August SO, 1994. 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
197 ,' 
the tub full of roots the plant was given abundance of water from the 
tank under the bed. In the summer all these tubs received as much as 
12 to 15 gallons of water daily. 
Now for the result. The Papaw tree in three years attained a 
height of 18 feet, with a stem at the base of 3 feet in circumference, and 
presented a very interesting sight. From the top to within 6 feet of 
the soil it was one mass of yellow flowers, fruit just setting, some half 
grown and some ripe, all growing out of the main stem, as there were no 
side branches. The fruit when ripe was 12 inches long and about the 
same in circumference, of a bright yellow colour, the flesh yellow and 
very soft. As to the flavour, it was not much liked. However, the late 
Mr. Hindes had resided in the West Indies thirty years before 
purchasing Byfleet Lodge, and was his own gardener as far as tropical 
fruit-growing went. Although over eighty years of age he spent an 
hour or two in the houses daily. He had a recipe for making the Papaw 
fruit very palatable, but I do not know of what it was composed besides 
sherry. If “ J. L.” succeeds in growing it, and should he happen to get 
a tough joint of meat from his butcher, he will find, by suspending it 
in the tree, it has the power of making it tender in a very short time. I 
have suspended a dead bird in it, and another in a different part of the 
same house, with the result that the one in the Papaw tree was decom¬ 
posed in thirty-six hours, while the other was four days arriving at the 
same condition.—T. Sharpe, Virginia Water. 
Natio^tal Kose Society.—Multiplicity of Exhibits. 
Whatever side issues may be introduced into the amateur trophy 
question—and some people must bring in collateral subjects in all discus¬ 
sions—there is now no doubt as to the opinions of those best entitled to 
a voice in the settlement of that competition. I only wish that Dr. Budd, 
the present holder of the trophy, had also said something pro or con. 
I propose now to go into the question of the multiplicity of exhibits 
difficulty. That this is a difficulty I do not dispute ; but it lies more in 
the desire I have to suggest some arrangement by which we may 
encourage new exhibitors rather than unduly repress old ones. Yet I am 
sorry to have to say that with some of the latter the proverb, “ L'appetit 
rient en mangeant," seems too apparent, and that success only encourages 
them to show more profusely each year. I think it was Dean Hole, the 
President of our Society, who proposed at the annual meeting in 1891, 
when my suggestion for the present arrangement of our schedules was 
under discussion, that those who won the premier prizes in certain divi¬ 
sions should not be allowed to compete in the same classes after two such 
consecutive victories. The idea was not a bad one, but it would tend to 
even a greater restriction in the competition than that which I have 
proposed. Although I suggest that no one should be allowed to enter in 
more than four classes, exclusive of those for trophies, garden Roses, 
new Roses, and the large open classes, yet I consider that this leaves a 
large number of classes for an exhibitor to venture into. There are not 
six amateurs in the Society who could show well in all the classes sug¬ 
gested to be left open. Even now the inferior exhibiting in some of 
them, notably that for new Roses, is a constant source of remark at our 
shows. A class that should be one for our instruction seldom if ever 
has a high-class exhibit. Experts know this to be the case, and it was 
partly in consequence of both the inferiority of the exhibits and also 
the poor competition in recent years that the date qualification in the 
new Rose class was modified last season. 
It is very difficult for anyone not having access to a book of the 
entries to know what is the average number of entries which regular 
exhibitors usually send in, and I do not suppose any record is kept of 
the number of exhibits actually sent, but I should think that very few 
amateur exhibitors send over six, and the great majority not even as 
many as four exhibits. I have never sent more than five to any Rose 
show ; last year I sent one to the Crystal Palace and this year three. 
I think that this gives a fair idea of what exhibitors of my own 
standing are able to do when growing from 500 to 1000 “ cut back ” 
Rose plants. That a man should get the full advantage of his efforts in 
Rose culture is all fair enough, as everything else is up to a point, but 
I say that the phrase used by two writers that “ every dog has his day ” 
is utterly inappropriate and incorrect in regard to Rose growing and 
exhibiting, if by its use be meant that each man wins in his turn. 
Certain men, by climatic position and superior soil, can always win, 
and they can annually defeat those who are every whit their equals in 
knowledge of every phase of Rose culture. I will further say that no 
matter what labour, attention, or expense some rosarians pay to their 
plants, they can never, under ordinary circumstances, defeat those who 
have the greater advantages I above refer to. The recent discussion in 
your columns on the trophy question has brought to light the fact that 
six great rosarians have retired from that contest for reasons which we 
need not enter into, and I know that others meditate following their 
example. The cause for such defections would not require much 
seeking, and ere long the disinclination to exhibit will further spread. 
I know that a feeling of discontent has been created by the present 
N.R.S. system, which enables a few (who are well placed, or who by 
residential position or otherwise, are eligible for competition in many 
classes) to avail themselves annually to the utmost of our rules for 
competition. As I said before, I do not blame anyone for doing what 
is perfectly regular and open to him. Some prefer showing where they 
know they must win ; others like the excitement of hazarding for higher 
stakes. I regret to have to use the word “ stakes,’’ but after all what 
else can it be i If our amateur exhibits were shown merely for honour 
it would be preferable, but many openly avow they would give up 
exhibiting if there were no money prizes. It is to be regretted that 
this is the case, but matters being so I think the amount to be won. 
should be restricted by the number of prizes available to each 
competitor. 
I do not think the giving of money in prizes has brought many 
members into our Society. In the course of the last few years I have 
induced many amateurs to subscribe, but I do not think there are six 
exhibitors amongst these new members. The fact of their getting tickets 
for our shows can be no inducement either (although this is suggested 
by one of your correspondents), as they can attend our meetings at less 
expense by buying tickets on the day; but many of these new sub¬ 
scribers have friends who are members, and exhibit, the fact of their 
being members reminds people of the date and induces them to go to 
our meetings, and thus indirectly it is an advantage to Rose culture, 
as it benefits those who should get every encouragement, I mean pro¬ 
fessional Rose growers who have to live by the results of their energy 
and the reputation gained at these meetings. Let me finally warn 
some old exhibitors who may not be in favour of a plan by which I 
think we shall encourage new members, and possibly new exhibitors, 
that a reading of an old French proverb with which I end this letter 
may by the present state of our arrangements be a cause of the loss of 
old members, and consequently partly the reason for the exceedingly 
slow progress of our Society in accession to its numbers :—“ Le jeu est 
le fils dc Vavarioe, et le pere du dcsespoirT Transposing the meaning 
of “Le jeu” from gambling into exhibiting the proverb will read that, 
“ Exhibiting is the child of avarice and the father of despair,” and so 
I consider, in a sense, it is to many.— Charles J. Grahame. 
V/hat a pity it is that “E. M.,, Berhliamstead," diOQS not give us 
his reasons for the last sentence in his few lines on page 149, which, 
owing to absence from home, i have only just read. “ 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.” 
This is, after all, only “ E. M.’s” opinion, and most of us would 
like to know on what grounds he forms it. Whether the honour is the 
greater in winning a trophy in a larger or smaller competition, I should 
have supposed we were all agreed that it must be greater in the former; 
but a forty-eight or a thirty-six cannot possibly be put up by the 
majority of exhibitors except on rare days in rarer seasons, unless the 
grower be a large one. I presume that to cut on a given day thirty-six 
blooms without any tail is almost, if not quite, an impossibility to 
growers of 1500 plants, unless they are exceptionally favoured in 
locality ; and I fancy the growers of 1500 to 2000 plants and under 
form the very large majority of the Rose-growing amateur fraternity. 
Mark, that I do not say members of the National Rose Society, and 
I append to this the question. Is it not possible that many of these 
might become members if they saw the numbers of the trophy stands 
so lessened as to bring it within the range of their vision ? 
Again, what would be the general effect of a reduced trophy cla=s to 
visitors as to Rose growers ? Picture a dozen stands of twenty-four 
varieties, with scarcely a weak bloom amongst them. Would not this 
be a sight w’orth going many miles to see? and would not such a class 
test the capacity of judges rather severely—a thing that marks very 
certainly the excellence of the competition ? “ J. H. P.’s ” table 
(page 149) is startling, and without some change it looks as if the trophy 
might be won and no honour be attached to the victory. That, surely, 
is not what we desire. 
With Mr. II. V. Machin’s remarks (page 149) on the latter portion of 
this subject I am quite in sympathy. Railway officials are not railway 
shareholders. Increase of traffic adds to official labours wdthout increase 
of remuneration, unless the onjectionable “ tip ” comes in. One might 
imagine that even a novice would understand something of oirr green 
boxes, and handle them gently. But no ! Railways are our masters 
now, and their takings are too large for them to trouble about our flowers 
or our poultry and other hobbies. I am afraid, Sir, that even your 
influence will be lost on the railway companies ; at least, that is the 
opinion I have formed after my experiences with them in years long 
since passed away as regards poultry ; and if they would not do any¬ 
thing for live stock I have no hope that they will for flowers.— 
Y. B. A. Z. 
China Rose Laurette Messimy. 
In my contribution to the Journal of Horticulture (page 175) I 
referred to the above Rose as “ Laurette de Thessiny,” and now make 
this correction. Though this beautiful Rose is included, I find, in the 
