12 
THE FLORIST. 
ADDITION OP LEAVES TO ROSES. 
As one of the censors at the National Rose Show—a post which I have 
very unworthily occupied at each of the tournaments held in honour of 
the Queen of Flowers—I may perhaps be considered as competent to 
speak, if not quite ex cathedra, still with some little weight, on the 
matter mooted by Mr. Radclyffe, in the December number of the 
Florist, as to whether the addition of leaves to Roses ought to be a dis¬ 
qualification ; and I venture to do so, the rather, as I believe the 
greater number of those that I held to be delinquents in the matter 
were in that portion of the exhibition which fell under our censorship— 
(I say our, for there was associated with me a gentleman whose name 
is well known in the floricultural world)—and we never had the least 
hesitation in the matter. I may therefore state the grounds on which 
we held them to be disqualified:— 
1. It was distinctly stated in the schedule of prizes furnished to each 
exhibitor, that they were to be shown as in their growing state, or 
words to that effect; and on discovering that some were thus (as we 
believed) disfigured, an appeal to the hon. secretary settled the matter 
as we had already decided—it was a clear breach of rule. 
2. We considered that the Rose, of all flowers, ought not to have any 
meretricious ornament—that no tricks should be played with it. While 
saying this, I do not for a moment mean to impute anything of the 
kind as intentional on the part of the exhibitors; their doing it arose 
either from inadvertence or misapprehension of the meaning of the 
rule. 
3. We considered that the object in making that rule was, to enable 
a good idea to be formed of the habit of the variety, at least as much so 
as could be gained from a cut flower at any time. This, it is needless 
to say, would be entirely frustrated by addition of foliage, and I trust 
that any one considering the subject will come to the same conclusion 
that we did. 
As a loyal subject of Her Majesty, I do hope all exhibitors will 
endeavour to leave her in her unadorned beauty for the future. Let 
no tweezers attempt to give her greater symmetry than she already 
possesses, or false leaves be used to set her ofP. Were we to see some 
grand beauty sailing into a room in the consciousness of her power, and 
knew at the same time that there were would-be admirers who suggested 
that a little rouge to her cheeks, or a false curl or two, would be an 
improvement, should we not be ready to hurl the vile insinuator—were 
he a man—out of the room ; or—if a lady—to set it down to envy ? 
So, I hold him to be devoid of true devotion to her queenly beauty, 
who would resort to any of the plans by which flowers undergo a meta¬ 
morphosis as queer as any that Ovid records. I think, too, that the 
same objection applies, though not in so strong a degree, to the dis¬ 
budding. Surely it will be better to allow them to be shown in their 
natural state. 
While on this subject, I think it well to notice another practice which 
ought to be prohibited, viz., flowers being plugged down into the tubes ; 
