MARCH. 65 



pleasure on the other were checked when I discovered the purport of 

 their communications ; and as the subject under discussion is, in my 

 opinion, a very important one, perhaps " one word" may be pardoned 

 " on the other side." 



I must premise that I have nothing- to do with the description of 

 flower " dressed," or the extent to which the dressing obtains ; for 

 that it does so obtain your correspondents both admit, as they not 

 only apologise and excuse, but boldly defend the practice ; and 

 whether such a system is allowable, or whether it is a species of 

 trickery which is reprehensible, is the real question to be settled. 



Iota's first paragraph only causes subsequent wonder ; but as I 

 fully agree with it, I shall say no more on that. 



Now let us begin at the beginning, and try to get at the real 

 facts of the case. 



We take a flower as it wildly grows, and the skilful in such 

 matters say : " The attributes of this flower, to form our idea of per- 

 fection, should be of such and such a character: it can be so perfected 

 by patient and careful cultivation ; let us do it." Henceforth the 

 plant is cherished, nurtured, and at last comes forth — not quite per- 

 fect ; something else is needed ; more delay, fresh study, more as- 

 siduous attention to this or that particular is necessary to acquire 

 certain desired qualifications. All this the true Florist does, and never 

 flags till he has produced the flower by cultivation with all the re- 

 quired attributes. Well, he stages his plant ; it rests beside another of 

 the same description, equally beautiful, equally perfect — to the eye. 

 An amateur buys the two ; and one he finds has been by cultivation 

 brought to this perfection, the other has been — " dressed." Now, 

 gentlemen, you do not deny the existence of this fact; and is it 

 honest? Yet you pronounce it innocent. Is this "art" assisting 

 nature? Has this any thing to do with " wildness" and "nature" 

 or "license" and "liberty?" — all truisms in their way, and forcible 

 enough in argument when properly applied ; — or is it not a trickery 

 and a gross deceit ? Is it not making the plant appear what it is 

 not P For if the petal of a flower be not in that shape and position 

 which it is the cultivator's aim to achieve, and has to be " dressed," 

 then has the Florist failed to reach the goal for which he strove, and 

 must try again, by legitimate cultivation, to correct that fault in the 

 garden which dressing has to amend upon the " stage." 



But Iota, as was to be expected, has still some faint remains of 

 his early horror left : he proceeds to apologise as well as to defend. 

 The "good may be made to look better," &c, he says, and con- 

 tinues, "therefore the public deception caused by the practice is 

 reduced within microscopic limits." This I deny ; but suppose it is 

 really so ; are we to have a sliding-scale in floricultural trickery ? 

 Are we to exonerate the thief because the theft is brought within the 

 range of " microscopic limits," or shall we at once admit the principle 

 to be the same, whether the deception be great or small ? 



There are several other points in Iota's article which I should 

 have liked to remark upon, but space forbids ; and with a word or 

 two in reply to Mr. Dodwell, I will conclude. 



NEW SERIES, VOL. III. NO. XXVII. G 



