We have now to congratulate our contemporary on its apparent promise to leave off "personalities" and straighten itself up from " violent attitudes" in dealing with its critics, for only a few months ago it characterised one of its brother editors in the elegant terms of "a toothless wolf';" and more recently another writer was referred to as "the creature;" and now in its very best temper, our capacity is compared to that of a Cockney sparrow. Perhaps it is fortunate for us that we are not within range of a blunderbuss ! Stones of this sort should not be thrown right and left by those who live in glass houses, unless they also are prepared to have some panes smashed occasionally; and in displaying the supreme confidence that what does not seem right to their eyes must therefore be wrong, they may be certain that others do not quite think that horticulture would go to the dogs without them.

We had just written the foregoing when the 'Garden' of March 12 came to hand. As will be seen presently, a week's reflection has not "purified our critic's heart." We will now proceed to unmask his efforts at deception under the heading:

"Mr David Thomson On Flower-Gardening"

Under this heading some very characteristic remarks appear in the 'Garden' of March 12 - designed, as any one can easily see, to ridicule our practice at Archerrield, and to make it appear that our statements at various times as to the cost of the two systems of flower-gardening are contradictory. To show the course of misrepresentation the writer adopts, we quote the following : -

"Referring once more to this subject, we notice that the plea of cost which Mr Thomson urged against hardy plants is best answered by an extract from his own book on the Flower-Garden referring to the mixed system as compared with such bedding as is illustrated by him : -

" 'One of the most weighty arguments in its favour lies in the fact that it is less expensive and less laborious than that which is the fashion now. - "Flower-Gardening" (D. Thomson), p. 10, last edition.'

"There is no allusion here to the fact that the mixed style referred to is only one of a number of ways of growing and enjoying garden flowers, and one of the least important. In the same place, however, he speaks of " 'The vast increase of labour which has arisen in consequence of preparing and cultivating so many tender plants as are demanded by modern flower-gardening, and all without anything like corresponding resources in the way of houses and pits for propagating and growing such numbers of plants.'

" The ideal paradise desired was a village of big glass-houses for the production of tender plants to be put out in summer, so that our author takes himself precisely, in his book, the view as regards cost that he was angry with us for urging.

"What he himself thought of the future of flower-gardening in those days may be gathered from an article of his own written in the 'Scottish Gardener' in the palmy days of his bedding-out at Archerfield. In an article on the future possibilities of (lower-gardening it "'Appeared to him then that some of the sections of plants which are used for our borders and parterres will scarcely be susceptible of much further improvement; and as to arrangement, they have been used in almost every conceivable relationship to each other, and it would almost appear as if there were nothing further left to achieve in the matter of arrangement' !

"Mr Thomson has so often raised the question of his own doings and practice in relation to hardy plants and their employment - and he has certainly had opportunities such as fall to the lot of few men - that we might ask what he did in that direction in those Archerfield days. Did the famous flower-garden at Archerfield contain one single bed of good hardy plants? or was any attempt whatever made to show what could be done with numbers of beautiful subjects to be found among them ? Very little indeed; four-fifths of the plants were of the most ordinary kind - making a very fine show, no doubt.

"Even the villagers of Dirleton came under the influence of the great bedding movement : -

"'The flower-plots which invariably encircled the cottages were filled with Geraniums, Calceolarias, Hydrangeas, and the favourite Mignonette, all scenting the air, and spreading their heaven-like influence alike on the inmates and observers.'

"The writer (in the 'Scottish Gardener') describes the nature of the influence on himself : -

"'Each bed was one mass of bloom; so regular had the plants grown that the entire beds were covered. There were three beds of yellow Calceolarias that I think it was impossible to excel for compactness, - not a leaf was seen - nothing save the golden blooms, the bed resembling a large honeycomb. Looking at these beds for a few moments, the eyes became almost of the same colour, and magnified them larger still, until gradually they were relieved by the shrubby habit and purple foliage of the Perilla nankinensis, with which the beds were edged.'"

The quotations here made use of - as any one can see by referring to the Introduction to the ' Handy Book of the Flower-Garden' - are taken out of their connection; their real application is disguised and distorted. It is very well known that it does not take many words to misrepresent any writer. By taking odd sentences and phrases, and making them appear absolute, a critic, with only a very little talent and a lamentable want of principle and fairness, may make a writer say or prove almost anything desired. It is, of course, much more convenient to traffic in partial and prejudiced views of isolated passages dislocated out of their connection, when the object is to misrepresent, than to refute the particulars of your opponent's writings. What can be said of those who have descended so low, and who at the same time attempt to glorify their own special charity ? They certainly do not demand smooth treatment. This writer does his best, and worst, to try and parade what he would fain have it believed is our inconsistency; and we will now show his spirit of unfairness.

In reference to the quotation from page 10 of our book, it was applied to what we refer to at pages 3 and 4 in these words: "The elder brethren of our profession who can look back to the introduction of the Dahlia, give us but a poor idea of flower-gardening as it was practised in the first decades of this century. Flower-gardens had then seldom a separate locality devoted to them; and when they had that advantage, they were generally composed of unshapely figures cut out in grass, and arranged, as the designer fondly but erroneously imagined, after the principles of English gardening, as inculcated by Wheatley and Uvedale Price. These figures were mostly filled with a miscellaneous assortment of shrubs and herbaceous plants, many of which possessed only botanical interest." And then at page 10 it is said: "A mixture with little regard to selection was the chief object attained, if not the one kept in view." It was to this old style that we applied the sentence our critic distorts from the context. It could not be any other, for no other existed at the time we wrote of.