i88i.] HERBACEOUS PLANT CONTROVERSY. 179 



show how thoroughly unfair is our critic's way of misquoting us, and how 

 low is the line of conduct adopted by him, than that those who possess our 

 ' Handy Book ' should read it and compare it with these quotations. 



As to our "having so often raised the question of our own doings and 

 practice in relation to hardy plants," we challenge him to refer to our haviug 

 done any such thing except in the ' Gardener ' of November last, where we 

 remarked that we were not writing without an extensive practice in both sys- 

 tems ; and we can appeal to our readers whether or not the remark was correct. 

 And excepting in that instance, and in our defence in the ' Gardener ' of last 

 month from the misrepresentations of the 'Garden,' we ask where we have 

 raised that question. 



Turning now to the question of labour and expense in relation to the old 

 system of hardy herbaceous flower -gardening, and to what in our critic's 

 second quotation from the 'Handy Book of the Flower-Garden' we term 

 "modern flower-gardening." It is only another way of applying what we 

 have quoted, as repeated by us in our remarks of last November. The bed- 

 ding-out system, as every one knows, has been practised over a far wider area 

 in nearly every garden than ever the old mixed style of herbaceous plants 

 was : hence its greater expense than the flower-gardening of old times. This 

 is not what we have ever disputed in the matter of expense. It is the same 

 area kept constantly gay with herbaceous plants alone for months in succession. 

 We take the position, that, to do this, is more expensive than to do it with 

 bedding-plants such as are now available. 



In reference to the remarks that the ' Garden ' makes on the second quotation 

 from the 'Handy Book,' we never asked, and never got, an additional pane 

 of glass when the change was made at Archerfield from the one system to 

 the other, nor did we spend more than £5 annually in baying bedding- 

 plants. Neither was there a house, pit, or frame there, nor a fire, that we 

 would have done without if there had not been a bedding-plant in the place. 

 There were over 300 feet run of vineries, over 200 feet of peacheries, accommoda- 

 tion for fruiting 100 Pines annually, a plant-stove, greenhouse, and plant-pit, 

 Mushroom and Rhubarb and Seakale houses, besides the growing of Melons, 

 Cucumbers, forcing Asparagus, Strawberries, &c., &c., for which, unfortunately, 

 there were ten fires. Grapes were supplied from April to the end of February, 

 Peaches from April till October. This, besides all the decorations at the man- 

 sion, the propagating of the flower-garden plants, and the whole work in the 

 large flower-garden at Dirleton, was conducted at an expenditure of 64:S. 

 jier week for labourers. There was no help allowed to the men in these two 

 departments, except that of six men for not more than three or four days at 

 planting-out time. The pit bill for the whole place did not exceed £15 

 annually. Then there were the few cartloads of loam and leaf-mould — had for 

 the collecting — and some rough wooden boxes. This applies to an area quite 

 double what previously had been devoted to flowers. These are particulars 

 that such men as Mr Henderson of Thoresby Park, and others, can bear testi- 

 mony to as being correct in every particular, for it was our good fortune to 

 take the gentleman named to Archerfield with us as fireman. 



We are perfectly willing to leave it with any experienced gardener, or any 

 number of them, to say how much of the 643. was indispensably necessary 

 to manage the fruits, pot-plants, the forcing of vegetables, and attendance to 

 the mansion ; and we will be perfectly content to take the remainder as 

 a sum for the basis of estimating the comparative cost of the two systems 



