We have no greater desire, in order to show how thoroughly unfair is our critic's way of misquoting us, and how low is the line of conduct adopted by him, than that those who possess our ' Handy Book ' should read it and compare it with these quotations.

As to our "having so often raised the question of our own doings and practice in relation to hardy plants," we challenge him to refer to our having done any such thing except in the 'Gardener' of November last, where we remarked that we were not writing without an extensive practice in both systems; and we can appeal to our readers whether or not the remark was correct. And excepting in that instance, and in our defence in the ' Gardener' of last month from the misrepresentations of the 'Garden,' we ask where we have raised that question.

Turning now to the question of labour and expense in relation to the old system of hardy herbaceous flower-gardening, and to what in our critic's second quotation from the 'Handy Book of the Flower-Garden' we term "modern flower-gardening." It is only another way of applying what we have quoted, as repeated by us in our remarks of last November. The bedding-out system, as every one knows, has been practised over a far wider area in nearly every garden than ever the old mixed style of herbaceous plants was : hence its greater expense than the flower-gardening of old times. This is not what we have ever disputed in the matter of expense. It is the same area kept constantly gay with herbaceous plants alone for months in succession. We take the position, that, to do this, is more expensive than to do it with bedding-plants such as are now available.

In reference to the remarks that the ' Garden ' makes on the second quotation from the 'Handy Book,' we never asked, and never got, an additional pane of glass when the change was made at Archerfield from the one system to the other, nor did we spend more than £5 annually in baying bedding-plants. Neither was there a house, pit, or frame there, nor a fire, that we would have done without if there had not been a bedding-plant in the place. There were over 300 feet run of vineries, over 200 feet of peacheries, accommodation for fruiting 100 Pines annually, a plant-stove, greenhouse, and plant-pit, Mushroom and Rhubarb and Seakale houses, besides the growing of Melons, Cucumbers, forcing Asparagus, Strawberries, etc, etc, for which, unfortunately, there were ten fires. Grapes were supplied from April to the end of February, Peaches from April till October. This, besides all the decorations at the mansion, the propagating of the flower-garden plants, and the whole work in the large flower-garden at Dirleton, was conducted at an expenditure of 64s. per week for labourers. There was no help allowed to the men in these two departments, except that of six men for not more than three or four days at planting-out time. The pit bill for the whole place did not exceed £15 annually.

Then there were the few cartloads of loam and leaf-mould - had for the collecting - and some rough wooden boxes. This applies to an area quite double what previously had been devoted to flowers. These are particulars that such men as Mr Henderson of Thoresby Park, and others, can bear testimony to as being correct in every particular, for it was our good fortune to take the gentleman named to Archerfield with us as fireman.

We are perfectly willing to leave it with any experienced gardener, or any number of them, to say how much of the 64s. was indispensably necessary to manage the fruits, pot-plants, the forcing of vegetables, and attendance to the mansion; and we will be perfectly content to take the remainder as a sum for the basis of estimating the comparative cost of the two systems of flower- gardening, and ask if the editor of the 'Garden,' or any man, would undertake and accomplish the task of keeping the same area with an unbroken mass of bloom from the middle of June till the end of October (for we invariably planted by the 20th of May, and had a good show of bloom in June; and we have seen the plants in that climate untouched by frost at the middle of November) with the portion of the 64s. per week left, after deducting a reasonable estimate for the fruit, etc. From a very extensive experience of both systems here for the last thirteen years, we are more than ever convinced that it cannot be done. Let it be borne in mind that it is not the old fifty-years-ago system, and to which the quotations made by our critic refer, that we are now speaking of, and which would not be tolerated now.

The quotation from a writer in the 'Scottish Gardener' is quite in keeping with the spirit that prompts the quotations from our writings. It would not have suited his purpose to have given any other quotations from the same writer. The following, for instance, would not have served him : "When the entrance-door was thrown open, the fairy scene that was opened up before me - for it appeared like nothing else - so completely was I struck with the beauty at first sight that I was at a loss to which hand to turn first," - and so on.

The same course of unfair quotation, of what the editor of the 'Garden' would fain have his readers believe we have written, is pursued in 'Gardening Illustrated.' Time and place only seems to aggravate his penchant for misquoting. He says, " That part of his [Mr David Thomson's] argument is, that we have no charge of a garden establishment." In ' Gardening Illustrated ' he also writes that our "claim as a flower-gardener depends on geometrical bedding-out only." Well, it seems we have some claim! Our critic's claim depends on a year or two's practice in the herbaceous ground in the Regent's Park. And we ask any one who knew that patch of ground there, if it was not the only spot in that garden to which the term ugly could be applied. We have to do with twice as much in geometrical hardy herbaceous ground, and produce more bloom on it, than our critic ever had or is likely to have to do with.

Having thus exposed the questionable tactics of our contemporary, we leave him for ever, thinking that no importance can be attached to any further notice of a man who can resort to such a course of argument as we have been dealing with. Plenty can prove that we were an enthusiastic "hardy-herbaceous plant-man" before our critic was born; and apparently we will complete our gardening career as fond of them, and more extensively engaged with them, than ever - in their proper place.