174 THE GARDENER. [April 



"'Long before the editor of the "Garden" came to this country we had 

 devoted for years much of our spare time to hardy herbaceous i)lants, and we 

 could show him a herbarium of them that was formed before he knew a Rose 

 from a Thistle.' 



" What a logical line of argument this ! But knowing so much and knowing 

 it so long, why make so pitiful a use of it as to get angry and resort to person- 

 alities in discussing such a subject ? And that is not all, as he, with noble 

 modesty, proceeds to give his infinitely small valuation of our 'standing.' 

 But surely this is going beyond the bounds of decent argument, Mr Thomson ? 

 The noble duke you serve has probably not included among your duties that 

 of pronouncing in a public print on the position of those, of whom, in your 

 vexed mood, you are not well fitted to judge. A very narrow soul has usually 

 capacity for depreciating others. In that high elevation of yours, you no 

 doubt are justified in looking at the kingdoms of the world as if they were 

 all dominated by those stony terraces you have the care of; so, too, the 

 sparrows on the dome of St Paul's take a complacent view of the human crea- 

 tures passing beneath them. In pity that one like you should not give an 

 example of fair discussion to the rising generation, we pass the personal ques- 

 tion raised by you, and shall hope at an early date to iind a corner to discuss 

 the matter from a more general point of view." 



This is quite in harmony with our contemporary's tone and attitude 

 towards us, as its readers can see for themselves, since last November. 

 It might have been rather inconvenient for the writer of the above 

 to have quoted the whole or any part of our remarks of last month, 

 that would have shown the object we had in view — the defence of 

 ourselves from misrepresentation — or to have dealt with our state- 

 ments by argument or facts, instead of the weakness of a sneer, and 

 the quotation of a sentence most likely to mislead its readers. We 

 could well afford to pass in silence anything the ' Garden ' can pos- 

 sibly say of us, but in the interest of what is fair and truthful we 

 notice it. 



In reference to the accumulation of bitter feelings towards our con- 

 temporary and its works, we challenge it to point to a sentence of ours 

 indicative of bitter feelings, unless that recently we thought fit to 

 defend ourselves, and plant a blow in return as well. More than this, 

 we ask the 'Garden' if any other horticultural journal has ever re- 

 viewed or noticed it and its work so approvingly as we have at page 

 96 of this magazine, 1877 1 Yet more as to these bitter feelings. 

 Though we have not contributed very much to the pages of our con^ 

 temporaries, we have sent more to the ' Garden ' than to all of them 

 together, since its advent. Has the editor of the ' Garden' ever 

 showed courtesy or good feeling towards us, by an approving 

 notice of this magazine, or sending us anything in exchange for its 

 pages 1 Yet, in spite of these facts, and on the pretext of our daring 

 to dififer from it as to the comparative cost of two systems of flower- 

 gardening (which should never be set in rivalry against each other), the 

 attempt is made to make it appear that we have opposed the culture 



