602 Retrospective Criticism. 



I think, hardly apply to the subject at issue. — T. Rutger. Norhiton Tarh, 

 Kingston, September, 1835. 



The Tottenham Park Muscat Grape. — In your account of Tottenham Park 

 (X. 418.), which contains the most agreeable information respecting the 

 benevolent disposition of the noble proprietor, you make mention of the Tot- 

 tenham Park Muscat as being well known and generally esteemed, &c. Now, as 

 I have heard gardeners of great celebrity express their conviction that there 

 was no difference between it and the common muscat when grown under simi- 

 lar circumstances ; and as, from what has been represented to me to be the 

 grapejiii question, I should feel inclined to come to the same conclusion, I 

 think it highly necessary, for setting the matter at rest, that you, or rather 

 Mr. Burns, should give an account of its genuine character, in order that gar- 

 deners may know whether they have been supplied with the true article or not. 

 It will also be necessary to state whether there are many plants of the same 

 sort at Tottenham Park, and if they all exhibit the true marks of their illustri- 

 ous prototype. This information is the more necessary, as, in conversing lately 

 with two young gardeners upon the subject, they both agreed in the great supe- 

 riority of the size of the berries of the Tottenham vine; and one of them, who 

 had cultivated a vine raised from an eye of the identical plant, which he had 

 often seen, said he could not account for the somewhat general idea, that there 

 was no difference betwixt the common and the Tottenham Muscat, unless 

 upon the supposition that the former must have been given to the purchasers 

 instead of the latter. — Scientics et Jiistiti(S Aviator. June, 1835. 



The Coiling System, Sfc.; in reply to Mr. Mearns, p. 490. — Having carefully 

 read Mr. Mearns's answer, I feel sorry to say that, in my opinion, it is very un- 

 satisfactory. To make a reply, therefore, to that which is no decisive answer 

 to my letter, is entirely out of the question ', but, lest my silence should be 

 construed as tantamount to a confession that I was satisfied with Mr. Mearns's 

 statements, I consider it to be my duty simply to state the following propo- 

 sitions, as an act of justice to myself, and to allow Mr. Mearns a full oppor- 

 tunity of correcting my misconceptions : — 



1. The distinguishing characteristic of the coiling system, as represented by 

 Mr. Mearns previously to the writing of my paper, consisted in the certainty of 

 obtaining a great crop the first season. 



2. Mr. Mearns formed such an opinion without possessing adequate proofs. 



3. That, having a perfect right to form what anticipations he thought proper, 

 and even to publish these anticipations, he was also bound to acquaint the pub- 

 lic, when they were not fully realised. 



4. That his expectations were not realised, which is evident even from the 

 facts of his last letter, taken in connexion with his former epistles. 



5. That all the arguments I adduced against the utility of the system, so far 

 as the first season is concerned, remain as yet unrefuted ; though I readily 

 grant that Mr. Mearns is very successful the second season : but I contend that 

 obtaining a crop in the second or third season formed no part of Mr. Mearns's 

 first papers. 



Lastly, that all the questions I put remain unanswered, with the exception 

 of one relating to the Constantia vine ; upon which I am unwilling to offer 

 any remark, feeling confident that Mr. Mearns must see the impropriety of a 

 statement, in which he asserts there was no deception in describing as a root- 

 less shoot a plant which he admits possessed, at least, something of the nature 

 of a root. In conclusion, I beg to assure Mr. Mearns, that I am at all times 

 open to conviction ; that I commenced this enquiry upon public grounds, and 

 those alone ; that, previously to doing so, from having lived for two years under 

 a very intimate friend of his own, I did then, and do now, entertain towards 

 him feelings of high respect, on account of the good which he has been the 

 means of accomplishing ; and that, far from detracting from the honour justly 

 his due, or wishing to cramp his efforts, it is my heartfelt desire that, by direct- 

 ing his mental energies to the substantialities of the profession, he may be the 

 means of diffusing amongst us sound practical and scientific information. — 

 Robert Fish. Hyde Park Corner, London, September, 1835. 



