492 Retrospective Criticism. 



of such an article, the answer is, they have not seen it. There are others 

 who will grant the privilege of looking over it, but it must be returned as 

 soon as possible, to be stuck on the shelves of the library, for no other 

 purpose but to be looked at, not into. Thus, the gardener cannot give it 

 that attention it demands, and, not having it to refer to as occasion may 

 require, he is obliged to make short extracts of what he considers of most 

 consequence to him in his situation, or else he must forget it. I would 

 therefore recommend to gentlemen, as the cost is so trifling to them, that 

 they should purchase an extra-copy, for a present to the gardener ; which 

 mark of good nature on his part would not fail to produce a good feeling 

 in the servant towards his employer. I am. Sir, yours, &c. — A Friend 

 to Improvement. Dec. 29. 1832. 



On the fraudulent Practices of Gardening Authoi's. (p. 116.) — Sir, In 

 p. 116. I observe some remarks upon a communication I had sent you 

 (Vol. VIII. p. 289.), exposing the frauds of some writers on horticulture; 

 something intended, no doubt, by its author, a Constant Reader, as a 

 refutation of what I there have stated, and savouring not a little of that 

 asperity which he condemns as forming a leading feature in my paper. Your 

 Constant Reader says, that he thinks some other instance than the one I 

 chose would have looked more " charitable and consistent in the eyes of the 

 public." This is his opinion, and he doubtless deserves the praise of the 

 public for his superior taste and discrimination, as well as for his chari- 

 tableness and consistency ; but it happens to be only his notion, and nothing 

 more ; and as every writer has an undoubted right to choose his own 

 examples for the illustration of his subject, your Constant Reader has no 

 right to dictate ; and, of course, we may set this down as a gratuitous and 

 very unnecessary advice. Your Constant Reader further accuses me 

 boldly of ingratitude. I would ask him how does he come to know this ? 

 He cannot tell the particular circumstances under which I was placed, or 

 in how far these circumstances were calculated to call forth grateful feel- 

 ings from me towards Mr. Stewart. This assertion, so far as he can know, 

 is completely his own surmise, and deserves to fall upon his own heaid. 

 He says, also, that I have thrown out " vile and ungrateful aspersions " 

 upon Mr. Stewart's character. This is a false accusation, in as far as he 

 cannot prove, and does not even attempt to prove, that I have said any 

 thing untrue of Mr. Stewart ; and, by necessitj', this assertion must also fall 

 to the ground. Your Constant Reader holds up to public notice Mr. 

 Stewart's private character, about which enough might be advanced, with 

 a view to throw an air of untruth over my communication : but this is 

 aside from the point, and with it the public have nothing to do. The 

 grand question I would propose to your Constant Reader is the follow- 

 ing, Is there any part of my letter referring to Mr. Stewart untrue ? He 

 does not say so, and cannot say so : nay, in some of my statements, alias 

 " vile and ungrateful aspersions," he agrees; but, what is more, I can defy 

 him, or any other person, to say that what I stated of Mr. Stewart is not 

 truth. For what reason, then, is it that I am called so much into question 

 by your would-be critic ? Is truth a libel ? Can you defame a man's cha- 

 racter by stating what is true of him ? Is justice to a deceived public to 

 be sacrificed at the shrine of what j'our Constant Reader would term 

 " gratitude or generosity ? " What did Mr. Stewart publish his paper in 

 the Horticidtural Transactions for? Was it to benefit the public and 

 posterity to the end of time ? If this were his motive, why did he not con- 

 tradict his statements as soon as he found them untenable ? Your Con- 

 stant Reader would have the world cheated by an imposition for ever, and 

 that merely, forsooth, because the impostor has become defunct ! Away 

 with such reasoning. Does your critic really imagine that the interests of 

 the living are to be immolated for the sake of the dead ? Surely he thinks 



