September 27, 1894. 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
299 
National Rose Society.—The Trophy Question. 
" Parturiunt mantes, nascetur ridicuhts mus!" Whilst reading 
" E. M., Berhhamsted's," letter the above well-known quotation 
flashed across my mind. It is simple truth to say that most of us who 
are interested, although in my case not directly, in the trophy question, 
must feel disappointed at the ofScial view being sent forth in such a 
half-hearted and dispiriting manner. I am not sufficiently in touch 
either with racing or boating men to know whether “ E. M.’s ” bathos 
at the end of his letter is an appropriate comparison or not, but it is 
well known that the Derby is not now the race it once was in the esti¬ 
mation of sportsmen, and that Thames sculling races are now almost a 
bye-word amongst those I may call “ wet bobs.” The appositeness of 
the comparison is therefore alone complete in the fact that like as the 
Derby (as the blue riband of the turf) and Thames boat-racing are 
steadily going downhill, so the amateur trophy competition of the 
N.R.S. seems likely to degenerate and become uninteresting, for an 
exactly similar reason, that is, want of competitors. 
A lady friend of mine who read “ E. M.’s” letter said, “But why 
does Mr. Mawley wish the same people alone and always to compete?” 
The query seemed to me to be absolutely hitting the right nail on the 
head. This year most of us who are in touch with the great amateurs 
were able, not only to tell who were likely to compete, but who was 
fairly certain to win. Surely this is not a desirable position ? Does the 
official mind in the N.R.S,, as in Government offices, scout popular 
approval? Is the championship merely intended for the big growers? 
Are not the subscriptions and the support of the smaller men, who 
outnumber the larger growers by twenty to one, of far greater moment 
than those of the few who alone can compete under the present 
arrangements—in fine, is the Society being run for the few against the 
many ? 
Can any of us now doubt why the Society requires a public appeal, 
iirhi et orle, for its subscriptions, when one of the Secretaries openly 
sets forth as his view that “ It is extremely undesirable that this 
coveted prize be won by an amateur grower of very moderate calibre 
whose garden the season and date had specially favoured.” I should 
myself like to see this phenomenon amongst small rosarians ! In the 
only slightly similar instance I am aware of, that of Mr. Slaughter (a 
small grower, but not thereby one of “ moderate calibre ”), who won the 
trophy in 1883, most people would say that his victory was most 
creditable to him. I am also certain that if, to suggest another possible 
case, the trophy were won by Mr. Orpen (whom I instance as the best 
small grower), or a grower of similar standing, who cultivates under 
1000 plants, that victory would be received with delight by the majority 
of the Society, who are small growers. It would also give that stimulus 
and interest which seem wanting', but which, if merely dormant, will 
receive a further set back from what I can only characterise as a most 
dispiriting and disappointing reply from one of our principal officials. 
—Charles J. Grahame. 
P.S.—Since sending you the foregoing letter I have heard from 
“ D., Deal," that he thinks my communication to you of last week will 
be construed into a charge of personal want of zeal by him in the 
N.R.S. Nothing can be further from my intention or belief. I am 
also aware that several doubtful recent changes in our arrangements, 
such as that of the new Hybrid Tea class, have very properly met with 
strong opposition from him as being opposed to the best interests of the 
Society. My letter and other letters are directed against what appears to 
be a general apathy in the Society’s affairs, and this view is accentuated 
by the knowledge that many local secretaries and members of Committee 
aro so merely in name, and literally do nothing for us. I am perfectly 
aware that “ D., Deal," has worked loyally and heartily for the Society 
since its inception, and this is a matter of general knowledge and 
acceptation.—C. J. G. 
L“ D., Deal," has worked too long and indefatigably for the 
National Rose Society to be in the least open to the misinterpretation 
suggested. If all were as zealous as he no charge of “ apathy ” could 
possibly be sustained.] 
Fashion in Roses. 
A LETTER from Mr. William Paul (page 269) in the Rose column of the 
Journal of Horticulture is an event and will carry much weight. lie gi ves 
us to understand first of all that there has been lately a change of fashion 
in Roses, and relates the history of the different forms which fashion has 
put in the foreground at different times. First the flat, and then in 
order the cupped or hollow, the compact, the imbricated, and the 
globular. But is not this procession of types, which is not very easy to 
follow, a list of the dates of their creation rather than of their fashion ? 
Does Mr. Paul mean to tell us that flat or hollow Roses were ever 
preferred as more fashionable than the imbricated or pointed globular 
forms ? 
But we are anxious to know what is this new change of fashion. It 
appears to be a preference for what are generally called by the loose 
term, “ Garden Roses”— i.e., inferior types (for everyone nowadays who 
brings out a new Rose and finds it not up to the mark, calls it “ a good 
garden Rose ”) over the triumphs of selection and hybridisation which 
some of us at least will continue to prize as the queens of the Rose 
world. It seems absurd to ask, “ Can this be true?” Mr. Wm. Paul 
has not only a name quite sufficient for any statement to which it is 
joined, but also a finger on the pulse of the demand of the general 
public which must be superior to the belief of any amateur. But may 
there not be some mistake ? I made inquiries some short time ago as to 
the alleged increased demand for “ garden ” Roses, and the answers I 
obtained were to the effect that there was some increase, but not out of 
proportion to the growing demand for Roses of all sorts. May it not be 
possible that Mr. Wm. Paul, being perhaps considered to some extent 
identified with the types alluded to, has himself felt an increased 
demand which does not really represent a change of fashion ? 
What is the reason alleged by him for this change ? A preference 
to-day for sorts hitherto unfashionable, which would yield “ hundreds 
of blooms and set the whole garden aglow,” rather than for the hitherto 
“fashionable flowers giving only a flower now and then.” In other 
words, surely nothing else than a preference of quantity to quality 1 I 
feel bound to say, in the Journal, that I have seen no signs of this 
alleged change of fashion ; and that as far as I can I will endeavour to 
show that the beauty of the Rose lies in its individual blooms, and that 
it is worthy of a higher rUe than mere colour decoration for which 
inferior orders of flowers are more suited. Mr. Paul gives two lists of 
Roses on the page cited. The first is said to be of florists’ flowers, and 
the second of “ painters’ and poets’ Roses,” presumably not show flowers. 
Will it be believed that Ulrich Brunner figures in the latter list? 
Again, “ the result of increased knowledge and a more widely cul¬ 
tivated taste ” will prevent anyone “ who sets any value on the beauty 
of his garden or the brightness of his dwelling,” from planting such 
Roses as Susanne Marie Rodocanachi (among others), “ when he has 
access to such kinds as Charles Lawson and Madame Plantier.” The 
former is not only one of the brightest of Roses, but also hardy, 
thoroughly free blooming and perpetual, and the other two are actual 
summer Roses, blooming only once, and very inferior in brightness and 
form !—W. R. Raillem. 
Garden Roses. 
The contributions of Mr. William Paul to horticultural literature are 
all the more valuable because they are so comparatively rare. With 
the observations on garden Roses which he contributed to the Journal 
of Hortimdture (page 269) I entirely coincide. Had he made his list 
of free blooming and highly ornamental varieties more extensive he 
would doubtless have included the Crimson Redder, a Rose which is not 
so widely cultivated in Scotland as it ought to be. Its complexion is of 
the brightest crimson ; it is very fragrant—no unimportant qualification 
in a Rose for the garden ; its shoots, which are very numerous, are short- 
jointed, and it blooms the whole season without intermission. Unlike 
most garden Roses, which are not sufficiently large for exhibition, it is 
wonderfully full. It was raised, I believe, by Mr. Cranston of Hereford 
in 1874. 
Two other invaluable “garden” varieties not included in Mr. Paul’s 
admirable selection of last week are Madame Pernet Ducher and 
Gustave Regis, which I reckon among the most beautiful and interesting 
of modern French Hybrid Teas. When fully expanded they are only 
semi-double, but when in the bud, or even when half developed, they 
are marvellously pretty, surpassing L’Idealor William Allen Richardson. 
Throughout the summer and autumn they are in constant bloom. So 
soon as one splendid shoot crowned with glory has finished flowering, 
another equally fascinatinsr springs up as if by magic to take its place. 
One of the many precious Roses eulogised by Mr. Paul may be described 
as equally valuable for exhibition and for garden decoration ; I mean 
Caroline Testout, a seedling from La France, and transcending its 
parent, if not in fragrance, at least in colour, in fullness, and productive¬ 
ness. Its importance for all purposes can hardly be over-estimated. 
