108 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER, 
AtgOSt 3,189 (. 
Amateur Championship Trophy Class and Multiplicity of 
Exhibits. 
The questions which Mr. Charles Grahame has introduced for dis¬ 
cussion in the Journal of Horticulture (page 54. July 19th) are of great 
importance to the National Kose Society’s exhibitors of all classes, and 
with regard to the first one I feel an especial interest, as it probably 
initiates a reform which I have for years vainly urged upon the 
Executive of the Society, though my views have been supported by such 
exhibitors as Mr. Machin, Mr. Pemberton, Mr. Slaughter, and others. 
These gentlemen and myself may have thought, though no doubt 
wrongly, that our opinion on a special question like this should have 
had more weight with the powers that be, and at all events that valid 
reasons against the proposed alteration should be forthcoming. But 
argument or discussion there was practically none, we were heard and 
promptly outvoted. 
But now that the same question has been raised from an outside 
source, I am glad to have the opportunity of appealing from the Com¬ 
mittee to the members of the Society which elect it to give their support 
to the proposed alteration, and to them I give the two chief reasons 
which have induced me to think the change a vital one. First, that it 
e almost impossible for an amateur to stage a representative collection 
of forty-eight distinct Boses on a day appointed by others—there must 
always be a “ tail,” and a very worthless one, of from six to twelve blooms 
in such a collection, and in support of this contention I adduce the fact 
that after four years’ competition in forty-eights I can only out of several 
first prize stands recall two that were worthy of the position awarded to 
them. 
Again, to keep up a sufficient stock of plants to enable an exhibitor 
to get the number of blooms required entails a loss of time, temper, and 
money, which must discourage many, who, if the numbers were 
reduced, might try a fall with fortune for the highest honours open to 
Rose competition, and I trust that rising exhibitors will note that their 
elder brethren are generally anxious that such a change should be made 
as will enable them to compete with fair prospects of success from a 
moderately sized collection, and that it is in their own power to insist 
upon the alteration. 
Upon the second question I have not the same information, but 
should gladly welcome some limitation of any power of an exhibitor 
to sweep the board of an undue number of prizes. I do not think, 
however, that such limitation should touch the classes for new Roses or 
the prizes open to nurserymen.— E. B. Lindsell. 
I QUITE approve of Mr. Grahame’s suggestion that the number of 
Roses in the above should be reduced to thirty-six. There is no doubt 
the Roses would be better, and if only one more member competed (five 
seems to be about the average number of competitors) the blooms 
exhibited would only be reduced by twenty-four, which would be amply 
compensated for by the increased quality. 
With regard to the restriction of the number of prizes to be taken 
by one amateur, if Mr. Grahame can bring about an arrangement so 
that one exhibitor can only win the trophy and four prizes, it will be 
better for the Society, as the prizes do go at present to too few exhibitors. 
—W. Boyes, Derby. _ 
I AM inclined to agree, substantially, with Mr. Grahame in both the 
points which he has raised. In the amateur trophy class I have long 
considered that the requirement of forty-eight distinct varieties was too 
severe a strain upon the resources of really first-class Roses. The pro¬ 
ceedings in the Chrysanthemum world have been referred to, but the 
analogy is imperfect, for, instead of decreasing the number of varieties 
required, the tendency of the N.C.S. has been, of late years, to demand 
a larger number. For instance, three years ago duplicates were per¬ 
mitted in the great class for forty-eight Japanese, now distinct varieties 
are required. However, although this is literally so, and the change 
was, indeed, brought about partly at my instigation, I am willing to 
admit that the precedent thus established has no real bearing upon the 
question when raised in the Rose world, for the conditions are so 
essentially different. 
Recent years have brought so vast an accession, of first-claM new 
Chrysanthemums, that had not the number of distinct varieties required 
been increased there would have been but a mere procession of new 
varieties, none of them remaining with us more than a year or two. It 
is now absolutely easy to stage forty-eight distinct varieties of Japanese 
Chrysanthemums almost level in quality. With Roses it is far other¬ 
wise, and, as varieties at present exist, thirty-six distinct would, in my 
judgment, be far better than forty-eight, and would bring us both better 
exhibits and more competitors. I should, however, scarcely like to go so 
far as to bring the number down to twenty-four distinct. Thirty-six 
would, I think, be better. 
With regard to the limitation of the number of prizes to be won by 
any one competitor, I think that Mr. Grahame’s suggestion is to the 
purpose. We know that local conditions of environment, as well as 
other potent considerations, do very materially affect the showing power 
of certain favoured exhibitors. We wish them all reasonable recognition 
and reward for the accruing results, but there are other considerations 
also to be kept in view. The numerous classes in the N.R.S.’s shows are 
surely intended to promote the most general and extended interest in 
the Rose world, and not merely to afford a happy hunting ground for the 
fortunately circumstanced few. The Society’s work will most safely 
rest upon the broad basis of a wide popular interest, and it seems to me 
that the support which such interest must tend to promote is most likely 
to be secured by the adoption of some system of restriction in the 
direction of Mr. Grahame’s suggestion. The principle is already 
practically admitted both in the Rose and Chrysanthemum worlds, 
its application needs only to be made a little more drastic.— 
Charles E. Shea. 
We shall probably all agree with Mr. C. J. Grahame that everything 
that can legitimately be done to increase the competition in these classes 
will be advantageous to all concerned, excepting perhaps the labours of 
the judges. This difficulty can be met by an increase in their number. 
The value of the success would be greatly enhanced if the winning 
stand were the best of twenty-four competitors instead of half a dozen. 
Whilst as at present arranged is it not patent that with an occasional 
exception, which after all only proves the rule—this, the blue ribbon of 
the Rose world, can only be won by the large batallions? Even with 
the carrying out of Mr. Grahame’s suggestion, by lessening the number 
of blooms the great batallions must still have an undoubted advantage 
which the greatest care and knowledge of the small grower must ever 
find it difficult to set aside. 
Personally, it concerns me not. I am never likely to have the 
audacity to put in an appearance for the National Trophy, but were I a 
candidate for the same I think I should vote for twenty-four varieties 
rather than the suggestion of retaining larger numbers but allow¬ 
ing some duplicates. This plan suits for Chrysanthemums, but in those 
flowers there are means of making the blooms come to time, which in 
the case of our out-of-door favourites cannot be as much depended on. 
Some of the writers of leading articles on Rose lore in the daily papers 
notwithstanding, our trophy blooms live and grow in the open ,* hence 
wind, rain, changes of temperature tell vastly more on the Rose than on 
the Chrysanthemum. 
As regards the second point, there are various way of meeting 
it. Amateurs, real amateurs, would, I believe, be content with the 
honour of winning if expenses of transit were set aside, only they are 
often in the hands of their gardeners. This is an evil; yet it is natural 
enough that the man who has his master’s interest at heart, and who, 
perhaps, has slaved early and late to gain the post of honour, should 
expect some portion of the proceeds, and 1 consider be deserves this. 
Some exhibitors may possibly take a per-centage of prize money 
as part of their gardener’s wages, and this tends to the so-called 
“ pot-hunting.” 
I have for many years been the honorary secretary of an amateur 
Rose club. We have offered to the members several classes, and we 
allow an exhibitor the honour of being flrst in all, but he can only take 
one prize ; we have done more, we set aside these winners in some 
of the classes and push up the unsuccessful competitors, and have thus 
often been able to give every member exhibiting some little return for 
his trouble. In this year we divided the classes into two divisions, not 
allowing exhibitors in the one division to enter in the other. This was 
with the hope that those members who had not hitherto competed might 
be encouraged to try, and this was fairly successful. There are dis¬ 
advantages, as this somewhat diminished the entries of larger exhibitors, 
and as a result, bare boards, by no means a pleasant sight, appeared. 
With an honorary secretary’s horror of bare boards 1 would not 
prevent an exhibitor entering in every class that was open to him, but 
I would certainly restrict by some means the number of prizes he could 
carry away ; and the honour of winning is what many of us do care for. 
In spite of Mr. Grahame’s dislike of a nom de plume, I still subscribe 
myself—Y. B. A. Z. _ 
In response to the invitation in your last issue (page 82) I venture to 
send a line upon the above compound subject. I quite agree that a 
readjustment is desirable in the first matter, but it must be borne in 
mind that these classes carry with them, by unwritten, but universal 
consent, the title of champion for the year, and that while the term 
“championship” calls for excellence of quality before all else, the 
thought of numbers is also connected with it, and it is not the intention 
that every; exhibiting member should be able to compete. If this i8<not 
