Retrospective CiUicism. SV 



fig. 72.) ; but I would like to ask whether it is in good taste, to preserve an 

 equal breadth of grass on each side of the walk, as you seem to suggest ? 

 [Not more than is necessary to maintain the principle of a whole, or of every 

 part fitting into its precise situation.] It appears to me that there are two 

 great errors in the laying out of walks in gardens and shrubberies. The first 

 is, that the borders are generally edged with a stiff parallel stripe of grass,^ 

 which cannot fail to be tiresome to the eye. Now, it is evident, that if 

 nature (the best guide) is to be followed, the borders of walks should 

 be of unequal breadth, and varied ; otherwise, the uniformity, v/hich in 

 its due proportion is pleasing, becomes very tiresome. The second 

 error is, that walks and roads are very frequently twisted fantastically 

 through the grounds, without regard to taste and propriety ; and in viola- 

 tion of a very obvious rule, viz., that if any change be made in the direc- 

 tion of a road from the nearest line, for the sake of leading to some view, 

 or of taking in some agreeable undulation in the ground, it is necessary 

 to have an apparent or real cause to account for every turn which the 



path makes in its course. 

 To effect this purpose, plants, 

 raised or lowered ground, 

 rock, wood, water, or any 

 thing that will harmonise 

 with the situation, may be 

 employed. That you may understand my meaning better, 1 subjoin a sketch. 

 {fis,. 32.) I am. Sir, yours, &c. — T. I). Broiighton Hall Gardens, Nov. 26. 

 1831. 



The principle of a sufficient reason ought never to be lost sight of in 

 laying out walks and roads ; that is, no deviation from a straight line 

 should ever appear, for which a reason is not given in the position of the 

 ground, trees, or other accompanying objects. {Enci/clopcEdia of Gardening, 

 2d edit. s. 7243. 



The Practice of Dotting, which you have so very properly condemned 

 (Vol. VIT. p. 403.), is not so much to be laid to the charge of gardeners, 

 as to gentlemen themselves, or to their land-stewards or bailiffs. There is 

 not one gardener in a hundred that is ever allowed to have any thing to do 

 with the single trees in the park or lawns of the residences where he is 

 gardener. This, and this alone, is the reason why dotting prevails instead 

 of grouping, and why our parks are spotted like a leopard, or checkered 

 like a draught-board, instead of presenting marked features, breadth, 

 masses, and repose. — A Single Tree. Bewdley, Kov. 30. 1 83 1. 



Certain Plants alleged to be hardy in SweeCs British Flower-Garden. — 

 It is to be regretted that E. (Vol. VII. p. 709.) has not enumerated more 

 of " the very considerable number of plants " which he has lost from 

 having placed too much reliance on catalogues, &c. He has only named 

 two ; viz. Erpetion renifdrmis, and Campanula pulla : the last I have 

 always treated as a hardy plant; but I was not before aware that Mr. 

 Sweet had represented the Erpetion reniformis as hardy. Knowing 

 it to be a native of New Holland, I have been agreeably disappointed 

 to find that it has survived the last two winters here in a cold wet situ- 

 ation, without any protection whatever. I find it has also proved to be 

 hardy in the Clapton Nursery. I am, Sir, yours, &c. — T.B. Stamford 

 Hill, Dec. 29. 1831. 



Certain Plants alleged to he hardy, Sfc. — Sii", I am sorry to see in the 

 Gardener's Magazine (Vol. VII. p. 709.) an attack made by E. upon 

 Mr. Sweet, for having represented some plants as hardy in the British 

 Floiuer-Garden, which had perished during the winter under the manage- 

 ment of E, From the endeavours of the editors of the different botanical 

 periodicals to give early figures of new and interesting plants, it is sur- 

 prising that so few mistakes occur. E. might, with equal propriety, com- 



t; 4 



