AngUlt 2,1994. 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER, 
109 
the case the simplest and most logical course would be to allot these 
trophies to a class for six trusses, open to and within the reach of all. 
For these reasons I think it would be a mistake to reduce the number 
of blooms to twenty-four. This number is frequently shown by 
distinctly small growers, such as myself, and for such a man to snatch 
a “ fluky ” victory in the trophy class and upon the strength of it to 
pose as a “ champion,” would be entirely ridiculous and undesirable. I 
think the general feeling is that our champions should be men of large 
experience, gained by the work of years among a stock of large variety 
and of great numbers. I believe also that stands of forty-eight varieties, 
besides making a fine feature in a show, have an educational value to 
smaller growers and to beginners ; and while I have no doubt it is not an 
easy matter to find that number of first-class blooms, I entirely demur to 
the sweeping assertion that there are usually less than half the number 
in really fine form. I have carefully examined every box staged in this 
class from the first, and cannot recall one winning stand to which this 
description would apply, while I could mention seven of the first 
prize stands which have not contained a single bad flower, scarcely a 
weak one. 
My suggestion, therefore, would be that the award of a trophy at the 
Metropolitan exhibition should follow the arrangement of the northern 
shows, where, while thirty-six is the top class in point of numbers, the 
Jubilee trophy goes to the class for twenty-four. Let us then retain the 
class for forty-eight in Division C, and make the present thirty-six the 
championship class. This, while admitting several men who at present 
cannot manage the required number, and thus increasing the interest 
and the competition, would yet retain it among those exhibitors who 
may reasonably aspire to championship honours. 
The question of limiting the number of prizes is one of much greater 
difficulty than the previous one, and I do not think it calls for any 
action at present. If you restrict entries any farther than they are 
restricted now you reduce the extent of the exhibition, and with so 
many non-exhibiting members, who only subscribe to enable them to 
attend our large shows, that would be unwise. If you leave entries 
open, but fix a number of prizes beyond which an exhibitor may not go, 
this would of itself curtail the exhibits as above, and would have the 
additional undesirable effect of causing exhibitors to confine themselves 
strictly to those classes in which they feel certain of winning. It 
would also cause much additional work in judging, inasmuch as with 
the possibility of the exhibitor placed first, second, or third in any class 
having already reached the limit, and therefore being disqualified, some 
others would be brought within the range of the prize list who other¬ 
wise could not be there. It would therefore be necessary in every 
class to place some five or six stands in order of merit, so that in the 
event of one or more of the top ones being ineligible to take the prizes 
at first awarded, the proper order of merit should be known. This 
readjustment of labels would also give rise to endless confusion and 
complaint. There will always be a few grumblers at other men’s 
successes, but I am thankful to know that this sort of thing finds but 
very small place among the members of the National Rose Society, and 
the doctrine that directly a man, competing with those similarly 
equipped to himself, achieves any conspicuous success, he is to be 
weighted and handicapped and deprived of the fruits of his energy and 
pluck, is not one which will find any considerable acceptance. At any 
rate, the matter can be left for another year or two without hardship to 
anyone. 
In spite of the remarks of one of your correspondents I adhere to my 
custom of using my initials only, because I want my suggestions 
always to stand or fall upon their intrinsic merit, not to receive the 
adventitious aid of a name and address.—J. B. 
Mr. C. J. Grahame has ably opened a very interesting subject, 
one on which there will be a great diversity of opinion, according 
as it is approached from different standpoints. Taking the maxim 
that ought to be applied to all exhibitions, ” The greatest good to the 
greatest number,” there is no doubt that many improvements may be 
made in the arrangement of the schedule of many of our leading 
societies. Still, we cannot lose sight of the fact, as stated in the 
editorial remarks (page 82), that we owe much to the larger classes in 
retaining and keeping in cultivation many varieties that are so useful 
and valuable outside of the exhibition board. To limit the number too 
closely, the largest varieties only would find favour, which would mean 
a repetition and a sameness along the exhibits ; also remove one of the 
chief objects in offering prizes—viz., encouraging the cultivation of the 
particular flower, and banish one feature of immense interest to older 
exhibitors who like to make the acquaintance of old favourites now and 
again. 
I write more of what has been done by Chrysanthemum societies and 
exhibitions, but I am imbued with the same spirit as regards Roses and 
rosarians. As to Chrysanthemums ten or twelve years ago, it was a 
tremendous strain for an exhibitor to complete a stand of twenty-four 
distinct varieties, especially in the incurved section. The stands of 
blooms that secured for the exhibitor the first Kingston challenge cup 
contained one and sometimes two very indifferent flowers, that sadly 
marred the stand as a whole, and this induced other societies to allow 
duplicates to be shown in the larger classes. What may have been 
considered necessary a few years ago does not apply now, since we have 
so many new introductions of large exhibition varieties. 
I say candidly I am not in favour of allowing duplicates to be shown 
in the larger classes. A stand of twenty-four blooms in eighteen 
varieties may look more bulky, but it lacks the charming variety and 
colouring of a stand of twenty-four distinct blooms. The counting up 
of the varieties also adds considerably to the judges’ duties, which 
matters not in large societies where systematic order is kept, but is very 
often a great tax when a whole number of classes in the schedule has to 
be gone through in a short space of time by the same judges. If the 
large classes were a hardship to exhibitors, I would rather be in favour 
of curtailing the number of blooms. Instead of seventy-two varieties 
say sixty varieties, distinct; instead of forty-eight varieties say thirty- 
six varieties, distinct; or for twenty-four varieties say eighteen varieties, 
distinct, and in some way increase the minor classes to meet the want? 
of smaller exhibitors. 
I well recollect some ten or twelve years ago the Committee of the 
Kingston Chrysanthemum Society advocating the offering of prizes for 
six blooms of any one variety. At first it did not meet with general 
favour, but ultimately was carried and adopted. It was a change. It 
opened up a new class for exhibitors, large and small, and it has proved 
not only one of the most interesting, but certainly one of the most 
attractive in a Chrysanthemum exhibition. In these classes are often 
found some of the best flowers in the exhibition. Old varieties and new 
varieties come into competition, and effect is given by the various colours 
being arranged in juxtaposition. Could not this class be multiplied in 
regard to Roses, and prizes offered in the several sections and colours ? 
and to bring out the older varieties prizes could be offered for varieties 
introduced prior to a given date. It certainly may be harder to do in 
Roses than Chrysanthemums; for the latter it is considered an easy 
class, hence the usually large number of exhibits. As certain seasons 
favour certain varieties of Roses, no doubt it would bring out at times 
many old established kinds; Mr. Grahame will, I am sure, bear me out 
when I say that the superb stand of twelve blooms, exhibited by Mr. Frank 
Cant, of the old favourite Rose General Jacqueminot, that won the first 
prize for twelve of any one variety at the last Shanklin (Isle of Wight) 
Rose Show, was, notwithstanding the splendid exhibition in the larger 
classes, one of the chief attractions in the show to the great body of 
visitors. The flowers of some of the older varieties in the epergnes, 
notably Cloth of Gold, were also of more than passing interest to the 
rosarians present. 
The question of limiting the prizes that can be won by any indi¬ 
vidual is a very delicate one. On principle, I like a free and open 
board for all, excepting, of course, providing large and small classes. 
The better the blooms staged the higher the standard for others to work 
up to. There is hardly an exhibitor, let him be ever so good, but what 
has found his equal or his master at some time or the other. A little 
laxity after a successful run, a peculiar season, or some other circum¬ 
stance, and the prize is lost; while on the other hand renewed energy, 
assiduous attention, lessons by past experience, and a determination to 
reach the goal often leads another to success. Complaints and disap¬ 
pointments are common enough in most societies and at all exhibitions 
which is not worth notice ; but if there is a real grievance it is much 
better to ventilate and try and remedy it than let it smoulder to the 
injury of the whole body. Mr. Grahame has shown a plucky and 
bold spirit in opening the subject in your columns, and the thanks of 
the readers of the Journal of Horticulture are due to the Editor in 
opening up and encouraging discussion.—C. Orchard, Bembridge, I, W. 
Roses at Gateford Hill. 
On the occasion of a recent visit to Worksop an opportunity arose 
for a flying visit to Gateford Hill, the residence of H. Vessey Machin, 
Esq., J.P., a large and well-known amateur Rose grower. As will have 
been noticed by those who have closely followed the show reports, the 
Gateford Roses have been by no means so successful this season as has 
been the case in the recent past. One glance over the large beds of 
Roses will at once tell the cause of this, for hundreds of plants were 
cut down to the ground by the frost in May, and many will never see 
the light again. As an evidence of how an apparently insignificant 
thing may lead to good results, it may be mentioned that those plants 
which had been staked were scarcely touched by the enemy, while those 
immediately surrounding them have completely succumbed. Those 
Roses which had escap^, and they were few, were fine examples of 
good culture and unremitting attention. The collection is a very fine 
one, and comprises all the best varieties in cultivation, and it is hoped 
that next year the frost will leave them alone, and allow Mr. Machin to 
stage at the various shows in his very best form, in which case it is 
practically certain that he will render a far better account of himself 
than he has done this year.—H. 
National Rose Society Halifax Meeting. 
I FIND that I have quite unintentionally, and by wrong informa¬ 
tion given me at Halifax, done Mr. Frank Cant some injustice in my 
remarks on the Halifax meeting of the N.R.S. (page 86). I said in that 
report that Mr. Frank Cant went to Trentham on the day of the N.R.S.’s 
provincial show. Like all the best rosarians and staunchest supporters 
of our Society, Mr. Cant, when able to show, sinks personal considera¬ 
tions to support the N.R.S., and on the 19th July was unable to show, 
either at Halifax or elsewhere, the storms of the previous two days 
having ruined his flowers. I need hardly say that I regret, even 
unintentionally, doing Mr. Cant injustice. 
Roses at Bedale. 
Messrs. Harkness, the well-known rosarians of Bedale, Yorkshire, 
whose flowers were the admiration of all beholders in 1893, having 
asked me to judge Roses at the Vale of Mowbray meeting on the 
