December 20, 1894. 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER, 
567 
Echoes from the Rosaeians’ Meeting. 
“ Did you go to the Rose meeting 1 ” “Yes I Then tell me a little 
about it.” And he did. Who did? does someone ask? Well that 
does not matter. Here follows the narrative, with comments, some 
parts being perhaps a little peculiar. 
It was not a model gathering aa far as concerns the unanimity 
of opinions ; but could it be expected otherwise of an assembly of 
“ standstills,” “ moderates,” and “ progressives ? ” “ Was it a repre¬ 
sentative ‘ National ’ meeting from a numerical point of view ? ” 
Scarcely so. According to the annual report read there are 525 
members on the books, and of these about thirty-seven were present. 
Even these few were, as said, by no means unanimous in their views, 
and the proceedings might have been more “ lively ” had there been 
a “full house.” “Rocks ahead” appeared at times, but under the 
guidance of an able pilot any serious collision was averted. Still 
incidents were not uncommon. _ 
Verily the ways of the N.R.S. are singulier, as the French would 
say, and few there be that comprehend them. After the audience had 
been told why the meeting was held (did some wonder why they were 
there ?) an event happened that is worthy of an explanation. To some 
of us it was inexplicable. I will relate it. On behalf of a member, who 
was unable to honour the company with his presence, the Chairman 
moved that two well-known and popular rosarians, and valued supporters 
of the Society to wit, be given a seat in the “ upper house.” In other 
words, it was suggested that the names of these gentlemen be added to 
the list of Vice-Presidents. But the powers that be ruled otherwise. 
One was accepted and the other rejected. The result was—shall I say 
it ? Well, one of the oldest members of the Society “ could not see on 
what principle Mr. So-and-so was entitled to a place on the list of Vice- 
Presidents.” “ If we go on increasing the list,” continued this 
gentleman, “ we shall soon have as many Vice-Presidents as there are 
members of the Committee.” Very well, but there is a sequel to the 
story. _ 
The succeeding part commenced thus. Immediately after the 
aforesaid member objected to a certain addition being made to the Vice- 
Presidents, one of the committeemen tendered his resignation. At first 
it would not be accepted on any account, for although he was unable to 
attend the meetings they could not afford to lose him. However, the 
Committee did lose him, for he persisted in resigning. This being so 
the aforementioned objector to a long list of Vice-Presidents at once 
suggested that the resigning committeeman be offered a seat in the 
“upper house.” To raise a laugh the prospective Vice-President 
replied, “ That is what I wanted,” leaving some to wonder why after one 
had been left another was taken I 
Nor is that all. Pondering the matter over in my mind, on reaching 
home late at night I turned to the N.R.S. annual reports, which, like an 
ardent rosarian, I usually keep filed. In the report last circulated (not 
that read at the meeting on the 13th inst.) I find, “ Especial credit being 
due to Mr. Machin.” None other than the rejected northern rosarian, 
whose name, strange to say, is given in that report to the Rose world 
as a Vice-President of the National Rose Society! It surely must 
occur to ordinary minds as being rather curious why a gentleman is 
deemed a rosarian of sufficient ardour to be a Vice-President of the 
Society in 1893, and then objected to for 1895 because he is “ a 
comparatively new exhibitor," yet two years older ! It would be 
interesting to know who proposed this rosarian as a Vice-President for 
1893. Can any readers remember ? Can they also say why it was 
necessary to propose him again (for rejection) seeing that his name 
appears in the V.-P. list in the N.R.S. Report issued this very year? 
It is an enigma. _ 
Then British gardeners are not wanted by the N.R.S. 1 This fact 
was to all intents and purposes admitted at the meeting under notice. 
A suburban amateur rosarian proposed to alter Regulation 7 so as to 
read, “ All Roses exhibited in competition must be from plants which 
have been grown by, and have teen the property of, the exhibitor for 
at least three months.” A nurseryman seconded this, and in a very 
short time speakers were as busy as flies in a bottle. The mover of 
the above motion brought a charge of fraudulent exhibiting against 
gardeners ; but it was afterwards pointed out that he had overstated 
the case. There was only a temptation to exhibit as they ought not 
to do ! But are gardeners liable to yield to temptation more than 
other men ? I think not. Moreover, I am glad to be able to say that 
gardeners found two other strong supporters in the Chairman and a 
respected Vice-President of the Society. These latter gentlemen, like 
myself, know and value the genuineness of British gardeners. But 
they were bowled over. _ 
The proposition was carried, though not without a struggle. Hence¬ 
forth British gardeners are debarred from exhibiting as gardeners at the 
exhibition of the N.R.S. Is it possible ? Unfortunately such is the 
case, and the gardeners’ productions are not wanted, neither are, one 
may assume, their subscriptions. No one who attended the meeting 
could come to any other conclusion. The regulation makes it binding 
that all Roses exhibited must be the property of the grower and exhi¬ 
bitor. It is obvious that gardeners are not the owners of their 
employers’ property, and it is equally apparent, in some cases at any 
rate, that the Roses are not always grown by the exhibitors without the 
aid of gardeners. Indeed one might almost say that the Roses are 
invariably grown by the gardener where one is employed. Who will 
refute this assertion ? Where, might I ask, would be the majority of 
horticultural exhibitions if gardeners were always thus slighted ? 
Can a gardener exhibit as a cottager ? Yes, according to some 
members of the N.R.S. No, if one is guided by custom—and common 
sense. Several persons at the meeting contended that as the majority 
of gardeners resided in cottages they might cut blooms from their own 
gardens and exhibit in cottagers’ classes. What would the “smaller 
amateurs ” think to this arrangement if generally adopted ? What, too, 
would happen if the gardeners, who are the principal exhibitors at the 
leading horticultural shows, were to stage in the cottagers’ classes 
produce from “their own” gardens? Everyone who has had expe¬ 
rience in showing or the management of shows knows what the result 
would be. The Chairman, with his knowledge of gardeners and exhi¬ 
bitions, pointed out that were the National Chrysanthemum Society 
to adopt a similar short-sighted policy, they would lose five-sixths of 
the exhibits. Happily the N.R.S. is alone in this matter, and gardeners 
turn their attention to other societies where they receive encouragement. 
Can anyone blame them ? _ 
A slight “ buzzing ” occurred when the question of altering Regula¬ 
tion 13 was brought forward re allowing any person who sells Rose 
plants, blooms, or buds for budding except when changing his residence, 
and in the case of seedlings and sports, to compete as amateurs. 
Opinions were divided on this point, and one of the movers of the 
proposition asked his hearers “ if they had seen the Jonrnal of 
horticulture of that morning?” Some had, as a matter of course, 
and others satisfied themselves with smiling. But he would read the 
paragraph from page 536, although it rather gave his case away. It 
was read, and caused a commotion ; indeed the whole meeting may be 
described as a “ commotion,” and possibly we have not heard the last 
of it. 
Such are the echoes I have tried to reproduce of what seems to have 
been a somewhat remarkable meeting. Those who deem them faulty 
can make the needful corrections.— Gleaner. 
The National Rose Society’s Meeting. 
Those members of the National Rose Society who attended the 
annual meeting on the 13th inst. must have felt gratified in parti¬ 
cipating in one of the most earnest and spirited meetings the Society 
has ever held. The session lasted over two hours, and during the whole 
of that time there was not a dragging moment, but the transactions 
marched forward in steady (sometimes battle) array. 
Mr. C. E. Shea has already proved his ability as a chairman, and it 
was nothing less than a boon to have him in this position, for resolutions, 
additions, and amendments were so many and involved, that it 
required a clear head and a firm hand to prevent the business drifting 
into complete confusion. How easily this might have arisen may be 
gathered from the fact that one gentleman rose to second a motion, but 
expressed his strong disapproval of one feature connected with it; 
whereupon the Chairman pointed out that that was the point imme¬ 
diately before the meeting, and that what he (the speaker) was really 
doing was seconding that to which he avowed himself strongly opposed. 
Matters progressed smoothly until the twelfth item on the agenda 
paper was reached, which was a proposal to require that all flowers 
staged must be from plants “ the property of ”—as well as grown by— 
the exhibitor. This seemed a fair and reasonable requirement on the 
face of it, but some members thought they discovered a possible 
hardship to somebody involved in it, and the matter was stronglydebated 
for quite a considerable time before being ultimately carried by a large 
majority. _ 
Then came the group of amendments connected with Regulation 13. 
This defines the status of amateurs, and forbids the selling of Roses 
by such members, and the Committee had agreed, subject to confirma¬ 
tion, to add the words, “ or buds for budding.” The first motion was for 
the addition of the words “ except when changing residence, or in the 
case of new seedlings, or sports,” and this was soon agreed to and 
passed. Next came the proposal, “ Un-English and opposed to all British 
notions of fair-play,” as one speaker well characterised it—that in the 
event of a charge being made under this regulation it should rest with 
the person charged to prove his innocence ! Round this extraordinary 
proposition discussion waxed fast and furious, and when stripped of its 
surroundings and presented to the meeting in its true character, it was 
speedily and emphatically rejected, scarcely anyone besides the proposer 
and seconder voting for it. Arising out of this followed the suggestion 
that all exhibitors should be required to sign a declaration that 
they had observed all regulations. This was summed up by on& 
speaker as a proposal to say to an exhibitor, “ The world says you are a 
rogue, and we want you to sign a certificate that you are not,” and this- 
speedily shared the fate of its predecessor, and then the proceedings came 
back to smoother waters. _ 
The Chairman announced the result of ballot for officers and 
committee, which gave the house list as returned, except that 
