February  6, 189(5, 
JOURNAL  OF  HORTICULTURE  AND  COTTAGE  GARDENER . 
123* 
which  Hamburghs  extended  was  never  more  than  three  weeks,  all  being 
cut  in  that  time,  this  relieving  the  Vines  greatly. 
With  a  handy  man  on  the  premises,  plain  houses,  and  buying 
materials  wholesale,  the  cost  of  erection  was  not  heavy,  and  for  an  acre 
of  glass  near  to  a  town,  he  had  made  a  calculation  that  on  the  system 
he  adopted  there  would  be  over  a  profit  of  over  £600  per  annum,  selling 
the  Grapes  at  6d.  to  8d.  per  lb.;  and  so  satisfied  is  he  with  his  five  years’ 
experience  that  he  is  now  erecting  three  acres  of  glass  at  Nottingham, 
to  be  worked  on  the  same  principle.  In  treating  on  “  Diseases.”  he 
believed  the  chief  cause  of  shanking  to  be  an  insufficiency  of  potash 
and  phosphates.  In  concluding  Mr.  Colebrooke  said  hi3  paper  was 
based  on  the  strictest  calculations. 
Mr.  R.  Pinnington,  in  proposing  a  vote  of  thanks,  said  that  he  was 
glad  to  see  that  Grapes  could  be  grown  successfully  without  such 
expensive  borders  as  was  at  one  time  thought.  Anyone  with  money  to 
spare,  if  all  Mr.  Colebrooke  said  was  true — and  he  did  not  doubt  it — had 
a  good  investment.  With  the  essayist,  he  believed  that  not  enough  was 
got  out  of  Vines  in  many  private  places,  and  gave  an  instance  of  crops 
not  quite  so  heavy,  which  had  been  secured  for  many  years,  the  Vines 
not  showing  the  slightest  weakness.  He  congratulated  him  on  so 
excellent  a  paper.  Mr.  Craven  doubted  the  wood  ashes  and  leaf  mould 
being  mixed  through  the  compost,  but  would  use  them  as  a  top-dressing. 
He  also  gave  as  his  reason  for  washing  the  roots  of  young  Vines,  that  it 
prevented  the  spread  of  phylloxera.  Mr.  Carling  said  that  it  was  good 
to  enable  the  roots  to  be  spread  into  proper  position.  Messrs.  Storey, 
Massey,  Bennett,  and  Smith  all  spoke,  the  latter  remarking  that 
although  there  was  much  that  was  new  in  what  Mr.  Colebrooke  had 
said,  yet  he  must  be  credited  with  taking  a  line  of  his  own,  and  if 
people  were  slow  to  follow,  it  would  be  to  their  own  detriment. 
In  concluding  this  report  there  were  points  in  the  paper  that  might, 
I  think,  create  a  healthy  discussion  in  the  Journal : — 
1st,  Is  the  circulation  of  air  through  the  bottom  of  a  border  beneficial 
or  not  1 
2nd,  In  planting,  is  it  advisable  to  wash  away  the  soil  from  the 
roots  ? 
3rd,  Is  the  use  of  wood  ashes  and  leaf  mould  to  be  commended  in 
making  borders  1 
4th,  Any  opinion  as  to  the  merits  or  otherwise  of  the  new  Grape 
Lady  Hutt. 
5th,  How  long  do  heavily  cropped  Vines  continue  to  bear  useful 
fruit  /— R.  P.  R. 
THE  ROYAL  HORTICULTURAL  SOCIETY’S  ANNUAL 
MEETING. 
Judging  by  what  one  reads  in  one,  at  least,  of  your  contemporaries 
there  seems  to  be  a  determination  on  the  part  of  a  few  Fellows  of  the 
R.H.S.  to  make  the  recent  Barron  case,  which  we  had  thought  to  have 
been  happily  and  honourably  settled,  a  means  whereby  to  attack  the 
Secretary  of  the  Society. 
It  is  not  so  much  love  for  Mr.  Barron  that  is  dominating  these 
persons  as  that  he,  doubtless  to  his  intense  disgust,  is  to  be  used  as  a 
stick  wherewith  to  beat  the  Secretary  and  the  Council. 
Never  hag  an  old  and  excellent  servant  been  treated  with  more 
liberality  than  has  Mr.  Barron,  and  so  much  is  that  treatment  respected 
that  thousands  of  gardeners  now  regard  him  with  envy.  How  does 
Mr.  Barron’s  position  now  compare  with  that  of  Mr.  Coomber?  If 
there  be  such  real  indignation  as  these  Fellows  would  lead  others  to 
believe,  Mr.  Coomber’s  case  is  one  that  may  well  call  for  its  full 
expenditure.  In  the  country  the  belief  that  the  Council  of  the  R.H.S. 
have  acted  nobly  towards  their  old  Superintendent  in  his  retirement 
is  overwhelming.  But  why  this  bitterness  against  Mr.  Wilks?  Has 
the  Society  ever  been  in  a  better  position  than  it  is  to-day  ? 
Apart  from  the  Secretary,  any  attack  upon  him  is  an  attack  on 
the  entire  Council,  and  through  that  body  on  the  Society.  That 
attack  it  is  hoped  will  be  baffled. — An  Unbiassed  Fellow. 
[If  we  could  imagine  our  correspondent  capable  of  being  biassed  at 
all,  we  should  have  thought  his  inclinations  would  have  been  likely  to 
trend  in  the  other  direction.  We  betray  no  confidence  in  stating  that 
he  is  one  of  Mr.  Barron’s  sincere  friends,  and  has  never  been  in  the 
habit  of  lavishing  blandishments  on  the  Royal  Horticultural  Society. 
We  are  loth  to  believe  that  any  of  Mr.  Barron’s  friends  would 
humiliate  him  in  the  manner  and  with  the  object  suggested,  and  it  will 
perhaps  be  well  if  the  underlying  motives  of  all  who  are  identified  with 
the  change  in  question,  and  the  subsequent  agitation,  should  be  brought 
to  the  surface.  There  ought  to  be  nothing  to  conceal. 
One  fact  is  beyond  dispute — namely,  that  the  conduct  of  the 
Council  of  the  Royal  Horticultural  Society  in  its  treatment  of  a 
retired  servant  stands  out  in  brilliant  contrast  with  that  of  the  Royal 
Botanic  Society,  for  Mr.  Barron  is  allowed  £180  a  year,  while  a  not  less 
worthy  man — Mr.  Coomber — is,  so  far  as  we  know,  allowed  nothing  at 
all.  True,  he  may  not  have  been  more  than  twenty  years  in  the  position 
from  which  he  is  removed,  but  they  were,  all  the  same,  the  best  years  of 
a  good  man’s  life  ;  yet,  as  our  correspondent  reminds  us,  there  has  been 
no  outbreak  of  indignation  in  this  unfortunate  case. 
We  are  reminded  by  a  circular  that  contributions  towards  a  testi¬ 
monial  to  Mr.  Coomber  may  be  sent  to  Mr.  Harry  J.  Veitch,  Hon. 
Treasurer;  or  to  Mr.  Jesse  Willard,  Hon.  Secretary,  Holly  Lodge  Gardens, 
Highgate,  London.] 
Rose  Show  Fixtures  in  1896. 
Jnne  17th  (Wednesday). — York.* 
„  18th  (Thursday). — Colchester. 
„  24th  (Wednesday). — Reading  (N.R.S.) 
„  27th  (Saturday). — Windsor. 
,,  30th  (Tuesday). — Sutton. 
July  1st  (Wednesday). — Croydon  and  Ealing. 
,,  2nd  (Thursday). — Eltharn,  Gloucester  and  Norw  ich. 
„  4th  (Saturday). — Crystal  Palace  (N.R.S.) 
„  8th  (Wednesday).  — Redhill  (Reigate). 
„  9th  (Thursday). — Helensburgh. 
„  9th  (Thursday). — Worksop. 
„  15th  (Wednesday). — Ulverston  (N.R.S.) 
,,  21st  ^Tuesday). — Tibshelf. 
Aug.  5th  (Wednesday. — Chesterfield. 
*  A  show  lasting  three  days. 
The  above  are  the  only  dates  definitely  fixed  that  have  as  yet  reached 
me.  I  shall  be  glad  to  receive  others,  as  soon  as  arranged,  for  insertion 
in  my  next  list,  which  will  be  issued  early  in  March. — Edward 
Mawley,  Rosebank,  Berkhamsted,  Herts. 
National  Rose  Society’s  Show  at  Reading. 
At  the  annual  meeting  of  the  Reading  Horticultural  Society  the 
Secretary  read  the  agreement  between  the  National  Rose  Society  and 
the  Reading  Society  regarding  the  show  to  be  held  on  the  24th  June, 
which  showed  that  £50  was  to  be  paid  by  the  National  Society  towards 
the  prizes  and  £50  by  the  Reading  Society,  the  latter  to  pay  printing 
and  staging  expenses.  The  members  of  the  Rose  Society  were  to  be 
admitted  free,  and  the  £50  was  to  be  paid  to  the  Treasurer  of  the  National 
Society  within  one  month  of  the  date  of  exhibition.  The  Secretary  added 
that  the  Reading  Society  would  provide  £20  for  local  prizes  for  Roses 
and  £30  for  miscellaneous  exhibits.  A  fund  to  raise  the  guarantee  had 
been  started. 
Garden  Roses. 
I  have  read  very  carefully  and  with  much  appreciation  the  con¬ 
tribution  of  “H.  D.”  which  appears  on  page  94  of  the  Journal  of 
Horticulture ,  and  I  hope  he  will  take  the  advice  of  the  Editor  and 
continue  his  extremely  interesting  communications.  I  look  forward 
with  anticipatory  pleasure  to  his  forthcoming  comments  upon  Hybrid 
Perpetuals.  Noisettes,  and  Teas.  In  his  paragraph  on  Moss  Roses  he 
speaks  of  a  variety  entitled  the  “  White  Bush,”  which,  he  informs  us, 
has  derived  its  name  from  its  habit  of  growth.  This  may  be  an  entirely 
new  introduction  ;  but  for  my  part  I  have  never  heard  of  it  before,  and 
in  order  to  discover  some  account  of  its  characteristics  I  have  consulted 
all  the  leading  catalogues  in  vain.  I  find,  for  example,  that  the  Cants 
of  Colchester,  the  two  firms  of  Waltham  and  Cheshunt,  the  Turners 
of  Slough,  and  the  Messrs.  Harkness  of  Bedale  are  silent  on  the  subject. 
I  have  therefore  come  to  the  conclusion  that  the  variety  to  which  your 
contributor  refers  is  the  somewhat  venerable  White  Bath,  one  of  the 
most  beautiful  and  attractive  of  Moss  Roses,  which  assuredly  does  not 
derive  its  name  from  its  “  suitability  for  growing  in  bush  form.” 
I  am  not  as  a  rule  a  great  eulogist  of  the  Moss  Roses,  which  are, 
indeed,  for  the  most  part  very  fascinating  in  the  bud,  but  disappointing 
when  fully  blown.  To  them  might  expressively  be  applied  the  words  of 
Wordsworth,  “Heaven  lies  about  them  in  their  infancy.”  I  have 
cultivated  Quatre  Saisons  and  the  white  Perpetual  Moss,  but  I  have  not 
yet  discovered  that  either  of  these  is  perfectly  perpetual. — David 
R.  Williamson. 
Grafting  Roses  on  Roots. 
M.  Cochet-Cochet  writes  as  follows  in  the  “  Journal  des  Roses  :  ” 
— “  I  consider  the  following  a  good  method  for  multiplying  Rose  trees  by 
cleft  grafting  on  Sweet  Briar  roots  or,  better,  on  the  roots  of  the  Rosa 
polyantha  type  : — Select  perfectly  healthy  roots  half  to  three-quarters  of 
an  inch  in  diameter,  cut  them  with  a  sharp  pruning  knife  (not  with 
shears)  into  pieces  3  to  4  inches  in  length,  if  possible  with  fibres  attached 
and  a  portion  of  smooth  bark  to  fix  the  scion.  Place  fifty  roots  thus 
prepared  before  you.  Cut  fifty  grafts  with  two  eyes  of  the  variety  to  be 
reproduced.  This  preparation  of  roots  and  grafts  before  operating  has 
the  advantage  of  enabling  an  easy  and  suitable  choice  of  each  scion  for 
each  root.  Make  an  ordinary  cleft-graft  by  cutting  the  top  part  of  the 
root  and  introducing  the  scion.  See  that  the  inner  part  of  the  two 
barks  coincide  perfectly.  Make  the  ligature  with  coarse  thread  as  used 
for  sacks  and  cover  with  grafting  wax.  Then  place  the  grafted  roots  in 
sand  under  a  well  closed  frame  in  lines  3  to  4  inches  apart  and  an  inch 
or  so  from  each  other  in  the  line.  They  should  be  buried,  only  the  top 
eye  being  above  the  sand.  According  as  they  are  made  put  the  grafts 
into  sand  to  prevent  the  action  of  air  on  the  roots.  Deprive  them 
completely  of  air  until  they  are  quite  united,  then  admit  air  gradually 
and  afford  plenty  of  light  but  no  sun,  The  work  may  be  done  from 
October  15th  to  the  end  of  March.  The  autumn  gives  the  best  results. 
In  autumn  roots  and  scions  can  be  put  in  boxes  filled  with  sand 
