120 
THE FLORIST. 
language of Bell^ “ both men have napped it severely.” Who has won 
the victory? That is the question, and I will try to answer it. 
In the first place, I see no object in instituting a comparison, as 
“A. R., of Bromley” has done, between old and new Roses. Not to 
mention the impossibility of making an exact distinction between them ; 
for who is to say when a Rose becomes o/af? We do not care about age, 
but excellence. When we buy wine, we ask the vintage, and when we 
buy a horse, we look at its teeth ; but when we buy a Rose we can 
dispense with antecedents, because it answers all questions in propria 
persona. 
But granting the contrast to be desirable, it is not ably made by 
“ A. R., of Bromley.” He says that “ the old Roses are the best yet,” 
{Gardeners' Chronicle, No. 47, 1856), and then mentions twelve, three 
of which—Prince Leon, Triomphe de Paris, and William Griffiths— 
are quite of recent introduction. I find the trio still spoken of as “ new” 
Roses in catalogues of 1854-5. 
Apart from this, the old Roses are not “ the best yet.” Roses, like 
other flowers, are gradually progressing in symmetry and beauty, and 
every year brings us improvements. It makes one smile to recollect 
the pans of twenty-four, which used to win not many years ago; when 
Las Casas, with an eye like a Cyclops, was esteemed a noble Rose, and 
many others were admired, which were they to be now exhibited among 
the new ones, would look about as handsome as Mrs. Gamp’s umbrella 
among the pretty parasols we shall soon see at Chiswick and the 
Regent’s Park. Of the nine old Roses, mentioned by “ A. R.,” one 
only, in my opinion, is perfect in every respect, and that is Coupe d’ 
Hebe. It would be tedious to discuss the others individually ; but we 
may dismiss the lot with that powerful argumentum ad hominem 
(especially when that hominem is an Englishman)—would “ A. R.” 
like to exhibit them against nine of the new ones, for a ten-pound note ? 
I think, therefore, that florally speaking, Mr. Paul gains an easy and 
complete victory. Controversially, “A. R” has hit him hard ; and I 
cannot but fancy, in spite of the clever rejoinder which has been made, 
that when Mr. Paul was invited (in the Gardeners Chronicle for 
December 20, 1856) to “ look upon that picture and on this,’’ he must 
have felt that he somewhat resembled the “ engineer hoist with his own 
petard,” and that he had “ heated a furnace for his foes so hot, that he 
had singed himself.” Descriptions of the Rose must be positive and not 
“ comparative.” A young lady is not a belle, because she has sisters 
plainer than herself; and if Miss Aimee Vibert were to call herself 
“ magnificent, large and full,” because she grew near that pocket Venus, 
Miss Banksise, we should feel painfully compelled to cut her. 
But generally speaking, I think that Mr. Paul and our other principal 
Rose growers have been treated with little generosity or gratitude as 
regards their catalogues. In the first place, and with reference to new 
Roses, it seems that a Pelargonium may be introduced at two guineas, 
^ subside to as many shillings, and possibly become extinct, without a 
word of discontent being uttered ; but if a Rose grower charge three 
half-crowns for a Rose which probably he has fetched from France, 
and this prove inferior—not justifying his first hopes and impressions— 
