66 THE FLORIST. 



His first sentence contains a request for permission to say a 

 word in defence of the " poor Florist;" yet I seek in vain in the sub- 

 sequent remarks to the end of the third paragraph any thing like a 

 fulfilment of the promise to be inferred from the first; but what is 

 said simply amounts to a good-natured lecture to Philip Havapek, 

 and a very glaring perversion of his meaning, but having nothing 

 whatever to do with the defence of dressing flowers. Then we break 

 up new ground. Shall art be admitted to assist nature ? And here 

 your correspondent is clearly confounding skill in handicraft, or even 

 science, with art in its true sense. And without wishing to be hyper- 

 critical, I must be allowed to say, that the word "art,'' as such, is 

 altogether a misapplication of terms, as is also his confounding the 

 relations of the plant and the flower. Let him study for awhile 

 the philosophy of cause and effect, and he will then perceive that his 

 "rationale" is irrational, and his logic as unsound as his argu- 

 ment. 



In conclusion I may remark, Floriculture needs no such assistance 

 as your correspondents advocate (though I am bound to say, I feel 

 assured from no unworthy motive), and some Florists practise. It is 

 its purity which endears it to our minds, let us cast no stain upon it ; 

 it is ennobling in its character, let us not degrade it by our mis- 

 taken zeal, and bring into contempt the Almighty's sweetest works; 

 it is elevating in its tendencies, for it must of necessity lead men's 

 thoughts from the created to the Creator, so never let us, by any act 

 of ours, rob it of its characteristics ; nor, while we blindly think to 

 serve the interests of man, unwittingly cast a slur upon Nature and 

 her fairest beauties. 



Kingsland. J. St. Clement. 



" Roland" makes the following additional remarks on this subject : 



The replies of Iota and Mr. Dodwell to the remarks of Philip 

 Havapek dispose of the rationale of dressing Florists' flowers, and 

 I need not add to them on that point ; but it strikes me there is one 

 point of view in which Phil may see the subject practically at home : 

 he mentions the Pelargonium as being lately brought into the num- 

 ber of dressed flowers. I take it for granted he cultivates this floral 

 gem, perhaps he is an exhibitor ; well, if so, does he not dress his 

 plants much and often whilst they are growing, and put the branches 

 into position, with stakes to keep them so ? then does he not tie down 

 the trusses as, to his eye, shall make the best show, and arrange any 

 individual pip that requires it, removing supernumerary petals, or even 

 imperfect pips, and brush away fallen and stale anthers, &c. &c. ? 

 Now what is all this but dressing? and all this, and more too, has long 

 been done by every exhibitor of the Pelargonium : whether it be 

 " milliner's trickery" or no, the " trickery" is the same, whether with 

 the aid of a pair of ivory tweezers or with the thumb and finger. 



The originator of the discussion thus concludes the matter. 



I am content when I find opposed to my opinion such men as Iota 

 and Mr. Dodwell. I am led to doubt the accuracy of my own judg- 



