536 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
December 13, 1894. 
Me. Mawley’s Eose Analysis. 
“E. M.” (page 518) saya “opiniong should be tested by facts, not 
facts by opinions.” Quite so ; that is just the complaint we make of 
his analysis—that it has a large basis of facts, which have been not only 
tested but also actually altered by opinion. 
As a county cricketer of many years’ standing, I agree with Mr. 
Girdlestone that averages may be misleading; but the voice of the 
public says, “ Let us have the actual figures, and we will make the 
deductions ourselves.” 
To take another homely illustration—a cup of tea. Some may be 
content with as much sugar as the hostess likes to put in it; some may 
Eke to drink it absolutely unsweetened, but a large number may prefer 
to have their tea given them just as it leaves the pot, and that the sugar 
basin should be passed round separately, that they themselves may 
sweeten or not, according to taste. 
Now, “ E. M.” gives us his analysis ready flavoured by himself; but 
1 for one say. Please, if you can manage it, let us have the flavouring or 
adjusting and the bare figures neat and undiluted, in separate cups. If 
“E. M.,” to whose painstaking labours I am as alive as anyone, would 
arrange this, I think very little fault would be found. 
I have but little knowledge or experience in statistics, and con¬ 
siderable reverence for due authority. When, therefore, he states, as 
last year, that experts in statistics have approved of his method, and 
consider it justifiable and fair, I use the Suffolk expression, “ There I 
must leave”— i.e., I shrug my shoulders and stand aside.— 
W. R. Eaillem. 
The letters of Mr. Girdlestone and Mr. Mawley (page 517) have 
given fresh interest to this topic ; they discuss the subject temperately 
and critically, and comparing the analysis with the results obtained 
from the great experts I mentioned in my letter of the 29th ult., 
page 490, evidently believe 1 have given myself away. 
I would remind these two gentlemen that I have not taken exception 
to the Roses mentioned (we most of us know which are the “ best 
Roses”), but partly to the fact that Mr. Mawley having obtained 
statistics of certain flowers at one show on one day in several years, 
and manipulated them, he has practically claimed that these flowers 
represent "the “ opinions ” of the exhibitors as the “ best Roses grown,” 
or to be grown, for exhibition purposes. The fallacy of this argument 
1 have explained, as the Roses shown on one particular day represent 
merely the best Roses which are in bloom in a garden on that or the 
previous day. We exhibit the best Roses we have in form, not giving 
therebyfour opinions that we value them most for exhibition. 
But what I especially take exception to is the plan adopted, in 
fact gloried in by Mr. Mawley, of altering his figures backwards and 
forwards, and ignoring past performances (as in the case of Senateur 
Vaisse) without giving satisfactory reasons, practically the reverse, 
for his vacillating method. The year 1888 suited the Rose Senateur 
Vaisse better than any subsequent year; but possibly in 1894, the 
temperature being similar to 1888, this Rose would, but for the 
frost, have again been more prominent; notwithstanding this Mr. 
Mawley specially selected and exemplified his manipulation of the 
figures gained in his analysis by this Roseias an instance of the value 
of his analysis. I now give it as one instance of where his plan is 
misleading and incorrect. But as I said in my previous letter, if the 
actual figures come out pretty much the same in the long run, why 
not give them and save all the unnecessary, even if scientific, labour ? 
I do not wish for one moment to detract one iota from Mr. Mawley’s 
work, but 1 must say that when common sense suits all purposes, and 
Mr. Mawley practically acknowledges it, “glorified common sense” with 
me would be considered as time wasted. 
I will again repeat a question which I asked in one of my previous 
letters. Why have Ethel Brownlow and other Rosea been taken for two 
or more years at the actual figures as shown at the Crystal Palace, 
whereas Caroline Testout and Margaret Dickson have been unduly 
exalted? It cannot be truly said that 1894 suited Ethel Brownlow, 
although it did suit Margaret Dickson. 
I have the very greatest respect for Mr. Girdlestone’s opinion as a 
rosarian, as well as on other matters, but when he says that Caroline 
Kuster has “large and well formed flowers as the rule rather than 
the exception,” I at once join issue with him, and accept the opinion 
of the experts in preference. The only great rosarian whom 1 know as 
invariably showing this variety well is Mr. Lindsell. I never get it of 
any size or form, although of late years I have managed to do so 
with most Teas, even Cleopatra, which I have found reliable for 
three years, and not alone in 1894. Every man has a right to his 
opinion, but to say that Baroness Rothschild and Marquise de 
Castellane appear to Mr. Girdlestone indispensable, and that Comte 
de Raimbaud is “unreliable” (what does Mr. Pemberton, the best 
exponent of that Rose say to this ?), I think cannot be accepted 
as a correct judgment as against the experts’ verdict on these varieties. 
Similarly, Jean Ducher has been given up as hopeless by nearly every 
amateur I know, whereas Cleopatra is steadily advancing in favour. As 
Mr. Girdlestone truly says ‘these instances might be multiplied 
ad infinitum," but they do not really alter the objections made both 
last year and this as to the weak points of the system adopted by 
Mr. Mawley for his analysis. 
Finally, I can only re-assert the view I entertain, which is that if 
Mr. Mawley had been content to give us the tabulated results of the 
flowers actually shown in winning boxes, and had not manipulated those 
figures to make them appear to come out as if the actual exhibits and 
opinions of the best varieties were identical, then the table would have 
been correct and most interesting. And I contend that in striving to 
prove too much he has materially lowered the value of his analysis, and 
has simply given us a “glorified version” of his own opinion alone.— 
Chakles J. Geahame. 
Me. Lindsell’s Motion. 
As an amateur Rose grower will you allow me space in your valuable 
Journal to ask members of the National Rose Society to well consider 
at the general meeting to be held on the 13 th inst. the proposal to be laid 
before them—viz., whether rule 13, disqualifying as exhibitors members 
who sell their surplus Rose blooms, shall be repealed or enforced 1 To 
enforce it means the exclusion of scores of ardent amateurs with limited 
incomes who cannot afford the expense of a good garden, but who, with 
the intense devotion of the true flower lover, spend many a happy hour 
among their plants, growing their own stocks, budding and pruning 
with their own hands, quite content if, by the sale of their surplus 
blooms, they contrive to pay the year’s expenses for rough labour and 
manures. Professional gardeners they are not, yet these are the members 
it is proposed to exclude in favour of the richer men who, without any 
real love or sympathy for their flowers, can afford to pay for professional 
skill. That these big men and their highly paid servants, with gardens 
where expense is no consideration, should show jealousy of the success 
so often attending the humble amateur working for sheer love of his 
hobby is not surprising ; but if the Rose Society is to deserve the title 
of “ National,” it must do its utmost for the encouragement of all 
classes. Should Mr. LindselTs motion be successful there will not be a 
Rose the less grown, but there can be little doubt of its disastrous effect 
on the membership of this hitherto most popular and useful Society. 
—A. P. Geace. 
Hybeid Beiae Roses. 
In previous contributions to the Journal of Horticulture I have 
endeavoured to illustrate and emphasise the value of the beautiful and 
uniquely fragrant Hybrid Briars, raised by Lord Penzance, who some 
time ago wrote me a very interesting communication on the subject. 
His lordship says that a considerable number of his seedling Sweet 
Briars, which have hitherto flowered, have now turned out to be Per- 
petuals, blooming with great facility in the autumn months. One of 
their most attractive attributes is their delicious aroma, which is entirely 
different from the fragrance of the leaves. 
Their parents are the Sweet Briar, also known poetically as the 
Eglantine, and certain picturesque varieties among the Noisettes and 
Hybrid Perpetuals, such for example as Paul Neyron, Fortune’s Yellow, 
and William Allen Richardson. Most of these are reminiscent of our 
Scottish romantic literature, having for their names the heroines of 
the Waverley Novels. I should not be astonished in the light of their 
popularity, already extraordinary, if they achieve an equal fame. 
There has undoubtedly been of late years, as Mr. Wm. Paul recently 
affirmed in this Journal, a reaction in favour of free-flowering garden 
Roses, however inferior they may be in perfection of form, in compact¬ 
ness, and in dimensions, to the great Hybrid Perpetuals, Noisettes, and 
Teas, a fact sufficiently indicated by the rapid rise in the popular 
estimation of Lord Penzance’s introductions. 
The Hybrid Briars, I am credibly informed, do not require any 
pruning beyond removing, when necessary, superfluous branches. If 
pruned like ordinary Roses they will refuse to bloom. They are naturally 
of a very healthy and vigorous constitution, and will not succeed unless 
when grown in the open air.— David R. Williamson. 
Planting Roses. 
Having decided upon what ground Roses we are going to plant, we must 
first of all consider the class of manure most likely to be beneficial. 
Deep digging and a thorough incorporation of more or less manure, 
according to the richness of our soil, are most essential in Rose culture. 
One great failing with the inexperienced amateur is to plant in too rich 
a compost; another is the close proximity of roots and manure. Never 
allow "these to come in direct contact. A little thought will show us 
how detrimental to healthy root growth this is. We find new roots 
pushing out very vigorously and rapidly when Eose plants are laid into 
porous soil, or a compost not excessively rich ; but it is not so if you lay 
them into rich soil. Let us follow out the hint so plainly given us by 
Nature, and place a little porous soil of no great strength around the 
roots when planting rather than rich manure. Spread over a wider 
space, and the plant allowed to find or leave it at pleasure, is much the 
wisest way. 
All dwarf Roses should be planted at least a couple of inches below 
where stock and scion were joined, whether during grafting or budding. 
There are three advantages in this. First, the stock can swell more 
freely, and so meet the growing Rose growths of vigorous kinds ; second, 
you can more readily protect the most vital parts—in fact, a dwarf is 
very seldom killed if properly planted ; thirdly, it is possible to draw 
