76 THE GARDENER. [Feb. 



"sport," and took the wind out of the sails of its advocates, and "with such 

 effect too that they have not yet recovered from the shock — he who runs may 

 read— and now Mr William Thomson has given the finishing stroke. The eyes 

 which Mr Grieve sent to him to grow, that he might be not faithless but be- 

 lieving, have turned out as those who did not believe in the " sport" expected, 

 and contrary to what its advocates wished ; hence the object of the latter is 

 now to explain Mr Thomson's evidence in another way. But what is most 

 heartily amusing in the aspect of the " sport " cpiestion now, is the repudiation 

 by those who have written in favour of it of the term "advocates of the 

 sport" — among whom, if the term be allowed, one would naturally name Mr 

 D. T. Fish as leading counsel. He it was who went over to Culford to 

 elucidate the matter ; he it was who propounded the gemmule theory ; and he 

 it was who generally took the " sport " under his care. But he was no ' ' advocate 

 of the sport." Oh, dear, no ! There was nothing in all he said and did as its 

 champion that savoured of such a thing — nothing whatever. All he had got to 

 do was simply to record what he saw, and he did not venture a word more. 

 He did not come forward as the advocate of the "sport," because his old 

 friend of twenty years' standing besought him to do so. He did not see a bunch 

 of Grapes growing from a Trebbiano shoot and call it a Golden Champion as his 

 friend did, nor did he, when he found that the " sport " conformed to no recog- 

 nised law of growth or production, put forward the gemmule hypothesis for the 

 occasion, and make as much of it as an advocate could do who had a bad case, 

 and only one string to his bow. Neither did he, with the 'cute tactics of 

 the advocate, maintain that the failure of the Vine eyes to grow, which Mr 

 Grieve planted, was proof of the bona fide character of the "sport;" nor in 

 anticipation of probable results did he insinuate that if the eyes sent to Mr 

 Thomson did grow, they might "hie back again," and prove the same thing or 

 nothing at all ! He did not make use of Darwin, nor invoke his own remark- 

 able experiences concerning "striking instances of variation from normal 

 types " to establish his case ; nor did he supplement his vision and only guide 

 in the matter by one single speculation on the subject. No ; these are not 

 the tactics of the advocate, and Mr Fish did none of these things. No one 

 would think of accusing him of being an advocate of anything — even of the 

 "limekiln." 



What happened to Mr Worthington G. Smith when he visited Edinburgh ? 

 Can anybody tell us? Here is that accurate observer's description of the 

 capital of the north, and what he saw there : — 



"When a traveller finds himself in a magnificent city, with stone houses 

 eight and nine storeys high, and where ' haggis ' is sold in the provision 

 shops, and where 'tripe,' 'hot tripe,' 'hot tripe suppers,' meets him 

 printed at every turn, where, in the ancient and venerable and archasological 

 slums he sees, ' porridge at 8 ' painted on privileged-gates, and where hardy 

 northmen, emerging from ' wynds ' and 'closes,' throw glasses of 'usque- 

 baugh ' down their throats without the glass touching or nearing their lips, 

 then he may feel sure he is in Edinburgh." 



Is it possible that some wag directed Mr W. G. Smith, on his arrival, away 

 from Princes Street and the New Town into the " wynds " and "closes " about 

 the High Street, and left him there like the " mitherless bairn," 



" Wha stan's last and lanely, and naebody carin'." 



Mr W. G. Smith would no doubt soon see a haggis where he found himself. 

 A few turns would take him into the " Coogate," where he would see the 



