THE CANADIAN llOUTICUl/rURIST. B9 



In the first place you say we liave claimed the " Beaconsfield" as 

 grown from seed at Rochester. Well, we repeat it, and challenge you 

 to disprove it. Next you say that several nurserymen at Rochester 

 have never heard of it, and are confident " no grape of that name 

 could have been extensively cultivated at Rochester without their 

 knowledge." That is the case exactly, and just what we have claimed. 

 The " Beaconsfield" has not been extensively cultivated at Rochester, 

 and consequently it is not at all surprising that several nurserymen 

 fhere should have not seen it; in fact it would be very strange if they 

 had, especially under that name, as it was only lately given the dis- 

 tinctive name of " Beaconsfield" by our firm, from want of a better one 

 to call it. Again, these nurserymen are made to say the description 

 given in our circular was closely that of the "Champion" grape. Allow 

 me to remark that the "Champion" and the " Beaconsfield" differ very 

 materially in their leading characteristics. 



" ]\Ir. Gallagher," you say, " introduced the ' Bea,consfield' to Mr. 

 Menzies as the 'Champion.' " I don't deny this, or that this particular 

 vine went by the name of Champion, for want of a better and more 

 ,xlefined one, for I presume j^ou are aware there are Champions and 

 <Jhampions. Then you say I have been a tree dealer and agent since 

 I was seventeen years of age, and the slur intended is quite apparent. 

 For your information I will say that I have been in business for myself 

 ever since the age of seventeen, and my business record either at 

 Rochester or elsewhere will stand investigation. 



When you were informed that I bought in the spring of 1877 a 

 ■quantity of Champion grape vines at Rochester you were correctly 

 informed, and if you had been inforn)ed that I had at the same time 

 •obtained the vine which we have since named the " Beaconsfield," your 

 informant would not have been half so untruthful as are your un- 

 warrantable conclusions. You are further informed that we have not 

 raised young vines enough to supply the 4,000 which Mr. Menzies 

 ■says he intends to plant during the coming spring, and that all the 

 vines we sell of it for planting in the spring of 1879 must come from 

 Rocliester. This, Mr. Editor, is a cheeky assertion on the part of your 

 informant, and is devoid of truth. 



The vine which for the protection of ourselves and our customers 

 we have copyrighted the " Beaconsfield," bears no more resemblance 

 to the Champion than it does to the Ilarfford Prolific. I have 

 made large claims for the success of the " Beaconsfield" vine, and be- 

 lieve I am not going to be disapjTointed. I claim it is a superior vine 

 to any known for this part of Canada, and I am going to be here to 

 take the consequences of any promises I make in regard to it. If, 

 believing as w'e do, that it is the best vine, we wish to charge more 

 for it than is charged for other varieties, the public can very well be 

 left to lake care of itself in the matter, as we are making bo indiw©- 



