338 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
October 11, 1894. 
Although when in good condition O. crispum roots freely, it 
cannot be called a vigorous rooting species, and I have been told 
that when growing naturally the plants are often blown from their 
positions on the trees. This being so large pots are clearly not 
necessary, and if these allow of a narrow margin of compost around 
the bulbs it will answer all purposes. The drainage must be good, 
and the plants kept a little above the rims to prevent over-accumu¬ 
lation of moisture. The compost should consist of equal parts of 
peat, fibre, and sphagnum, with abundance of finely broken pot¬ 
sherds. Sand should never be used, as it only tends to make the 
compost fine and clog the drainage.—H. R. R. 
A NEW book bearing the above title will shortly be published by 
Messrs. Macmillan k, Go. It is described as “A new and complete work 
on Kose culture, profusely illustrated from photographs of specimen 
Koses and other Rose subjects. It will give fuller details than any 
similar work of the minutim of amateur Rose culture, and describe every 
phase of the rosarian’s work, with accurate descriptions of the habits, 
both good and bad, of the best known varieties, and all other informa¬ 
tion required for Rose culture and exhibition revised to date.” The 
author is Rev. A. Foster-Melliar, M.A., Rector of Sproughton, Suffolk. 
National Rose Society.—The Trophy Question, 
In their attitude on this question Mr. Mawley and " W. R. Ralllem ” 
remind me forcibly of the story of “ Crnsar and Pompey being very 
much alike—especially Pompey.” These gentlemen take a very decided 
?i«decided attitude, as they “ entirely agree ” with each other, and 
neither says what he is for! “W. R. Raillem,” however, wishes to 
know what I want. The alteration is not one in which I am directly 
interested, as whether the trophy be for twenty-four, thirty-six, or forty- 
eight varieties, I should not be a competitor, certainly while I have 
only a small Rose garden and live in the smoky district of Croydon. 
Those who should decide the question have in several instances given 
their views unfalteringly, and the only others who may be interested 
are the coming smaller growers, mostly on the north side of London, 
who might “ try a fall ” with the few present competitors, rosarians 
with one exception, that of Mr, Slaughter, all in the over 2000 class. 
Whether it be “undesirable” (as Mr. Mawley in his letter, page 269, 
considers it) for these smaller fry to win is a question which 
“ W. R. Raillem” discreetly gives a wide berth to, and I leave 
the problem to be solved by the official mind evolving it out of its inner 
consciousness. 
That the view of those considered best qualified to judge, as usual 
■competitors, has been given in favour of a reduction of the number for 
the trophy class is shown in the letters published in the Journal from 
Mr. Lindsell, who has never been defeated, and has been placed first 
■on four occasions; from Mr. Pemberton and Mr. Slaughter, who 
have both won the trophy and been “ placed ” about a dozen times; 
and from Mr. Machin, who has also been placed when he competed, 
My original object in writing on the question has been gained. It 
was to ascertain the opinion of the principal competitors, and only one 
(Dr. Budd) has been silent. That opinion has now been given ; it is 
practically unanimous, and the N.R.S. Committee cannot say that they 
are ignorant of it; moreover, it has been stated, without official contra¬ 
diction, in the Journal of Horticulture that two of the principal com¬ 
petitors and friendly opponents of recent years have brought this 
subject up year after year, and that the majority of the Committee, who 
are not directly interested in the question, have treated their request 
with worse than indifference, as they have annually overruled them by 
their votes.— Charles J. Grahame. 
Fashion in Roses. 
In my brief remarks on “Fashion in Roses” (page 269) I had no 
intention of depreciating “ florists’ or show Roses ” or unduly exalting 
“garden” Roses. I admire and always have admired both, and am 
equally interested in the cultivation of both, but wish to find both most 
advantageously employed. If I praise John for his attainments in 
classics I do not thereby depreciate the qualifications of his brother 
James, who may stand equally high in physics or mathematics. I have 
neither time nor inclination to enter on a controversy on matters of 
opinion or taste, and am content that each should enjoy his own opinion 
and each gratify his own taste. 
As to matters of fact, if “ W. R. Raillem ” will look into some of our 
old works on botany and gardening, I think he will find that the present 
forms of the Rose—the expanded, the cupped, the compact, and the 
globular—were co-existent at a very early date, although not always 
equally fashionable. I can distinctly remember the time when the flat 
Roses were the most fashionable. Mr. Charles J. Grahame (page 320) 
among other controversial remarks, says, “ ‘ W. R. Raillem ’ has exposed 
the absurdity of calling Charles Lawson and Madame Plantier per¬ 
petual,” implying that I had done this, which is altogether contrary to 
fact. But I need not follow his letter further. Ah uno disce ovines,— 
Wm. Paul, Paul's Aurseries^ Waltham Cross, 
Exhibition and Garden Roses. 
I CANNOT blame Mr. Charles J. Grahame (page 320), whose opinion I 
respect, for vindicating the value of that very fragrant and floriferous 
Rose, La Prance, one of the finest varieties ever raised by Guillot of 
Lyons, who, I understand, classed it as a Hybrid Tea. In a letter 
recently addressed to Mr. Prince of Oxford the son of the late M. Guillot 
also described it as such, and added that it was a hybrid between 
Madame Falcot and another Rose whose name he did not know. From 
the latter we must presume that its attributes were derived, and espe¬ 
cially its fragrance and unique complexion, which can at once be 
distinguished even from a long distance in any garden or rosarium. 
I think, however, that as a decorative Rose it is surpassed by its own 
invaluable seedling, Caroline Testout. The latter is a clearer and 
brighter pink, and here at least the blooms are, as a rule, larger and 
more imposing than those of La France. Its perfume is also more 
delicate and less strongly pronounced than that of the parent Rose. 
But, while such is my opinion, I do not depreciate the great merits of 
La France, which will not soon be superseded in the estimation of those 
to whom, like rriyself, it has long been familiar, and constitutes an 
exquisite floral link between the present and the past. When I hear 
(as I have sometimes heard) the expression, “ I do not like La France 1 ” 
I at once attribute its origin to defective taste. But, on the other hand, 
I have never heard any person, however limited his or her capabilities of 
appreciation, express any other feeling save that of admiration for 
Caroline Testout. An eminent Scottish rosarian recently assured me it 
was the most valuable autumnal Rose he possessed. 
While I can thus meet Mr. Grahame more than half way regarding 
the virtues of La France, and may also be said to have practically 
eulogised the parent while I was praising the child, I can sympathise 
with his admiration for Viscountess Folkestone, of which I have 
frequently, in this and other journals, recorded my appreciation. That 
it is equally esteemed by Mr. William Paul I cannot doubt; that he 
undervalues the great merit of such remarkable Roses as Comtesse de 
Nadaillac, Horace Vernet, and A. K. Williams, which are at the present 
moment among the fairest and brightest ornaments of my garden. Nor 
should it be forgotten that Mr. Paul has been the raiser of many superb 
Roses, such for example as the Duke of Edinburgh, Pride of Waltham, 
Clio, Spenser, Sappho, and Medea, which possess in an eminent degree 
all the qualities required for exhibition. He is not therefore likely to 
disparage those Roses which are chiefly distinguished by the quality 
rather than the number of their blooms. Such an attitude were incon¬ 
sistent with his own ideal, likewise w'ith his greatest achievements as a 
rosarian.— David R. Williamson. 
PLANTS FOR BANKS AND SHADY PLACES. 
Noav that the planting season has arrived it is necessary for 
intending planters to select not only such as are beautiful, but also 
to obtain those adapted for the positions they are to occupy. Loss 
of time in covering vacant spaces and much disappointment is 
frequently experienced through not giving due consideration to 
the latter essential. We have now so many plants and shrubs to 
select from that there is no position so utterly unsuited to plant 
growth as to render it a matter of impossibility to establish one or 
other of them upon it. 
In dry stony places, or under the shade of trees, when the soil 
is closely interlaced with roots, nothing seems to be so satisfactory 
in all respects as common English Ivy. When established it gives 
no further trouble, and looks neat at all seasons. To give it a 
favourable start the holes should be taken out with a .=pade so as to 
see that amount of space of tree roots, then by the time others of a 
like nature have permeated the disturbed soil the Ivy is able to 
take care of itself by rooting on the surface of the ground. To 
help the shoots to do this quickly they ought to be pegged to the 
