332 Retrospective Criticism. 



Art. IV. Retrospective Criticism. 



Mr. Niven's Stove for various Purposes (p. 190. and 241., and our Volume 

 for 1841, p. 234. 334. 429. 478.). — I see by your Magazine for this month 

 that Mr. Niven has noticed, in some degree at least, the remarks made in 

 some of the preceding Numbers of this work on his " stove for various pur- 

 poses." Before proceeding farther, I may just state that Mr. Niven is quite 

 mistaken, if he supposes that my letter and the letters of Catius proceed 

 from any other source than that of being far removed from each other. Also, 

 that it was a mere act of inadvertence in me not appending my place of resi- 

 dence to my name in my last letter; therefore, Mr. Niven might have spared 

 himself the trouble of showing off his maritime bravery. In future, I appre- 

 hend, we must hold our tongue, and walk about in dread of this redoubtable 

 " Charley Napier." Why, one would be almost led to imagine, from his 

 recent exhibition, that Lord Elliot has been using his influence to get him the 

 command of the channel fleet. 



Now, Mr. Niven, you are pleased to tell us that, " but for what you owe 

 the public, for whom you act and write, you would have passed by in silence 

 any remarks made on your ' stove for various purposes." Now, Sir, allow 

 me to tell you, that those of the public for whom you act I hope pay you 

 well, and some of those of the public for whom you write you expect will 

 employ you to act in turn ; therefore, I do not see any very great act of con- 

 descension in your noticing the above remarks made on your stove, when you 

 consider that part of the public may be very much interested therein. 



In the remarks you vouchsafe to make in your last letter, you take very good 

 care to keep silent on the points where I requested you to speak out. If I 

 have gained nothing by the controversy so far as it has gone, I think I have 

 made you repudiate the two-year-old youthful system of queen pine growing. 

 True, you don't do it in words, but you do it virtually by your non-allusion 

 to the subject. But, I beg pardon, you have been enlightened on this subject 

 since the appearance of your first letter. You can now grow pine plants in 

 six months, equal to any two-year-old plants you ever saw. Well, this is 

 something like keeping up with the spirit of the times. But, why not find 

 this out before ? In your first letter you told us that you used " Rogers's pit" 

 for growing succession plants, and of which you highly approved. It was 

 there, also, wherein you grew your youthful " two-year-olds." I apprehend I 

 was not far from the mark, in my last letter, when I said you had been a little 

 premature in your first glowing description. You go on, Sir, in your last 

 letter, to cry down low pits for fruiting the pine-apple, and to recommend your 

 semi-curvilinear-roofed house for that purpose. This carries a great deal of 

 the " puff professional" along with it ; but let that pass, I maintain that lofty 

 houses are quite unfitted for fruiting the pine plant well ; and that lofty or 

 low houses have nothing to do whatever in giving the pine flavour ; if they 

 have, it must be in favour of low pits, where the plants are kept near the 

 glass. Withholding water judiciously for some time previous to ripening, is 

 the only way to insure high flavour. Now, Sir, as I hate " iron houses," I 

 take every means and opportunity of running them down. In fact, the only 

 advantage they possess may be likened to a gewgaw that looks better made 

 up of any fragile substance, than one composed of more massy materials. 

 You admit the original expense of iron houses over wooden ones, altogether 

 keeping out of view the after expense of working them. The same quantity 

 of coals, you must know, that would keep a wooden house going would very 

 far from suffice for an iron house of the same dimensions ; therefore, if gen- 

 tlemen will build iron houses, they must be prepared to keep them up. 



Again, Sir, you tell us that " probably larger fruit may be grown in low 

 pits than under the circumstances you describe, but that has yet to be 

 proved." I have never heard of any thing extraordinary having been pro- 

 duced in iron houses yet. I shall now give you a few cases where pines have 



