Retrospective Criticism. 31 



We mention this fact, to show how the Beauty of Cambridge is es- 

 timated by the person who raised the Marchioness of Tavistock, and 

 who is known as the most successful cultivator m Great Britain. 



M. P. W. 



S. W. 



We willingly give place to the above rejoinder of Messrs. Walker and 

 Wilder, (to the exclusion of other matter,) in consequence of their ex- 

 press desire that we should give it an insertion in this number. Had we 

 our wish, we should have deferred it until our next; but we give way to 

 them. 



We have but little to say, in answer to the remarks of the aliove gen- 

 tlemen. We leave our readers to decide for themselves. We beg leave, 

 however, to correct a mistake which the gentlemen have fallen into, and 

 to add a few observations, by way of explaining the subject to those who 

 may not be acquainted with the flowers which are mentioned in their jiaper. 

 The remarks made by Messrs. Walker and Wilder, that the Beauty of 

 Cambridge was a dahlia which would be cultivated by them as soon as 

 the Marchioness of Tavistock, is admitted. This is all we wish. It is 

 the main point on which the controversy stands. The attempt to make 

 the Beauty of Cambridge appear a first-rate dahlia, (or, in other words, 

 as beautiful as the Marchioness of Tavistock,) is as silly as the result has 

 been abortive. Those who know the Beauty of Cambridge will agree 

 with us in this remark. And it is here we would correct the gentlemen, in 

 regard to an error they have committed, viz., that of placing the state- 

 ments of Messrs. Hovey & Co., in regard to a dahlia, in connection 

 with us. Our opinion has nothing to do with that of Messrs. Hovey & 

 Co. What they say and what we say have no connection whatever, 

 any more than that of Mr, Widnall, or any other seedsman. We pre- 

 sume, however, that Messrs. Hovey &, Co., in publishing their extensive 

 catalogue of dahlias, did, as all seedsmen in this country do, copy their 

 descriptions from the English catalogues. From this Messrs. Walk- 

 er and Wilder proceed to show the inconsistency of our oj)inion, and 

 ask us for information on this point. We deem it only necessary to 

 state, that we never made any statement about the Beauty of Cam- 

 bridge, until we penned the remarks in our last. Our opinion is there 

 recorded, and remains unchanged. It is needless for us to show, that 

 though it was not an indifferent flower in the spring of 1837, it is an in- 

 ferior one in the fall of the same year. The Queen of Dahlias was once 

 the most superb edged variety ever seen. Is it so now ^ But we are 

 occupying too much room, and find that we must draw our observations 

 to a close. 



The charge of prejudice need not have been mentioned. The vin- 

 dictive spirit in which the above remarks are written, displays at once 

 the desire the gentlemen had to discuss the subject in a way which would 

 have been agreeable and ])erhaps interesting to our readers. The sneer 

 at the English reports would have come with a better grace from others 

 than those who quote Mr. Widnall's opinion. 



One remark, and we leave the matter where we found it. The advice 

 of Messrs. Walker and Wilder is altogether gratuitous. When we need 

 their guidance, we shall most assuredly seek it: at present we feel com- 

 petent to judge of our own actions, and are accountable only to ourselves 

 for our opinions. Our object in making the remarks we did, in the first 

 instance, was to benefit our readers — to let them see how far away from 

 a correct expression of opinion prejudice would carry individuals — and 

 to give some information concerning the character of those new and truly 

 beautiful varieties of dahlias which have been introduced this season, 

 which might, from various causes, remain unduly unknown. — Ed. 



