August 16,1894. 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
149 
to ventilate these questions, and it is not by contradiction, strong 
assertion, or moral platitudes that such evils will be cured, but by a 
serious attempt to find an effectual and permanent remedy.— Charles 
J. Geahame. _ 
I HAVE carefully read the letters of Messrs. Grahame, Lindsell, and 
others on the above subject in your columns during the last few weeks. 
I do not for one moment wish to encourage “ Rose showing ” as opposed 
to “ Rose growing.” Mr. Lindsell, who has proved that he can usually 
show forty-eight varieties better than other amateurs can at the Crystal 
Palace, has stated his opinion, which ought to carry considerable weight. 
If Mr. Lindsell (page 108) confesses that his forty-eights usually have a 
tail— i.e,, half a dozen, or more, blooms in them inferior to the rest— 
surely we may take it for granted that amateurs’ forty-eights usually 
have a tail. If thirty-six varieties are enough for Mr. Lindsell and others 
to show, they ought to be for the majority of amateurs. The trade 
growers are only called upon to show thirty-six distinct varieties for the 
Jubilee trophy at the northern provincial show of N.R.S., and surely 
“ the best man’s ” Roses are picked out and win the coveted prize. Is it 
not quite as possible, if not more so, to pick out the best amateur’s 
Roses in a thirty-six distinct competition at the metropolitan show 1 
I say this, although I contend that, all other things being equal, the more 
the number of varieties to be shown is reduced the greater the chances 
of the smaller growers as opposed to those of the larger. I say all 
other things being equal, because the smaller growers can and do beat 
the larger under various circumstances—ey., when the Roses of the 
former are in bloom, and those of the latter not in. 
Having carefully considered the whole matter, I have decided in 
favour of thirty-six being the number of varieties to be shown at the 
Crystal Palace for the amateur trophy instead of forty-eight distinct. 
There are few amateurs who can show a good even forty-eight, and 
fewer can show forty-eight than can show thirty-six. I would rather see 
a good level thirty-six than an uneven forty-eight, and think the change 
from forty-eight to thirty-six might induce more exhibitors to compete 
in the trophy class. 
With regard to the “ number of prizes an exhibitor ought to be 
permitted to take,” I should think this is a matter which ought to 
receive the due attention of the N.R.S. I have not had time to fairly 
weigh this matter, but it seems to me that the present classification of 
exhibitors at N.R.S. shows must keep an exhibitor in his proper division ; 
I mean giants have to compete with giants, and so on ; and as our old 
yachts (Foxhounds) motto stated, “Every dog has its day,” so every 
exhibitor will probably have his. Perhaps the present possible 
maximum number of prizes that can be won by any one exhibitor at 
any one show might be curtailed with advantage, but I am an advocate 
for a “happy medium in all things,” and I am not in favour of so 
curtailing the number of prizes as to make the sum of the maximum 
possible ones permitted to be taken so ridiculously small that the honour 
of winning the said sum would cost exhibitors residing at any consider¬ 
able uistance from the place of exhibition more than the incidental 
expenses incurred in winning them. Such restrictions would be unfair 
to exhibitors residing far from the place of exhibition ; in fact they 
would be exclusive to them, and all in favour of local exhibitors. Some 
societies put such restrictions on concerning the number of prizes to be 
taken, the result of which is, that if an exhibitor travelling a long 
distance won three first prizes (i./?., the maximum number permitted to 
be taken) the sum of them would not cover railway expenses, and con¬ 
sequently he would have to pay through the nose for winning the 
honour. It is not every exhibitor who can, or will, afford to exhibit 
under the above circumstances. In fixing the “ happy medium ” we 
must think of exhibitors of all classes, and who reside at all distances 
from the place of exhibition. I do not believe in what is vulgarly 
called “ pot hunting ” any more than I do in “ paying through the nose 
for honour.” 
The cost of conveyance of garden Roses, in addition to exhibition 
varieties, is a serious item, owing to the large boxes some of us find it 
necessary to take about with us. I almost fancy my box must have 
“excess luggage” somewhere on the top in letters only visible to 
railway officials. Please do use your influence with the railway 
companies, and get them to be as lenient as possible, or else the convey¬ 
ance of those exhibits of garden Roses, which are so much admired by 
the many railway travellers amongst others, will cost the fortunate and 
unfortunate exhibitors a considerable sum before landing home from 
the next Crystal Palace show.—H. V. Machin. 
W. R. Raillem (page 125) asks the secretaries of the N.R.S. to 
explain the reasons which induced the Committee in 1882 to change the 
number of varieties in the premier amateur class in the metropolitan 
schedule to thirty-six, and in 1884 to revert to forty-eight varieties. As 
far as I can remember there were no exceptional reasons for either of 
these changes, and therefore they need in no way influence the present 
discussion. The fact is that ever since this champion class was started 
there has been an almost equal division of opinion on this point—some 
favouring the larger and some the smaller number of varieties. One 
thing I think is certain, and that is that it would be a very serious 
mistake to lower the number of varieties in the champion class below 
thirty-six.—E. M., Serliliamstead, 
May I trespass once more on your space and amend an incorrect 
statement which I made in last week’s issue with reference to the 
number of Roses required in this class in the year 1881 1 The number 
being raised to forty-eight in 1884, an extract from the report in the 
Journal of the 1884 exhibition may be of interest:—“There was a 
noticeable falling off in the quality of the collections in the class for 
forty-eight, and it appears that this is too large a number for amateurs 
to make up in a satisfactory manner, and it is thought probable that the 
society will reduce the number to thirty-six again.” 
I have been asked if I can remember why the class was raised to 
forty-eight. If my memory serves me, Mr. T. B. Hall contended that 
whilst the National Rose Society required only thirty-six for the cham¬ 
pionship, other societies, notably the Crystal Palace, had forty-eight as 
the chief class, and surely the champion trophy ought to be competed 
for by the largest number of blooms required of an amateur ; forty-eight 
for the amateur was like seventy-two to the trade grower. Besides 
which, reducing the number of Roses reduced the number of varieties 
that would be cultivated, and many would be lost sight of altogether. 
From this point of view I think Mr. T. B. Hall was right. But a glance 
at the subjoined table will show that the class was raised from thirty- 
six to forty-eight at the loss of competition. Observe the gradual falling 
off in the number of competitors. I advocate a return to thirty-six 
because I think there will be greater competition. But should forty- 
eight be retained, then to ensure a good competition you must hold the 
show later, more at the height of the season. 
At the present more or less early date it is all chance whether the 
majority of champion exhibitors can cut forty-eight, and I venture to 
say, although I know I am treading on dangerous ground, that had the 
metropolitan show been held this year on July 10th we should have had a 
grand competition in the class for forty-eight. Wolverhampton on th? 
10th had by far away the best Roses of any show that I attended this 
year, and I am told that the Roses at Gloucester on the same date were 
very good. There are two courses open to the Society—either to hold 
the metropolitan show on the first Saturday in July, and reduce the 
number to thirty-six; or else to hold it on the nearest. Saturday to 
July 6th, and retain the forty-eight.—J. H. P. 
Challejtge Trophy Competition prom 1881 to 1892. 
Year. 
No. of 
Blooms. 
First. 
Second. 
Third. 
Fourth. 
1881 
48 
R. N. G. Baker. 
Tomlinson. 
T. B. Hall.... 
- 
1882 
36 
Whitwell. 
Waterlow. . 
0. Davis .... 
Mitchell .. 
1883 
36 
Slaughter ... 
Haywood.. 
Girdle.stone .. 
Mitchell .. 
1884 
48 
Haywood. 
Berners .. 
Girdlestone .. 
Waterlow.. 
1885 
48 
PembertoQ .... 
Grant .... 
Girdlestone .. 
Hales .... 
1886 
48 
Pemberton .... 
Grant .... 
Haywood .... 
Budd. 
1887 
48 
Grant . 
Pemberton. 
T. B. Hall.... 
Slaughter.. 
1888 
1889 
1890 
48 
48 
48 
R. N. G. Baker. 
Grant .... 
Pemberton. 
Pemberton. 
Slaughter .... 
Budd. 
T. B. Hales. 
Pitt. 
Lindsell . 
Foster Melliar. 
Slaughter.. 
1891 
48 
LindseU . 
Bndd .... 
Pemberton .. 
Slaughter.. 
1892 
48 
Lindsell . 
Budd .... 
Pemberton .. 
+ July 7th. 
No. of Oom- 
petitors. 
3 
10 
11 
8 
n* 
8 
9 
6 
Unknown 
6 
5 
4 
Standard Roses. 
So often as these are condemned there are still several points in their 
favour, providing one would but grow suitable varieties only in this 
form. ’But so long as the purchaser insists upon certain kinds being 
supplied to him in standards, simply because a bloom or two of that 
particular variety commended itself to his fancy—probably in an exhi¬ 
bition stand or in some other cut state—we are sure to find many most 
unsatisfactory Roses when cultivated as standards. But there are 
standards and standards. Some I have recently seen were really 
splendid. Not only is it a matter of judicious selection as regards 
varieties, but we must pay due attention to providing the plants with a 
suitable position. Those 1 saw and so much admired were on the lawn 
and by the sides of the drive approaching an old mansion entirely sur¬ 
rounded with trees. These were not sufficiently close to give shade, but 
afforded just the amount of necessary shelter from strong which 
is so essential a point in the cultivation of standard Roses. They were 
grand, and the gardener said he could do little with dwarfs in 
