330 
JOURNAL  OF  HORTICULTURE  AND  COTTAGE  GARDENER. 
October  19,  1899. 
The  Bride,  for  the  first  time,  stands  at  the  head  of  the  lht.  It  has, 
however,  at  present  only  a  slight  lead  of  the  variety  from  which  it 
sported  about  fifteen  years  ago, — Catherine  Mermet,  for  twelve  con¬ 
secutive  years  the  premier  flower.  Were  the  Catherine  Mermet  family 
to  be  taken  away  from  it,  what  a  sad  series  of  blanks  would  there  be 
in  the  table,  for  no  other  varieties  in  the  same  class  of  Rose  are  quite 
as  perfectly  formed  or  as  refined.  It  would  mean  the  removal  of  such 
choice  varieties  as  The  Bride,  Catherine  Mermet,  Bridesmaid,  and 
Muriel  Grahame.  None  of  these  varieties  is  what  may  be  termed 
strong  growers,  but,  on  the  other  hand,  they  are  one  and  all  indis¬ 
pensable  to  the  exhibitor,  as  there  are  no  other  Roses  in  the  sao  e 
section  which  bear  such  a  large  proportion  of  well-formed  flowers. 
Of  the  older  varieties  on  the  list  which  were  unusually  well  shown 
this  year  should  be  mentioned  Souvenir  de  S.  A.  Prince,  wh'ch  has 
only  once  before  been  as  often  staged;  Souvenir  d’Elise  Vardon,  and 
Madame  de  Watteville,  which  were  in  better  form  than  for  six  years 
and  eight  years  past  respectively.  This  was,  moreover,  a  Marechal 
Niel  year,  for  only  once  before,  and  that  as  far  back  as  1892,  has  this 
fine  variety  been  as  well  represented  at  any  of  the  last  twelve  exhibi¬ 
tions.  Although  sent  out  thirty-five  years  ago,  Marechal  Niel  still 
remains  altogether  unrivalled  as  a  deep  yellow  exhibition  Rose. 
Golden  Gate,  an  1892  variety,  was  also  in  capital  form. 
The  number  of  choice  sorts  which  were  indifferently  represented 
this  year  was  not  quite  as  large  as  usual.  Madame  Hoste  and  Ernest 
Metz  were  never  before  as  poorly  shown,  while  Marie  Van  Houtte, 
Caroline  Kuster,  and  Ethel  Brownlow  were  nearly  as  indifferently 
represented. 
The  progress  in  the  Tea  and  Noisette  section  as  compared  with 
the  advances  apparent  in  the  other  table,  must  be  regarded  as  very 
gradual.  For  example,  going  back  six  years  we  find  only  three 
sorts  introduced  during  that  period  which  secure  places  on  the  list, 
and  two  of  these  are  sports  from  existing  varieties.  All  three  are, 
however,  decided  acquisitions,  so  that  if  the  progress  made  be  slow  it 
is  at  all  events  substantial.  New  varieties  in  this  class  of  Rose  as  a 
rule,  it  will  be  noticed,  make  but  slow  progress  upwards  in  the 
table.  In  Maman  Cochet  we  have,  however,  a  brilliant  exception; 
this  fine  Tea,  although  of  foreign  introduction  and  sent  out  as  late  a-< 
1893,  already  stands  at  No.  5,  having  risen  three  places  since  the 
previous  exhibition.  In  fact  it  appeared  this  year  in  more  stands  than 
any  other  Tea  or  Noisette.  Muriel  Grahame,  before  referrred  to  as 
belonging  to  the  Catherine  Mermet  family,  and  sent  out  in  1896,  rises 
from  No.  26  to  No.  19.  Bridesmaid,  also  a  member  of  the  same  family) 
and  the  only  other  new  sort  in  the  list,  was  distributed  in  1893,  and 
has  risen  since  last  year  from  No.  27  to  No.  20. 
It  is  with  much  reluctance  that  I  have  this  year  decided  not  to 
append  to  the  analysis  the  usual  audit  of  the  newer  Roses.  After 
careful  consideration  I  came  to  the  conclusion  that  such  an  audit 
would  be  of  little  service  at  the  present  time,  when  there  were  so  few 
new  Roses  shown  at  the  exhibition  this  year  about  which  the 
opinions  of  experts  would  be  helpful.  Either  their  positions  in  the 
analysis  are  already  sufficiently  assured,  or  they  are  as  yet  too  little 
grown  for  accurate  opinions  to  be  formed  respecting  them.  There  are, 
however,  three  new  Roses  which  are  of  too  recent  introduction  to  find 
places  in  the  present  analysis,  but  which  I  venture  to  think  are 
certain  in  the  near  future  to  be  largely  grown.  I  refer  to  Bessie 
Brown,  a  very  promising  new  Hybrid  Tea,  and  White  Maman  Cochet 
and  Mrs.  Edward  Mawley,  two  equally  promising  new  Tea-scented 
varieties 
Roses  for  General  Cultivation. 
The  following  select  lists  have  been  revised  with  the  usual  care, 
but  the  alterations  made  from  year  to  year,  particularly  among  the 
exhibition  Roses,  are  necessarily  slight.  As  in  the  selections  last  year, 
all  the  varieties  named  in  each  list  have  been  placed  in  what  I  regard 
as  their  order  of  merit,  considering  the  purpose  for  which  they  are 
intended.  This  arrangement  is  intended  to  assist  those  who  require 
only  a  moderate  number  of  plants.  Those  marked  with  an  asterisk 
are  either  quite  new  or  of  comparatively  recent  introduction. 
Exhibition  Roses.  —  Hybrid  Perpetuals.  —  Light-coloured 
Varieties. — Mrs.  John  Laing,  "Mrs.  R.  G.  Sharman  -  Crawford, 
®Mrs.  Cocker,  Madame  Gabriel  Luizet,  Marie  Finger,  and  Merveille 
de  Lyon.  Medium  Reds. — Ulrich  Brunner,  Dupuy  Jamain,  Suzanne 
M.  Rodocanachi,  °Helen  Keller,  °Tom  Wood,  Comtesse  d’Oxford, 
Heinrich  Schultheis.  Reds. — Fisher  Holmes,  General  Jacqueminot^ 
Marie  Baumann,  A.  K.  Williams,  Alfred  Colomb,  Ferdinand  de 
Lesseps,  Captain  Hayward,  Dr.  Andry,  Duke  of  Edinburgh,  and 
Victor  Hugo.  Dark  Varieties. — Prince  Arthur,  Charles  Lefebvre, 
Duke  of  Wellington,  and  Prince  Camille  de  Rohan.  Hybrid  Teas. — 
La  France,  Caroline  Testout,  Viscountess  Folkestone,  Marquise  Litta, 
’fMrs.  W.  J.  Grant,  Captain  Christy,  Ivaiseriu  Augusta  Victoria,  and 
^Bessie  Brown.  Teas  and  Noisettes — Marie  Van  Houtte,  Souvenir 
de  S.  A.  Prince,  Maman  Cochet,  ° White  Maman  Cochet,  Caroline 
Kuster,  Souvenir  d’un  Ami,  Madame  Hoste,  Hon.  Edith  Gifford, 
Innocente  Pirola,  Anna  Olivier,  and  Rubens. 
Garden  or  Decorative  Roses. — Summer  Flowering. — Provence. 
— Common  or  Cabbage.  Moss  — Common  or  Old  and  Blanche  Moreau. 
Damask. — Rosa  Mundi.  Austrian  Briar. — Austrian  Copper,  Austrian 
Yellow,  and  Harrisoni.  Hybrid  Sweet  Briars. — Janet's  Pride,  °Lady 
Penzmce,  °Jeannie  Deans,  0 Flora  Mclvor,  and  °Amy  Hobsart. 
Climbing  Roses. — Turner’s  Crimson  Rambler,  Bennett’s  Seedling, 
Felicite  Perpetue,  Claire  Jacquier,  ®  Paul's  Carmine  Pillar,  The  Garland, 
Rosa  multifiora  grandiflora.  Autumn  Flowering. — Hybrid  Teas. — 
Gmtave  Regis,  °Madame  Abel  Chatenay,  e Antoine  Rivoire,  *  Madame 
Jules  Grolez,  Gloire  Lyonnaise,  Augustine  Guinoisseau,  °Killarney, 
Grace  Darling,  Bardou  Job.  Bourbon. — Souvenir  de  la  Malmaison. 
China. — Old  Blush  or  Common  Monthly,  Laurette  Messimy,  °Madame 
Eugene  Resal,  Mrs.  Bosanquet,  and  White  Pet.  Teas  and  Noisettes <> 
—  L’lddal,  Madame  Lanrbard,  G.  Nabonnand,  Corinna,  Beautd  Incon¬ 
stant?,  ^Souvenir  de  Catherine  Guillot,  ^Souvenir  de  J.  B.  Guillot. 
Perpetual  Scotch. — Stanwell  Perpetual.  Polyantha. — Madame  Anna 
Maria  de  Montravel,  Gloire  des  Polyantha,  ®Perle  d’Or,  and  Cecille 
Brunner.  Japanese.  —  Alba,  Madame  G.  Bruant,  and  Blanc  Double 
de  Coubert.  Climbing. — Gloire  de  Dijon,  W.  A.  Richardson,  Long- 
worth  Rambler,  Madame  A.  Carriere,  Reve  d’Or,  Reine  Olga  de 
Wurtemburg,  Madame  Pitrre  Cochet,  Bouquet  d’Or,  °Alister  Stella 
G  ay,  Monsieur  Desir,  Aimee  Vibeit,  and  *Wichuriana  (trailing). — 
E.  M.,  Berlchamsted. 
PROPOSED  NATIONAL  GRAPE  TROPHY. 
I  THINK  Mr.  Buchanan’s  proposal  (page  272)  is  an  excellent  one,  and 
that  it  is  worthy  of  the  consideration  of  both  the  Royal  Horticultuial 
Society  and  the  Royal  Caledonian  Society.  As  regards  the  location  of 
the  contest  year  by  year,  I  think  that  the  place  and  date  should  rest 
with  each  of  these  two  Societies  alternately.  If  the  R.H.S.  deem  it 
expedient,  let  it  be,  say,  one  year  at  the  Crystal  Palace  aod  another 
year  at  Shrewsbury  ;  and  the  same  with  the  R.C.S.,  who  might  select 
Edinburgh  and  Glasgow  alternately.  There  should  be  no  great  diffi¬ 
culty  in  providing  the  money  for  the  cup,  and  for  the  cash  prizes  too. 
I  was  glad  to  see  by  Mr.  PI.  W.  Adnict’s  letter  on  page  314  that 
Mr.  Crump’s  view  was  in  accord  with  the  intentions  of  the  Com¬ 
mittee  of  the  Shrewsbury  Show.  I  was  conversing  with  Mr.  Crump 
shortly  after  the  decision  had  been  arrived  at  on  that  occasion,  and 
told  him  I  consideied  his  view  was  the  correct  one.  In  any  future 
extension  at  Shrewsbury  I  should  like  to  see  a  class  for  Grapes  packed 
for  transit  by  rail,  as  at  the  late  Palace  Show — but  with  the  important 
reservation  that  all  such  exhibits  be  sent  by  rail  and  be  delivered  in 
the  usual  way,  only  to  be  opened  by  the  Judges  themselves. — 
J.  Hudson. 
As  I  was  the  originator  of  the  proposed  national  trophy  for  Grapes, 
I  can  only  reiterate  my  promise  to  both  contribute  towards  and 
compete  for  the  honour  of  the  part  of  the  country  in  which  I  live.  If 
such  a  trophy  is  supplied  by  any  given  societies,  of  course  those 
societies  will  have  a  right  to  formulate  their  own  conditions  of  com¬ 
petition,  and  exhibitors  may  do  as  they  please  about  accepting  them. 
If,  however,  such  a  trophy  has  to  be  raised  by  public  subscription, 
the  subscribers  must  claim  a  right  to  arrange  the  conditions  of  com¬ 
petition,  and  to  make  the  trophy  truly  national  the  subscription 
should  be  equal  from  north  and  south  alike. 
I  would  suggest  that  the  Judges  be  selected  (like  the  subscriptions)’ 
from  north  and  south,  and  be  men  of  known  ability,  and  proved  to  be 
successful  cultivators,  who  are  able  to  distinguish  one  variety  of  Grape 
from  another  without  the  aid  of  printed  instructions  that  require  a 
lawyer  to  interpret. 
I  notice  the  modest  suggestion  of  Mr.  Adnitt  that  London  and 
Edinburgh  are  the  most  suitable  places  for  the  scene  of  competition, 
but  I  fail  to  see  any  greater  presumption  for  a  national  trophy  to 
be  competed  for  #at  Shrewsbury  than  a  champion  money  prize. 
However,  I  hope  other  suggestions  may  be  forthcoming  that  are 
worthy  consideration. — J.  H.  Goodacre. 
[We  have  several  more  letters  on  this  important  subject.] 
