Aug\ist 9,18S4. 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER, 
125 
Amateur Championship Trophy Class and Multiplicity op 
Exhibits, 
There seems to be a tendency, I may, indeed, say an inclination, on 
the part of one or two of your contributors to draw a metaphorical red 
herring across the trail of the above topics. 1, therefore, would like to 
emphasise the fact that the questions being discussed are—Firstly, the 
most suitable number of Roses for the metropolitan amateur trophy— 
viz., twenty-four, thirty-six, or forty-eight varieties ; and that in this 
question no other classes have been referred to, nor do they need dis¬ 
cussion or alteration ; and secondly, “ multiplicity of exhibits.” 
I clearly stated in my letter (page 54) that my proposal is to only 
allow amateurs to “ enter ” in a certain number of classes, so that the 
imaginary difficulties suggested by one writer have no part or parcel in 
any logical reasoning on the subject. The classes open to all exhibitors 
including nurserymen are naturally for the moment outside the dis¬ 
cussion. If any writer thinks that by using a cloud of words, arguing on 
a mis-statement of my original proposition, and introducing unnecessary 
hypothetical matter, he is proving a case and showing his views to be of 
high merit, he is quite welcome to whatever flattering unction he may 
lay to his soul, but it gives me the idea that the writer must have a very 
low opinion of the mental fibre and critical acumen of the rosarian 
readers of the Journal of Horticulture, I certainly have not discerned 
the absence of such qualities in the correspondence in your columns ; 
and may say am well pleased, as no doubt you are, sir, with the 
interesting, even may I say important, letters which have so far 
appeared on these questions in your Journal, which show that they are 
of importance to the National Rose Society. 
May I ask, nevertheless, that in the further elucidation of the views 
of exhibitors we may have an agreement to keep strictly to the matter 
under discussion ? and may I again state emphatically I should not have 
approached them unless I were fully aware, by being in constant touch 
with very many and leading rosarians, that they required the immediate 
consideration of our members.— Charles J. Grahame. 
The most important point in connection with Mr. Grahame’s first 
proposition has been strangely overlooked hitherto. Perhaps some of 
those who have written on the subject were unaware that the number 
for the trophy class was forty-eight, that it was reduced to thirty-six in 
1882, and again raised to forty-eight in 1885. (I am not quite sure of 
the dates.) Let us hear first of all from the secretaries what were the 
reasons and arguments which induced the Society to revert to forty- 
eight after a trial of thirty-six. 1 am sure it will generally be agreed 
that the discussion will be almost valueless without a reference to it. 
At any rate, we shall not, I trust, allow any duplicates, which are con¬ 
fusing alike to exhibitor and judges, and considerably detract in my 
opinion from the merits of a stand. 
As for the second proposition, I think we are nearly restricted enough 
as it is ; but perhaps we might bar a man from showing in classes 7 
or 8 if he shows for the trophy, and similarly from showing in class 31 
as well as 30, though I think in each case he ought to be allowed to 
enter for either. I never did like the counting-your-plants system. I 
could easily myself have qualified for Division D, but I have not much 
sympathy with the 1999 man.—W. R. Raillem. 
I HAVE exhibited at every metropolitan show of the National Rose 
Society, and can well remember the fight with forty-eight for the 
Cranston 50-guinea cup finally won by Mr. Jowitt in 1880. The report 
of that year’s show lies before me. As a consequence of disappearance 
of the Cranston cup in 1880, two “Champion” trophies were subscribed 
for and offered in competition for the best thirty-six varieties, and won 
with that number from 1881 to 1884 inclusive by Messrs. Baker, 
Whitwell, Slaughter and Haywood. From 1885 to the present time, 
owing to a resolution moved in Committee by Mr. T. B. Hall (I wish he 
was still an exhibitor) forty-eight was substituted for thirty-six. 
Annually I have made a protest in Committee against retaining forty- 
eight, pleading unsuccessfully for a return to the original number. I 
am still of the same mind. 
I fail to understand all that is involved in the question of the 
limitation of prizes. Does it include garden Roses, singles, buttonholes 
and displays? Under the present arrangement of our complicated 
schedule it is impossible to sweep the board, so what more do you want ? 
Do not be jealous of success in a neighbour. Every dog has his day ; it 
may be your turn next, make the most of it when it comes. Meanwhile 
let everyone show honourably in his own division and with his own 
Roses.—J. H. P. 
As an old exhibitor in the amateur trophy class I quite think the 
time has come for reducing the number of varieties from forty-eight to 
thirty-six. When I won the trophy in 1883 only thirty-six varieties 
were asked for, but two years after it was thought that it would be 
better to raise it to forty-eight, which I considered a great mistake, and 
we have seen how few fresh exhibitors have had the courage to attack 
it and arrange forty-eight varieties, well knowing how very difficult it 
is to obtain them on a given day. I feel certain we should have more 
competitors if the class were reduced to thirty-six varieties, and I 
quite agree with Mr. Lindsell (page 108) that we should get rid of the 
“ tail.” 
I cannot concur with Mr. Grahame (page 54) in reducing the 
number of prizes an exhibitor should be allowed to take, as I believe a 
great difference would be made in the size of our shows. I also think if 
a man takes the trouble and works hard to get his classes together he 
should be allowed to take the prizes. We are already protected by 
divisions, and I should be sorry to see any alteration in the latter, but 
the former I shall be heartily glad to see put back to thirty-six varieties. 
—A. Slaughter. 
[A very interesting letter from Mr. H. V. Machin, of Worksop, arrived 
just too late for insertion this week.] 
Notes on Roses. 
The queenly Rose has passed through a series of trying months. In 
January a hard frost bit numbers of plants, and in the end of May 
frost again did much harm, this time to the buds, numbers of which are 
perfectly useless. But while that is so, the genial weather we have 
experienced at various short periods has done much for Roses, and on 
the whole it can be said that they have been most abundant and 
beautiful. Roses that have suffered most are Hybrid Perpetuals, mostly 
the better varieties. It is plain that these are less hardy than many 
Tea Roses, and are not so fitted for ordinary garden purposes than these 
and many others. 
Speaking of Teas reminds me that several years ago Mr. Cocker, of 
Aberdeen, strongly advised me to plant them in the open. He assured 
me that at Aberdeen they were perfectly hardy, and that it was from 
bushes growing in the open that his firm cut their blooms for exhibition. 
I followed the advice so kindly given and planted a select number. 
The greater number have done really splendidly, and though they have 
been oftener than once frost-bitten they have not been so to such an 
extent as Hybrid Perpetuals in the same garden. It is as well not to 
prune Teas at all, but after they commence growth to cut away any 
weakly shoots ; and, again, after the first crop of buds has expanded to 
remove the flowered-out shoots so as to allow the new season’s growth 
ample room. The sorts which have done particularly well are Rubens, 
Marie Van Houtte, Edith Gifford, Comtesse de Nadaillac, Souvenir 
d’un Ami, Jean Ducher, Souvenir de Paul Neyron, Madame Cusin, 
Devoniensis, and Madame Caroline Kuster. On the other hand, 
Niphetos, Princess of Wales, Sunset, Madame Lambard, Madame 
Willermoz, Perle des Jardins, Madame Watteville, and Anna Ollivier 
have not done at all well, and indeed are not worth growing in the 
open in Scotland. 
Many old-fashioned Roses have been and are still most beautiful. 
Among these none is more charming than the deep blush China. We 
have here a goodly number of very large plants. They have been 
allowed to grow much at their own will during the past few years, the 
knife having been used only to cut out any dead wood. The number of 
flowers these produce throughout the spring, summer, and autumn, and 
even during the winter months, is enormous. There is no more charm¬ 
ing flower for decorative purposes in a cut state than this variety. The 
crimson sort Cramoisie superieure requires here a wall in order to get it 
really fine. I have Blairii No. 2 as a rough grown standard. It is 
rather curious that trained to a wall this Rose is very subject to mildew, 
while in the open it is perfectly clean. An old Rose that has been very 
pleasing is Madame Hardy. This is the most purely white Rose I am 
acquainted with. Charles Lawson and Coupe d’H4bd allowed to grow 
naturally are wreathed in flowers. The latter is one of the best of 
garden Roses, and of the most perfect form. Maiden’s Blush, a semi¬ 
double, is lovely in the bud, and is moreover one of the softest toned of 
rose-coloured varieties. La France, Madame Knorr, Olga Marix, and 
some other Roses I have allowed to grow without being spring-pruned. 
These have formed large bushes, and are producing quantities of fine 
flowers. Of course it is only in certain positions that Roses can be 
allowed to grow in this semi-wild manner, and also it must be said tbat 
only some kinds are suited for such treatment. Single-flowered Roses 
are flowering profusely. The varieties of Rosa rugosa are already 
covered with heps, which in autumn will be as effective as the flowers 
have been. 
