downwards, as there is a perforation at one end by which to affix 
it to the tree. Why not have the hole in the centre of one side of the 
label, so that when hung up the writing will run horizontally and easily 
readable, instead of vertically, always a nuisance? In that respect we 
have been slaves to custom long enough, for human beings are not 
endowed with indiarubber necks.—A. D. 
The Trophy Classes and Multiplicity of Exhibits. 
Our able and active correspondent Mr. C. J, Grahame has (page 
54, July 19th) introduced a subject — a twin subject, to speak more 
correctly—of considerable moment to many exhibitors of Roses. 
Whether it would be prudent to reduce the number of varieties in 
trophy or other large classes can only be determined by a frank 
discussion by those rosarians who enter, or would like to do so, into the 
contests. It is not very difficult to see in many, if not most, stands of 
seventy-two, or even forty-eight varieties, that the requisite number of 
distinct blooms have only been brought together by—to employ a well- 
understood term—a “ scramble.” In these “ big ” classes hundreds of 
blooms are seen every year which in no proper sense are representative 
of the varieties ; in fact, not a few are poor apologies for them. This 
is apparent to all rosarians, and has been for years ; yet this very fact—- 
the long continuance of such classes — would appear to suggest that 
there are good and substantial reasons for their existence. These reasons 
may—in fact, must—be well known to several leading rosarians, though 
they are by no means clear to all, and surely no harm could be done by 
giving them wide publicity. 
There are no summer flower shows that equal in attractive force 
those which are composed exclusively or largely of Roses. This is 
evident by the number of persons who crowd round the stands ; and 
therefore it goes without saying that everything which can be done 
should be done, not only to maintain but to increase the prestige of the 
exhibitions. This, it is conceivable, can best be accomplished by bring¬ 
ing together the greatest possible number of the best possible blooms by 
the largest number of exhibitors. Assuming that to be the object, 
can it be said it is fully met by the present system ? 
Again, are there examples of departures from the orthodox routine 
to afford guidance in the consideration of proposed changes ? Expe¬ 
rience is a potent teacher, and if changes have been made it would be 
instructive if the results were forthcoming. If there have been no 
departures carrying with them sufficient weight to afford useful guidance, 
then can evidence bearing on the subject be found outside the Rose 
world, but which may, or may not, be applicable in it ? 
It may be a far cry from Roses to Chrysanthemums—from July to 
November, but it may be as well to recognise the fact that there are 
Chrysanthemum shows, and that these have greatly increased in 
number, extent, in the excellence of products exhibited, and in public 
approval during recent years. Has this all-round gain been brought 
about by any change in the classes 1 It is certain there have been 
reductions in the number of varieties stipulated for. The old maximum 
of “ forty-eight, distinct,” has gone out of fashion, as also, to a large 
extent, have classes for thirty-six and twenty-four distinct varieties. 
The number of blooms remain the same, but thirty-six varieties suffice 
in many, if not most, forty-eight bloom classes ; twenty-four varieties in 
thirty-six bloom classes ; and eighteen varieties in classes for twenty- 
four blooms. This obviously permits of duplicates, and as obviously the 
stands are improved in weight and beauty. The change increased the 
number of exhibitors, resulted in more imposing displays, also an exten¬ 
sion of public patronage, and a corresponding extension of trade in 
these plants. No doubt there was another effect which several old 
Chrysanthemum growers deplored—namely, excluding from the shows 
several varieties which, though charming in themselves, were lacking in 
size or some other property which did not enable them to show to 
advantage among their larger and more, we will say, “ eye-catching ” 
compeers. The same system is adopted with Carnations. 
We are neither advocating, nor the reverse, a similar change in Rose 
classes. It would be premature, not to say presumptive, to do so. It is 
a question for experts, and we simply place certain modifications before 
them, pointing out in a judicial way the advantages and disadvantages 
resulting in the case of Chrysanthemums, and which might be expected 
to follow in the case of Roses under similar circumstances. It is for 
rosarians to consider in which direction there would likely to be a 
balance of advantages by the adoption of a change on the same lines, or 
in some other way if there should happen to be a concensus of opinion 
that a departure from existing methods of showing Roses is desirable. 
In his other question—the monopolisation of prizes by exhibitors 
not only of great skill but with large means—Mr. Grahame brings to 
