DECEMBER. 363 



only missing link, even then the moral evidence would hardly be 

 stronger than it is now. 



Accepting the illustration of a suit at law, it must be remembered 

 that when the best evidence on any point is not procurable, the next 

 best is admissible. Also that possession is nine points out of the ten, 

 and, where possession is sought to be disturbed, the onus probandi lies 

 on the plaintiff or disturber. And there will be no difficulty in showing 

 that Mr. Foster's evidence, if not procurable, is amply supplied by 

 what we have ; that nothing has been adduced to shake the current 

 belief that this fine Rose is a native of England. I at first intended to 

 carry on the similitude used, and imitate the practice of the courts, but 

 as it appeared on trial that the sifting of evidence necessarily led to the 

 exposure of weak points, which might unconsciously cause a wound, I 

 will confine myself to the strong ones, in favour of its English parentage. 



Mr. Willcock's letter is accepted as true in its facts ; the allegation 

 is that the facts do not reach far enough, that they stop short at a 

 material point, which mars their value, and that the plant he brought 

 from Mr. Foster's might have been, and probably was, picked up 

 by that gentleman in his wanderings ; of which the thickness of the 

 petal affords presumptive evidence. This, I believe, is all, and it will 

 be,found to be insufficient — indeed, it will show that the facts already 

 obtained involve a moral certainty upon the point in which it has been 

 alleged to be deficient. 



First, however, it may be as well to state that Mr. Rivers, in his 

 " Rose Amateur's Guide," page 138, 3rd edition, says nothing of its 

 supposed French origin ; for myself, I have never before heard any 

 other than an English one given to it, and it has been so described, if 

 I am not mistaken, in the pages of the Florist. And now let us 

 examine the objections made to it, and to the sufficiency of Mr. Will- 

 cock's statement. 



The thickness of petal in Devoniensis is said to be presumptive 

 evidence against its English origin. Why? I know of no principle in 

 the physiology of plants that would lead to this conclusion. If England 

 were notorious for its dryness of climate, I could understand this, though 

 I might not assent to it, but the cause intended, I imagine to be, not 

 that, but its want of warmth. As this is the only Rose of note that 

 we can pretend to, there are not instances to judge by comparison ; but 

 in Camellias, at any rate, the rule does not hold good ; for in plants of 

 that tribe, raised from seed ripened in England, there are some with 

 petals as thick as any of those raised under the suns of France or 

 Italy. I cannot therefore admit this to be presumptive evidence, even 

 if there were room, as I contend there is not, for such presumptive 

 evidence at all. 



For now look at the alternative, if Mr. Willcock's supposition be 

 judged erroneous, and the plant he took away were not a seedling 

 raised by Mr. Foster, as they all supposed. Either it was a (French) 

 seedling, or it was not ; if it was, then you have to account for a French 

 seedling Rose purchased at seedling price, and that in 1838 or there- 

 abouts, certainly not less than 20 guineas, growing in the open ground, 

 under a cottage window, till hawked for sale. 



