May  10,  1900. 
JOURNAL  OF  HORTICULTURE  AND  COTTAGE  GARDENER, 
395 
Tl|e  Royal  Horticultural  Society. 
The  New  Chiswick. 
I  AM  conscious  that  after  many  influential  persons  have  expressed 
the  view  that  a  “  new  Chiswick  ”  is  necessary,  it  is  perhaps  presumption 
on  my  part  to  offer  a  contrary  opinion,  but  it  may  not  be  too  late  even 
now  to  ask  whether  the  purchase  of  a  new  garden  is  certainly  the  best 
means  of  celebrating  the  centenary  of  the  society.  We  have  still 
twenty  years  of  the  Chiswick  lease  unexpired.  Can  we  not  make  the 
best  of  Chiswick  for  at  any  rate  some  years  to  come,  and  devote  our 
energies  to  obtaining  by  some  means  or  other  the  new  horticultural 
hall  which  is  so  sadly  needed  for  the  fortnightly  shows  ? 
From  the  crowded  state  of  the  Drill  Hall,  both  as  regards  the 
exhibits  themselves  and  the  visitors,  it  must  appear  to  everyone  a 
necessity  that  some  other  place  be  found  before  long.  This  is  as 
necessary  for  the  work  of  the  various  committees  as  for  the  shows,  and 
I  cannot  doubt  that  if  £27,000  was  raised  or  promised  several  years 
ago,  a  much  larger  sum  could  now  be  raised,  when  the  society  has 
reached  a  degree  of  popularity  and  success  never  before  known,  at 
least  in  recent  years. — Aethur  W.  Sutton. 
The  meeting  on  April  25tb  was  very  satisfactory  in  several  respects, 
first  because  it  showed  that  a  vigorous  interest  is  taken  in  the  society’s 
affairs  and  prospects ;  and,  secondly,  because  it  is  evident  from  the 
statements  made  by  the  president  that  the  council  wish  to  act  in 
accordance  with  the  Fellows’  desires.  An  idea  (which  is  evidently 
erroneous)  had  got  abroad  that  the  bye-laws  were  to  bl  rushed  through, 
and  that  the  other  important  schemes  as  to  new  gardens  and  horti¬ 
cultural  colleges  were  to  be  carried  in  a  similarly  hurried  manner. 
Seeing  that  the  council  could  have  no  other  object  than  the  best 
interests  of  the  society,  it  was,  perhaps,  somewhat  unfortunate  that  the 
bye-laws  had  not  been  distributed  to  all  the  Fellows  before  the  meeting ; 
it  was  also  regrettable  in  these  circumstances  that  the  proposal  was 
made  “  that  they  be  taken  as  read.”  But  then  we  were  told  that  the 
wish  to  save  expense  was  the  reason  for  the  first  mistake,  and  the 
desire  to  save  the  time  of  the  meeting  was  the  reason  for  the  second. 
Economy  in  the  management  of  a  society  is  most  laudable,  and  we 
might  therefore  rest  assured  that  a  council  that  endeavours  to  avoid 
expense  in  such  details  would  not  seek  to  commit  the  society  to  the  risk 
of  any  enormous  and  doubtful  speculations.  This,  in  fact,  was  proved 
by  the  subsequent  business. 
Although  four  experts  of  unquestionable  ability  had  inspected  the 
much-talked-of  Limpsfield  site  for  a  new  garden,  had  duly  reported 
upon  it,  and  according  to  the  resolution  in  the  notice  paper  issued  to 
the  Fellows  it  was  “  the  proposal  of  the  council  ”  to  purchase  the  site 
in  question,  yet  the  whole  matter  was  postponed  and  no  definite  infor¬ 
mation  could  be  obtained  respecting  it.  (See  page  378.)  It  is  to  be 
hoped  that  the  experts  were  duly  rewarded  for  the  time  occupied  and 
trouble  taken ;  in  fact  I  am  persuaded  that  the  Fellows  would  rather 
that  the  council  had  acted  “  generously  ”  than  “  economically  ”  in 
this  respect.  Still  the  intention  to  avoid  expense  is  apparent  even 
here,  for  though  other  sites  had  been  proposed,  the  experts  who  visited 
Limpsfield  were  not  required  to  report  upon  them. 
Would  it  be  too  much  to  expect  that  while  considering  financial 
matters  so  closely  the  council  will  also  give  a  thought  to  the  pockets  of 
the  Fellows,  and  try  and  arrange  that  the  next  meeting  to  consider 
questions  of  so  much  importance  shall  take  place  on  the  same  day  as 
one  of  the  fortnightly  meetings  ? — A  Surrey  Man. 
■ - - 
Garrya  elliptica. 
Many  readers  of  the  Journal  of  Horticulture  will  be  indebted  to 
Mr.  E.  H.  Jenkins  for  the  valuable  information  in  the  reference  to  this 
plant  on  page  373.  That  Garrya  elliptica  might  well  be  far  more 
extensively  grown  no  one  will  dispute,  but  that  it  should  prove  as  hardy 
as  Mr.  Jenkins  states  will  be  a  surprise  to  many  gardeners.  I  have 
seen  it  growing  in  several  gardens  in  various  parts  of  the  South  of 
England,  but  it  has  invariably  been  on  walls,  and  uspally  those  with  a 
warm  aspect.  On  one  occasion  a  year  or  two  back  I  noted  a  plant  in 
the  open  in  a  south  country  garden,  but  it  looked  wretchedly  unhappy, 
and  its  owner  has,  I  believe,  since  discarded  it  entirely. 
I  should  like  to  ask  Mr.  Jenkins  if  he  considers  that  the  soil  in 
which  the  roots  are  working  would  have  any  effect  on  the  hardiness  of 
the  growth  ?  Possibly  when  the  roots  are  in  a  somewhat  rich  and  moist 
medium  the  growths  produced  would  be  over-luxuriant — sappy,  in  fact, 
and  in  such  condition  as  would  render  them  peculiarly  susceptible  of 
damage  from  frosts.  The  position  of  the  specimens  referred  to  by  your 
contributor  seems  rather  to  favour  this  assumption,  as  he  states  they 
are  growing  in  a  poor  soil  on  a  bank  that  is  excessively  dry  in  the 
summer.  From  Mr.  Jenkins’  tone  I  should  fancy  thatthe  gardener  (?)  who 
pruned  those  Garryas  would  have  a  sorry  time  if  he  came  within  reach 
of  the  writer’s  vengeance.  I  can  assure  your  correspondent  that  such 
senseless  acts  are  all  too  frequent  in  small  gardens  all  over  the  country, 
and  they  arise,  as  in  this  instance,  from  the  employment  of  men  who 
know  no  more  about  gardening  than  do  the  tools  they  are  supposed  to 
wield  with  masterly  skill.  It  would  have  been  more  than  a  pleasure  to 
me  to  see  the  superb  specimens  alluded  to. — F.  Rowe. 
Judges  aijd  Judging. 
I  HAVE  for  many  years  been  connected  with  the  management  of 
horticultural  societies,  as  secretary  and  in  other  positions.  In  all  those 
societies  with  which  I  have  had  anything  to  do,  the  same  three  judges 
were  never  selected  for  any  two  following  shows.  Presidents,  chairmen, 
and  judges,  when  chosen  year  after  year  soon  feel  that  they  have  the 
freehold  of  the  office,  and  however  desirable  it  may  be  thought  to  have 
changes,  it  is  diflicult  to  do  so  without  giving  offence.  I  think  it  should 
be  only  where  there  is  a  very  strong  reason  to  the  contrary  that  the 
same  set  of  officials  should  be  re-elected  year  after  year. — W.  B.  S. 
Tlie'^Barr  Daffodil  Cup. 
I  AM  sorry  to  observe  from  “  S.  H.  B.’s”  note  on  page  373  that  he 
appears  to  think  I  wished  in  my  original  note  (page  333)  to  belittle 
the  collection  of  Daffodils  exhibited  by  Miss  Curry  at  the  Drill 
Hall  on  April  10th.  Nothing  was  further  from  my  thoughts.  I  was 
present  at  the  Drill  Hall  on  the  date  named,  and  spent  some  con¬ 
siderable  time  at  Miss  Curry’s  stand,  and  was  charmed  with  the  variety 
contained  therein  and  the  general  excellence  of  the  flowers.  That  they 
were  worthy  of  the  high  honour  accorded  to  them  I  have  no  doubt, 
but  I  still  maintain  that  the  honour  attached  to  the  securing  of  the 
trophy  would  have  been  decidedly  greater  had  there  been  keen  compe¬ 
tition.  I  feel  sure  your  correspondent  would  find  infinitely  more  pleaure  in 
annexing  a  prize  by  the  narrow  margin  of  three  or  four  points  from 
other  growers  than  be  would  when  given  a  walk  over.  That  many 
other  Daffodil  enthusiasts  could  have  come  forward  with  collections  had 
they  wished  to  do  so,  I  do  not  doubt,  and  I  am  quite  in  agreement  with 
“  S.  H.  B.”  that  means  could  have  been  taken  for  hastening  the 
development  of  the  flowers,  which  would  be  perfectly  legitimate.  Let 
us  hope  that  if  next  season  be  similarly  late  some  such  methods  will  be 
resorted  to  for  contesting  the  honour  of  securing  the  Barrian  cup.  I 
have  no  reason  to  doubt  that  Messrs.  Barr  &  Sons  would  prefer  to  see 
a  dozen  competitors  fighting  a  neck-and-neck  race  for  the  trophy  they 
have  provided  for  these  charming  flowers  of  spring. — Daff. 
A  National  I}ose  Day. 
I  AM  glad  to  see  that  you  have  taken  up  the  subject  of  a  National 
Rose  Day  for  England,  and  I  have  read  with  much  interest  the  able 
article  of  your  correspondent,  “  V.  M.  H.”  in  the  Journal  of 
April  26th.  Our  recognised  notable  days  are  at  present  few,  and  a 
moderate  addition  to  them  would,  in  my  judgment,  prove  beneficial 
rather  than  prejudicial  to  the  industrial  interests  of  the  country. 
Holding  this  opinion,  I  willingly  join  in  the  advocacy  of  a  Rose  Day 
in  honour  of  our  national  emblem.  It  should,  I  think,  be  fixed  for 
the  middle  or  end  of  June,  when  Rose  blooms  are  plentiful,  and  the 
poorest  could  acquire  the  emblem  at  a  very  trifling  cost. 
“  How,  when,  and  in  what  manner  the  Rose  became  the  emblematical 
flower  of  England  ”  I  am  unable  to  say.  I  have  searched  from  the  time 
of  the  Romans,  but  from  the  fourth  to  the  sixteenth  centuries  can  find 
nothing  worth  recording  down  to  the  time  of  Charlemagne  (ninth 
century),  who  desired  it  to  be  grown  in  his  garden.  Late  in  the 
thirteenth  century.  Count  Egmond,  son  of  one  of  our  kings,  took  for 
his  device  a  red  Rose,  and  early  in  the  fourteenth  century  an  English 
coin  was  struck,  stamped  with  a  Rose,  and  called  a  rose-noble.  Shakes¬ 
peare’s  scene  in  the  Temple  Gardens  (Henry  VI.,  act  ii.,  scene  4)  was 
not,  I  think,  the  origin  of  the  adoption  of  the  Rose  as  oar  national 
flower.  We  must  go  further  back  than  that.  I  have  in  my  library 
badges  (roses)  in  silver  bronze  of  the  Lancastrian  party,  but  the  card 
to  which  they  are  affixed  affords  only  their  recent  history.  In  the 
various  books  I  possess  on  the  Wars  of  the  Roses  there  is  nothing  to 
enlighten  us  on  this  particular  point.  If  we  take  Shakespeare’s  scene 
as  history  it  seems  reasonable  to  conclude  that  the  Rose  was  then  the 
national  flower,  and  was  for  this  reason  adopted  as  the  badges  of  the 
contending  factions.  From  any  point  of  view  we  may,  I  think,  fairly 
assume  that  both  red  and  white  Roses  were  grown  in  London  gardens 
in  Shakespeare’s  time. 
But  the  main  point  at  issue  is  the  date  of  the  adoption  of  the  Rose 
as  our  national  flower.  This,  I  fear,  cannot  now  be  fixed.  My  researches. 
