120 
JOURNAL  OF  HORTICULTURE  AND  COTTAGE  GARDENER. 
August  5,  1897. 
In  the  amateurs’  division  Mr.  E.  B.  Lindsell  swept  the  hoard,  carry¬ 
ing  off  all  the  principal  prizes,  and  now  holding  both  the  trophies  for 
the  present  year.  It  has  always  been  felt  that  as  far  as  H.P.’s  are  con¬ 
cerned  he  was  always  almost  unapproachable,  but  I  think  it  must  have 
been  a  surprise  to  many  that  he  should  have  taken  the  prominent  position 
he  did  in  the  Tea  classes.  He  has  always  shown  some  good  Teas  in  the 
mixed  classes,  though  in  the  Tea  and  Noisette  division  he  has  not  here¬ 
tofore  taken  a  prominent  position,  and  now  East  Anglians  and  others 
will  have  to  count  him  as  a  very  formidable  adversary  in  this  division. 
Scotland  was  altogether  unrepresented,  as  the  list  of  the  counties  given 
by  Mr.  Mawley  shows,  nor  did  any  come  from  Ireland,  as  Messrs.  Dick¬ 
sons  did  not  exhibit.  There  were,  of  course,  many  exhibitors  from 
Norfolk,  but  these  were  mainly  in  the  local  classes. 
The  two  stands  which  stood  out  most  prominently  were  those 
exhibited  by  Mr.  B.  R.  Cant,  for  which  he  gained  the  challenge  trophy, 
and  that  shown  by  Mr.  E.  B.  Lindsell,  to  whom  also  fell  the  Jubilee 
trophy.  In  the  former  stand  the  most  noticeable  were  of  H.P.’s  A.  K. 
Williams,  Madame  Charles  Crapelet,  a  very  old  Rose ;  Beauty  of 
Waltham,  which,  thongh  sent  out  in  1862,  still  holds  its  own  as  an 
exhibition  Rose ;  Susanne  Marie  Rodocanachi,  Duchesse  de  Morny, 
Marchioness  of  Londonderry,  and  Countess  of  Rosebery ;  while 
amongst  Teas  were  Comtesse  de  Nadaillac,  which  seems  to  be  good 
everywhere  this  season  ;  Muriel  Grahame,  Innocente  Pirola,  The  Bride, 
and  Catherine  Mermet.  Messrs.  Haikness  &  Sons  were  a  good  second, 
and  some  of  their  darker  coloured  flowers  were  of  very  great  excellence  ; 
while  Messrs.  Paul  &  Son  made  a  good  fight  for  a  third  place. 
Mr.  E.  B.  Lindsell  is  so  good  a  grower  and  exhibitor  that  we  may  be 
sure  to  find  the  very  best  Roses  in  his  stand.  We  find  him  still  clinging 
to  the  older  varieties,  and  in  his  box  were  good  blooms  of  such  old- 
established  favourites  as  A.  K.  Williams,  Marie  Baumann,  Alfred  Colomb, 
Beauty  of  Waltham,  Souvenir  d’Elise  Vardon,  Madame  Victor  Verdier, 
Merveille  de  Lyon,  Her  Majesty,  Charles  Lefehvre,  Horace  Vernet,  and 
Duke  of  Wellington  (not  very  often  seen  now).  Rev.  J.  H.  Pemberton 
was  a  good  second  ;  in  fact,  these  two  champions  run  one  another  very 
closely.  Last  year  it  was  Mr.  Pemberton’s  turn,  and  this  year  it  is 
evidently  Mr.  Lindsell’s.  Mr.  Lindsell’s  twelve  Teas  were  very  fine  ; 
with  the  exception,  perhaps,  of  Maman  Cochet  they  were  all  old- 
established  favourites  ;  indeed,  it  will  be  some  time  before  such  flowers 
as  Comtesse  de  Nadaillac,  Catherine  Mermet,  The  Bride,  Innocente 
Pirola,  and  Madame  Cusin  are  supplanted.  It  was  noticeable,  too,  as 
showing  that  distance  does  not  form  an  insuperable  barrier  in  the 
successful  exhibition  of  the  Rose  that  Messrs.  Townsend  of  Worcester 
came  from  the  extreme  west,  and  carried  off  the  first  prize  in  eighteen 
trebles  ;  the  flowers  were  wonderfully  fresh,  especially  when  the  heat  of 
the  weather  was  considered.  Mr.  Orpen,  who  is  so  well  known  as  one 
of  our  most  successful  Tea  exhibitors,  obtained  the  prize  for  eighteen 
varieties  with  an  excellent  stand  ;  but,  as  I  have  said,  all  the  principal 
prizes  fell  to  Mr.  Lindsell,  while  the  Rev.  J.  H.  Pemberton  followed 
closely  in  all  classes  as  second,  and  Mr.  H.  V.  Machin  as  third. 
In  the  open  classes  there  were  some  excellent  stands,  while  in  that 
for  new  Roses  Messrs.  Paul  &  Son  exhibited  good  blooms  of  both  foreign 
and  home-raised  Roses;  they  were  T.  B.  Haywood,  Marquis  de  Litta, 
Sylph,  Bladud,  Bacchus,  Alice  Furon,  Captain  Hayward,  Helen  Keller, 
and  Mrs.  W.  J.  Grant.  With  regard  to  this  latter  Rose  it  is  satisfactory 
to  find  that  in  no  instance  that  I  can  recollect  has  it  been  exhibited 
under  its  American  synonym.  As  it  was  fitting  on  such  an  occasion  a 
special  prize  was  offered  for  Her  Majesty,  and  was  taken  by  Messrs, 
Paul  &  Son  with  some  grand  blooms.  Messrs.  Townsend  &  Son  of 
Worcester  had  some  grand  blooms  of  Comtesse  de  Nadaillac,  as  had 
Mr.  Frank  Cant  of  A.  K.  Williams.  The  Tea  division  was  one  of  excep¬ 
tional  interest,  for  the  weather  suited  these  Roses  much  better  than  it 
did  the  H.P.’s,  and  in  the  trade  division  Messrs.  Merryweather  &  Sons 
occupied  the  leading  position  which  they  have  so  long  coveted,  their 
stand  of  twelve  trebles  being  a  very  beautiful  one  containing  grand 
blooms  of  Maman  Cochet,  Niphetos,  Madame  de  Watteville,  Golden 
Gate,  Catherine  Mermet,  Comtesse  de  Nadaillac,  Ernest  Metz,  The  Bride, 
Souvenir  d’Elise  Vardon,  and  The  Bridesmaid.  The  amateurs’  division 
was  also  very  strong,  Mr.  Lindsell,  as  I  have  said,  taking  the  foremost 
positions,  closely  followed  by  Mr.  C,  J.  Grahame. 
Garden  Roses,  although  very  attractive,  were  not  equal  to  those  seen 
either  at  Portsmouth  or  tbe  Crystal  Palace.  Mr.  Machin  occupied  the 
premier  position  amongst  amateurs,  and  Messrs,  Paul  &  Son  amongst 
professionals ;  amongst  trade  -  growers  Mr.  Chas.  Turner  showed 
remarkably  well,  as  did  also  Mr.  Orpen  amongst  amateurs.  The 
“  displays  ”  of  Roses  were  not  satisfactory,  and  the  strictures  of  a  well- 
known  horticulturist  in  one  of  your  contemporaries  this  week  are  well 
deserved  ;  although  I  cannot  agree  with  him  that  the  Rose  is  a  flower 
that  lends  itself  easily  to  decorative  purposes.  Of  course,  this  sounds 
like  heresy,  but  at  the  same  time  I  believe  it  to  be  true. 
The  medal^  Roses  deserve  notice  ;  the  blooms  which  obtained  the 
awards  were  in  each  case  exceptionally  good.  The  Muriel  Grahame 
with  which  Mr.  Orpen  carried  off  the  medal  was  a  magnificent  flower. 
Its  comely  shape,  good  substance,  and  its  distinct  colour  contributed 
to  make  it  a  very  lovely  specimen  of  this  variety,  and  surely  we  may 
say  that  when  a  Rose  during  the  first  year  of  its  general  distribution 
carries  two  silver  medals  at  the  exhibitions  of  the  National  Rose 
Society  its  claim  to  being  a  great  acquisition  can  hardly  be  doubted* 
There  are  some  who  shake  their  heads  and  say  it  will  revert  to  The 
Bride  ;  but  I  do  not  think  that  Tea  Roses  are  apt  to  return  to  the  type. 
The  other  Tea  Rose  which  obtained  the  medal  in  the  nurserymen’s  class 
was  a  magnificent  bloom  of  Niphetos,  certainly  the  finest  white  Tea 
when  caugbt  in  such  a  state  as  this  that  we  have.  I  saw  somewhere  the 
other  day  that  a  writer  mentioned  Kaiserin  Augusta  Victoria  as  the  best 
white  Rose  that  we  have  ;  but  I  confess  that  I  cannot  see  the  whiteness 
of  it,  although  I  am  quite  willing  to  admit  its  beauty.  The  Roies  which 
gained  the  medals  in  the  H.P.  class  were  Mrs.  J.  Laing,  a  rather  under¬ 
sized  but  a  well  formed  bloom  exhibited  by  Mr.  S.  Berger  of  Stevenage, 
Herts  ;  while  Messrs.  Harkness  «&  Son  secured  it  amongst  nurserymen 
for  a  beautiful  and  well  formed  flower  of  Earl  of  Dufferin. 
On  the  whole,  then,  we  must  conclude  that  the  northern  exhibition 
was  this  year  a  successful  one,  and  will,  we  hope,  give  a  fillip  to  Rose 
growers  in  the  eastern  counties  ;  and  many  thanks  are  due  to  the  Secre¬ 
tary  and  Committee  of  the  Norfolk  and  Norwich  Horticultural  Society 
for  the  efforts  .which  they  made  to  make  the  first  National  Show  held  in 
the  eastern  counties  a  great  success. — D.,  Deal. 
BRIEF  NOTES  ON  ALPINE  FLOWERS, 
{^Continued  from  page  54.) 
AC..ENA  MICBOPHYLLA. 
The  Rosy-spined  Actena,  although  comparatively  plentiful  in 
collections  of  alpine  flowers,  is  yet  worthy  of  even  wider  acceptance 
than  it  at  present  receives.  Its  usefulness  is  not  limited  to  the  rock 
garden  or  rockery,  as  it  will  be  found  serviceable  in  carpeting  some 
borders  occupied  by  taller  growing  plants  or  in  semi-wild  places  where 
a  close  cover  of  vegetation  is  required.  It  is  as  widely  known  by  the 
name  of  A.  novas-zealandim  as  by  Hooker’s  one  of  microphylla,  which 
has  tbe  priority,  and  is  also  better  than  the  former  name,  there  being 
several  other  species  natives  of  New  Zealand, 
Actena  microphylla  is  of  a  creeping  habit  of  growth,  and  is  exceed¬ 
ingly  dwarf,  its  height  being  generally  from  1  to  2  inches.  The  pinnate 
leaves  are  of  a  pretty  green,  but  the  flowers  are  extremely  ineffective, 
produced  though  thej  are  in  dense  little  globular  heads.  The  beauty  of 
the  plant  consists  in  its  leaves  and  the  bright  crimson  spines  which  so 
adorn  the  heads  of  flowers.  These  give  a  mass  of  this  Acmna  a  very 
beautiful  effect.  It  does  not  like  a  very  dry  position,  although  it  will 
grow  in  such,  and  prefers  a  rather  moist,  peaty  soil  with  a  fair  amount 
of  sun.  In  the  rock  garden  it  is  often  found  very  useful  for  growing 
between  the  stones  in  rocky  pathways  or  along  the  edges  of  the  walks. 
It  is  readily  increased  by  means  of  division, 
COKONILLA  VAEIA. 
We  have  here  a  plant  eminently  suitable  for  large  rock  work,  and 
quite  out  of  place  among  the  smaller  encrusted  Saxifrages,  the  exquisite 
Dianthi,  and  other  diminutive  and  choice  alpine  flowers.  The  free 
growth,  trailing  habit,  and  pretty  flowers  of  this  Ooronilla  are  better 
seen  trailing  over  a  sunny  ledge  of  rock  or  covering  some  almost  perpen¬ 
dicular  crevice  than  when  grown  in  the  border,  even  if  trained,  as  some 
recommend,  over  sticks  so  as  to  form  a  miniature  tent.  The  name  Coro- 
nilla,  or  “  Little  Crown,”  is  a  very  appropriate  one  from  the  way  in 
which  its  Pea-shaped  flowers  are  clustered  together. 
Like  most  of  the  Leguminosse,  it  possesses  elegant  foliage  as  well  as 
graceful  flowers,  and  these  merits  are  enhanced  by  the  colour  of  the 
blooms.  Plants  vary  in  the  shade  of  the  colour  shown  by  the  flowers, 
and  the  blooms  themselves  also  give  diversities  of  tints.  The  colour 
varies  in  some  specimens  from  white  to  almost  purple.  Thus  the  name 
of  “  Various-coloured  Ooronilla”  is  appropriate,  although  the  other  trivial 
or  popular  one  of  “  Rosy  Ooronilla  ”  is  more  pleasing,  and  well  repre¬ 
sents  the  greater  number  of  the  plants  grown.  It  will  grow  4  or  5  feet 
in  length,  so  that  anyone  planting  it  must  allow  for  this  feature  when 
choosing  its  position.  It  is  recommended  that  division  of  the  roots  be 
followed  for  increasing  the  stock ;  but  one  finds  that  young  plants 
raised  from  seed  grow  more  rapidly  and  are  more  readily  established 
than  divisions  of  old  plants.  Seeds  are  easily  obtained,  and  may  either 
be  sown  under  glass  or  in  the  open 
It  is  a  native  of  Europe  and  Asia — a  variety,  named  by  Boissier 
libanotica,  coming  from  Armenia.  It  in  no  way  detracts  from  the 
beauty  of  this  plant  to  know  that  it  has  been  used  as  a  food  for  cattle. 
It  is  to  be  doubted,  however,  if  it  were  found  of  much  value  for  this 
purpose.  A  plant  cultivated  in  1597  and  of  value  for  cattle  would  have 
been  more  widely  grown  than  it  is  now.  It  is  as  an  ornamental  plant 
that  it  is  spoken  of  here,  and  it  can  be  confidently  recommended  for  this 
purpose  in  the  positions  already  mentioned.  It  begins  to  flower  in  this 
garden  in  July,  and  continues  for  a  month  or  two  to  produce  its  prettily 
coloured  heads  of  bloom. 
Campanula  pelvifobmis. 
Botanists  and  gardeners  do  not  always  agree  in  the  names  of  plants, 
and  when  the  latter  are  checked  with  regard  to  an  error  in  nomenclature 
they  are  apt  to  retaliate  by  saying,  with  some  degree  of  truth,  that 
botanists  differ  among  themselves.  The  plant  or  plants  under  notice 
may  more  correctly  be  named  0.  carpatica  pelviformis,  but  this  is  too 
cumbrous  a  name  for  general  use.  A  plant  named  0.  c.  pelviformis  is 
said  by  a  high  authority  to  be  a  seedling  of  0.  c.  turbinata.  There  are, 
however,  several  pelviform  or  saucer-shaped  varieties,  and  some  two  or 
three  of  these  approach  more  nearly  to  the  typical  0.  carpatica  than  to 
the  variety  known  as  turbinata. 
One  of  the  best  of  these  was  received  from  a  well-known  nursery  in 
