442 
JOURNAL  OF  HORTICULTURE  AND  COTTAGE  GARDENER. 
May  24,  1900. 
National  versus  Metropolitan. 
Speaking  for  the  provinces,  I  think  it  can  be  said,  without  risk  of 
serious  disputation,  that  the  greatest  of  all  desires  is  that  the  Eoyal 
Horticultural  Society  should  be  much  more  broadly  national  than  it  is 
now,  and  less  metropolitan.  In  assemblages  of  nurserymen  and 
gardeners  at  the  greater  provincial  shows  conversation  seems 
inevitably  to  centre  on  what  is  referred  to  as  the  “  London  Society.” 
It  is  conceded  that  the  headquarters  of  the  Royal  Horticultural 
Society  must  be  in  London,  but  at  the  same  time  what  is  described  as 
a  “  London  policy  ”  is  strongly  objected  to. 
There  is  no  sympathy  among  provincial  Fellows  with  the  idea  that 
the  society  should  devote  its  attention  and  means  primarily  to  London 
shows,  at  which,  in  the  very  nature  of  the  case,  distant  cultivators 
cannot  exhibit  on  anything  approaching  equal  terms.  Little  or  no 
objection  is  heard  to  one  great  summer  plant  and  flower  show,  as  in  the 
Temple  Gardens,  and  one  autumn  fruit  show  yearly,  as  at  the  Crystal 
Palace.  These  are  regarded  as  exhibitions  of  a  national  character,  and 
visitors  from  various  pai-ts  of  the  country  are  glad  to  attend  them.  The 
provision  of  a  “  Hall,”  however,  that  would  drain  the  society  of  its 
resources  for  a  series  of  shows  throughout  the  season  is  a  proposal 
that  is  only  mentioned  in  provincial  meetings  of  horticulturists  to  be 
condemned. 
The  present  means  for  exhibiting  new  or  rare  plants,  flowers,  and 
fruit  are  held  to  be  sufiicient,  and  descriptions  of  such  exhibits  are  read 
with  pleasure  in  the  gardening  press ;  but  no  such  pleasure  is  felt  in 
respect  to  “  displays  ”  of  the  Covent  Garden  order,  and  which  are 
neither  new  nor  rare.  Many  country  Fellows  of  the  society  are  strongly 
of  the  opinion  that  no  products,  other  than  of  a  novel  or  instructive 
character,  should  be  placed  before  the  public  at  the  society’s  expense, 
but  that  a  charge  should  be  made  for  the  space  occupied,  as  is  done  by 
the  Royal  Agricultural  Society.  If  the  matter  were  put  to  the  vote  of 
all  horticulturists  of  standing  in  the  kingdom  as  to  the  form  in  which 
the  resources  of  the  Royal  Horticultural  Society  should  be  applied  the 
verdict  would  doubtless  be  in  favour  of  an  adequately  equipped  and 
well  managed  garden  in  the  country,  and  of  a  building  in  London 
sutflciently  large  for  the  placing  of  new,  novel,  or  exceptionally 
meritorious  products  before  the  society’s  committees,  and  of  such 
visitors  who  are  specially  desirous  of  keeping  themselves  up  to  date 
horticultcrally.  In  other  words  it  would  be  very  much  preferred  that 
the  meetings  be  educational  rather  than  commercial  in  character,  and 
national  instead  of  metropolitan. 
The  advocates  of  a  costly  hall,  which  might  bring  the  society  to  ruin, 
are,  without  so  thinking,  tending  to  lower  the  status  of  the  Royal 
Horticultural  Society  by  reducing  it  from  a  great  national  scientific 
and  practical  institution  to  the  character  of  a  London  club. — 
A  Northekn  Fellow. 
- ««•>> - 
A  National  Victoria  I(ose  Day. 
Both  the  communications  of  Mr.  William  Paul,  on  page  395,  and  of 
“  A.  C.,”  page  407,  must  have  been  perused  with  interest  by  many 
readers.  Years  ago  I  wrote  in  these  columns — “  The  Rose  is  the 
national  emblem  of  this  country.  When  and  by  whom  it  was  esta¬ 
blished  in  that  prominent  position  I  know  not,  but  this  I  know,  that  it 
is  worthy  of  the  country,  and,  I  think,  also  the  country  is  worthy  of 
the  Rose.”  I  shall  be  sure  of  this  last  proposition  if  a  National  Rose 
Day  is  established  in  honour  of  the  venerable  and  much  revered  head 
of  the  nation.  The  greatest  horticulturist  in  the  Cabinet,  Mr.  Chamber- 
lain,  said  only  the  other  day — “  The  Queen  has  during  the  last  few 
months  added,  if  it  were  possible,  to  a  popularity  greater  than  that  of 
any  other  monarch  in  history.”  We  all  know  in  what  way,  and  by  a 
graceful  floral  expression  of  devotion  to  such  a  monarch,  would  not  the 
nation  be  also  honouring  itself  ? 
The  flower  for  this  purpose  must  be  the  Rose.  No  other  possesses 
in  combination  the  same  qualities  of  variety,  beauty,  fragrance,  and 
hardiness.  Whether,  as  from  what  Mr,  William  Paul  has  said  seems 
probable  (and  there  is  no  greater  authority),  the  Rose  was  installed  in 
its  supreme  position  by  the  Romans  or  not,  its  right  as  England’s 
emblem  is  admitted,  and  no  other  flower  could  be  fittingly  chosen  for 
the  purpose  suggested  by  “  A.  D.”  a  month  ago,  and  enlarged  upon  on 
page  343.  It  is  hoped  that  the  idea,  since  it  has  received  the  approval 
of  eminent  rosarians,  will  be  carried  out. 
“A.  C.”  is  presumably  an  antiquarian,  and  has  a  certain  veneration 
for  St.  George.  There  is  really  no  occasion  to  “throw  him  overboard.” 
To  me  the  Saint  appears  a  misty  sort  of  celebrity.  In  any  case  the 
honour  of  “  paper  flowers  ”  would  be  of  a  very  artificial,  not  to  say 
shoddy,  character.  He  is  welcome  to  them;  while  to  celebrate  his 
memory  on  April  23rd  on  a  national  scale,  it  would  have  to  be’  done- 
mainly  by  foreign  Roses,  and  surely  this  would  be  somewhat  of  an 
incongruity  for  the  “  patron  saint  ”  of  England  ! 
The  right  day  for  a  national  Rose  festival  is  the  Coronation  Day  of 
Queen  Victoria,  whose  worth  and  memory  can  only  be  appropriately 
celebrated  by  real  genuine  English-grown  Roses.  In  nine  years  out  of 
ten  these  may  be  had  on  28th  of  June  in  every  garden  in  the  land  that 
is  capable  of  growing  Potatoes,  while  millions  could  be  supplied  by 
commercial  growers  to  meet  the  demand  in  large  cities  and  towns. 
This  floral  demonstration  of  the  esteem  in  which  her  Majesty  is 
held  could  be  shared  in  by  all  creeds,  parties,  ranks,  and  classes  in  the 
community.  It  is  worthy  of  thought,  and  might  form  a  theme  of 
discussion  and  collective  expression  of  opinions  in  gardeners’  associations 
and  other  meetings.  It  has  even  been  suggested  as  worthy  of  consider- 
tion  by  the  Royal  Horticultural  Society,  and  either  this,  or  the  National 
Rose  Society,  or  both,  might  be  effective  agents  in  carrying  it  out.  On 
their  recommendation  at  the  right  time  the  general  Press  would  be 
likely  to  make  the  project  so  widely  known  as  to  practically  insure  a 
successful  response. — V.  M.  H. 
Stealing  Flowers  at  Shows. 
Mr.  de  Barri  CrawshayIs  too  moderate  in  his  references  (page  415)' 
to  the  despicable  practice  of  stealing  flowers  from  shows.  It  is  not 
the  first  time  the  matter  has  been  mentioned  in  the  public  press,  and 
unhappily  it  probably  will  not  be  the  last.  It  is,  however,  difficult  to 
suggest  a  certain  preventive  of  such  malpractices.  I  personally  should 
not  have  thought  that  anyone  interested  in  growing  Orchids — the 
aristocracy  of  the  floral  kingdom — would  have  sunk  so  low  as  to  steal  a 
single  flower  ;  but  I  was  evidently  in  the  wrong  in  assuming  that  the 
culture  of  a  choice  plant  could  bring  the  minds  of  all  people  up  to  a 
parallel  level. 
While  no  general  principle  seems  possible,  I  think  that  the  manage¬ 
ment  of  the  Orchid  section  of  the  Drill  Hall  shows  of  the  Royal 
Horticultural  Society  are  of  such  nature  as  to  favour  the  chances  of  a 
person  securing  a  flower  surreptitiously,  and  I  think  a  change  might  be 
made  in  this  individual  case.  One  frequently  sees  the  messengers,  who 
fetch  plants  from  the  tables  for  the  inspection  of  the  committee,  drop 
them  down  anywhere  on  their  return,  irrespective  of  their  proper 
positions.  Any  person  may  then  lift  a  plant,  to  put  it  in  its  rightful 
place,  which  gives  opportunity  number  one.  Then  there  does  not 
appear  to  be  any  rule  as  to  who  should  cut  the  flowers  for  the  artist  to 
paint.  I  have  seen  at  least  four  different  individuals  undertake  the 
task,  which  in  my  opinion  should  be  strictly  assigned  to  one  person,, 
or  in  his  absence  to  a  deputy,  specially  appointed  by  the  chairman  of 
the  committee.  All  of  those  I  have  seen  have  been  members  of  the 
committee,  with  whom  I  have  the  privilege  of  personal  acquaintance ; 
but  there  are  others  whom  I  do  not  even  know  by  sight,  hence  if  1  saw 
someone  taking  a  flower,  I  might  reasonably  assume  that  he  belonged 
to  the  latter  section.  Thus  we  find  opportunity  number  two,  and 
probably  there  are  several  others. — An  Outsider. 
— •  I — 
The  Cljiswick  Trial  of  Tulips. 
In  his  eagerness  to  pose  as  a  critic  your  correspondent  “  B.  W.” 
(page  417),  passes  quite  beside  the  mark.  He  has  evidently  not  read 
my  notes,  which  he  is  good  enough  to  acknowledge  affoid  pleasant 
reading,  very  carefully,  or  he  would  not  have  gathered  therefrom  that 
the  varieties  named  were  absolutely  the  best  in  cultivation.  They  were 
not  enumerated  as  such,  but  noted  simply  as  having  been  honoured  by 
the  Floral  Committee  of  the  Royal  Horticultural  Society.  At  the 
same  time,  one  or  two  of  them  are  unquestionably  superior  to  any  in 
general  commerce,  and  I  would  name  Maes  amongst  the  singles,  and 
El  Toreador  amongst  the  doubles,  as  examples  of  this.  As  for  the 
inclusion  by  “  B.  W.”  of  Tulipa  cornuta,  I  confess  I  fail  to  see  the  point 
of  it.  Species  of  Tulips  were  not  under  consideration  in  the  slightest 
degree,  but  varieties  of  early  or  Dutch  Tulips;  but  perhaps  “B.  W.”" 
does  not  grasp  the  significance  of  the  difference.  Let  me  assure  your 
correspondent  that  he  is  not  alone  in  his  admiration  of  Keizex'S  Kroon, 
in  proof  of  which  I  would  refer  him  to  page  396,  where  I  included  this 
variety  with  Vermilion  Brilliant  and  Proserpine  as  indispensable. 
Surely  to  state  that  a  variety  is  indispensable  is  sufficient  praise, 
without  giving  the  colour  of  a  flower  with  which  every  garden  boy  in 
the  country  is  familiar. 
I  must  certainly  join  issue  with  “  B.  W.”  when  he  questions  the 
utility  of  a  trial  of  Tulips.  Perhaps,  however,  he  prides  himself  on 
belonging  to  that  new  section  of  the  gardening  community  which  has 
grown  with  Mushroom-like  rapidity  during  the  past  few  weeks,  and 
condemns  trials  m  toto,  and  be  it  understood  Chiswick  trials  in 
particular  !  We  cannot  all  sit  at  home  and  preen  our  feathers  in  the 
confident  self-assurance  that  we  know  every  single  and  double  Tulip  in 
cultivation,  or  of  any  other  flower  for  that  matter.  We  thus,  in  our 
desire  to  learn,  hail  with  pleasure  a  trial  of  any  plant,  fruit,  or 
vegetable,  and  an  inspection  always  adds  to  our  store  of  knowledge. 
Dare  I  suggest  that  “  B.  W.’s  ”  views  would  have  been  broadened  had 
he  visited,  as  I  did,  the  Chiswick  trial  of  Tulips  with  a  mind  eager  to 
grasp  the  merits  or  demerits  of  the  varieties  grown  ? — F.  W.  H. 
