i88i.] HERBACEOUS PLANT CONTROVERSY. 175 



of hardy plants, and are the bitter enemy of the 'Garden' and its 

 work. Is our exceedingly charitable and civil contemporary thus 

 "measuring our corn by his own bushel"? 



AYe are not in the least unwilling to credit the 'Garden' with its 

 true share of the merit that may be due to it for the advocacy of these 

 hardy plants, but in spite of all insinuations to the contrary, we 

 have never opposed them, while we have allowed a free discussion 

 of the merits and demerits of both systems of flower-gardening. Herb- 

 aceous plants, however, form but a small part of horticulture. They 

 bear the same relation to it that the shallow brook carrying the 

 "withered leaves" does to the majestic stream that bears the good old 

 ship of horticulture on its way ; hence, no doubt, horticulturists with 

 more than one string to their bow do not harp on it without inter- 

 mission. 



We have now to congratulate our contemporary on its apparent pro- 

 mise to leave off "personalities" and straighten itself up from " violent 

 attitudes " in dealing with its critics, for only a few months ago it 

 characterised one of its brother editors in the elegant terms of "a 

 toothless wolf ;'' and more recently another writer was referred to as ''''the 

 creature ;" and now in its very best temper, our capacity is compared 

 to that of a Cockney sparrow. Perhaps it is fortunate for us that we 

 are not within range of a blunderbuss ! Stones of this sort should not 

 be thrown right and left by those who live in glass houses, unless they 

 also are prepared to have some panfes smashed occasionally ; and in dis- 

 playing the supreme confidence that what does not seem right to their 

 eyes must therefore be wrong, they may be certain that others do not 

 ([uite think that horticulture would go to the dogs without them. 



We had just written the foregoing when the 'Garden' of March 

 12 came to hand. As will be seen presently, a week's reflection has 

 not "purified our critic's heart." We will now proceed to unmask his 

 efforts at deception under the heading — 



"MR DAVID THOMSO^^ OX FLOWER-GARDEXIXG." 



Under this heading some very characteristic remarks appear in the ' Garden ' 

 of March 12 — designed, as any one can easily see, to ridicule our practice at 

 Archerfield, and to make it appear that our statements at various times as to 

 the cost of the two systems of flower-gardening are contradictory. To show 

 the course of misrepresentation the writer adopts, we quote the following : — 



"Referring once more to this subject, we notice that the plea of cost which 

 Mr Thomson urged against hardy plants is best answered by an extract from 

 his own book on the Flower-Garden referring to the mixed system as com- 

 pared with such bedding as is illustrated by him : — 



" 'One of the most weighty arguments in its favour lies in the fact that it 

 is less expensive and less laborious than that which is the fashion now. — 

 "Flower- Gardening" (D. Thomson), p. 10, last edition.' 



"There is no allusion here to the fact that the mixed style referred to is 

 only one of a number of ways of growing and enjoying garden flowers, and 

 one of the least important. In the same place, however, he speaks of 



