Mannd's Botanic Garden, fyc. 23 1 



nurseries for several years ? The same may be said of the figures of plants 

 in Maund's Botanic Garden, and in Harrison's Floricultural Cabinet. All 

 three works we consider to be out of the question with reference to the 

 reading gardener, as far as it respects their figures. We shall next compare 

 them as to their letterpress, meaning that part of it which treats of culture 

 and management. Here we find that Maund's work is exceedingly^ meagre, 

 as compared with either Paxton's or Harrison's. The two latter, in point 

 of the quantity and quality of the practical information which they contain, 

 appear to us to be as nearly as possible on a par ; and, therefore, considering 

 that the price of the one is 2s., and of the other only 6c?., we need not say 

 which we think best suited for the practical cultivator of flowers. Harrison's 

 Cabinet, indeed, we consider to be one of the most useful of the floricultural 

 periodicals of the day, as it is also, we believe, by far the most extensively 

 circulated; and though its coloured figures, which vary from one to six in 

 each number, are inferior both to Mr. Maund's and to Mr. Paxton's in exe- 

 cution, yet they are sufficiently accurate to give a tolerably good idea of what 

 they are meant to represent. Compared with the figures in Mr. Maund's 

 work, we greatly prefer those in the Floricultural Cabinet, as approximating 

 nearer to the natural size ; for, in the Botanic Garden, they are so reduced, 

 and the large, as well as small, confined to so diminutive a square, that a 

 general observer can scarcely obtain a really useful impression on his mind, of 

 the natural appearance of the plant. Notwithstanding this, however, Mr. 

 Maund's publication has done a great deal of good ; but Harrison's Cabinet, 

 as may be expected from the lowness of its price, and the great quantity of 

 excellent practical matter which it contains, will penetrate much farther into 

 the mass of society. 



To return to Paxton's Magazine: on looking over the three numbers before 

 us, we find them distinguished by the same characteristics as the Horticultural 

 Register. There is, however, less general carelessness with regard to language, 

 but there are more plagiarisms ; though not quite so many quotations from the 

 Gardener's Magazine. As plagiarisms from that work, we refer to some or 

 all of the woodcuts in pages 12. 23, 24. 36. and Yl., which are either fac- 

 similes of cuts that first appeared in the Gardener's Magazine, or very trifling 

 variations from them, taken without the slightest acknowledgment. With 

 respect to plagiarisms in the Horticultural Register, we shall only refer to the 

 article signed Peter Mackenzie (vol. ii. p. 512.), and to the Notes on Mildew, 

 in the same volume (p. 327. and 328.), the latter with cuts ; because, having 

 spoken to Mr. Paxton on the subject, he promised to discontinue these plagia- 

 risms, and we believe he has done so. The quotations, however, from our work 

 are as numerous as ever ; there being, in the Horticultural Register for April 

 last, no fewer than five articles from the preceding number of the Gardener's 

 Magazine, and these too inserted under the head of Original Communi- 

 cations ! ! ! Two of these articles have engravings, one of which was taken from 

 a drawing made, at some expense, from a tin model sent to us ; while Mr. 

 Paxton had nothing more to do than to tell his wood engraver to copy it from 

 our woodcut ; the expense to him thus being not a tenth part of what it was 

 to us. This is not only ungenerous in Mr. Paxton towards us, hut unjust 

 towards the public ; for it is deceiving the public, to call that original which 

 has already appeared in another work. We cordially approve of cheap 

 publications, and of cheap Gardener's Magazines among the rest; but this 

 cheapness should be produced by fair competition, otherwise it will soon 

 cease either to benefit the public, or to act as a stimulus on the competing 

 parties. It is perfectly allowable to quote from a magazine into a larger per- 

 manent publication, and the contrary. It is even fair to quote from a maga- 

 zine that has been several months before the public, into another magazine ; 

 or to quote from a magazine treating on one subject, into a magazine which 

 treats on another subject : but the sense of justice, implanted by civilisation 

 in the human breast, must tell every man that it never can be fair, in the 

 editor of one magazine, to fill his pages from another magazine of the same 



q 4- 



