For some time our contemporary, the 'Garden,' has been endeavouring to make it appear that we are opposing its pet branch of gardening - the culture of herbaceous plants; and, as our readers are aware, we defended ourselves in the 'Gardener' of March from this misrepresentation, and to some extent dealt with the sneering manner in which the ' Garden ' referred to us, our position, and our aids in connection with this subject. Here is our contemporary's reply, for which we desire neither better nor worse than that it be read in connection with our remarks in March : -

" The bitter feelings of Mr David Thomson in respect to the ' Garden ' and its work, have long been accumulating in a deep reservoir, which, overstrained, has burst at last. A few perhaps may remember that the question (originated by Mr Thomson) concerned the flower-garden as regards the cost of staking - a theme that hardly deserves a violent attitude. This is the way he talks of it: -

'"Long before the editor of the "Garden" came to this country we had devoted for years much of our spare time to hardy herbaceous plants, and we could show him a herbarium of them that was formed before he knew a Rose from a Thistle.'

" What a logical line of argument this ! But knowing so much and knowing it so long, why make so pitiful a use of it as to get angry and resort to personalities in discussing such a subject ? And that is not all, as he, with noble modesty, proceeds to give his infinitely small valuation of our 'standing.' But surely this is going beyond the bounds of decent argument, Mr Thomson? The noble duke you serve has probably not included among your duties that of pronouncing in a public print on the position of those, of whom, in your vexed mood, you are not well fitted to judge. A very narrow soul has usually capacity for depreciating others. In that high elevation of yours, you no doubt are justified in looking at the kingdoms of the world as if they were all dominated by those stony terraces you have the care of; so, too, the sparrows on the dome of St Paul's take a complacent view of the human creatures passing beneath them. In pity that one like you should not give an example of fair discussion to the rising generation, we pass the personal question raised by you, and shall hope at an early date to find a corner to discuss the matter from a more general point of view".

This is quite in harmony with our contemporary's tone and attitude towards us, as its readers can see for themselves, since last November. It might have been rather inconvenient for the writer of the above to have quoted the whole or any part of our remarks of last month, that would have shown the object we had in view - the defence of ourselves from misrepresentation - or to have dealt with our statements by argument or facts, instead of the weakness of a sneer, and the quotation of a sentence most likely to mislead its readers. We could well afford to pass in silence anything the 'Garden' can possibly say of us, but in the interest of what is fair and truthful we notice it.

In reference to the accumulation of bitter feelings towards our contemporary and its works, we challenge it to point to a sentence of ours indicative of bitter feelings, unless that recently we thought fit to defend ourselves, and plant a blow in return as well. More than this, we ask the 'Garden' if any other horticultural journal has ever reviewed or noticed it and its work so approvingly as we have at page 96 of this magazine, 1877 1 Yet more as to these bitter feelings. Though we have not contributed very much to the pages of our con-temporaries, we have sent more to the 'Garden' than to all of them together, since its advent. Has the editor of the 'Garden' ever showed courtesy or good feeling towards us, by an approving notice of this magazine, or sending us anything in exchange for its pages 1 Yet, in spite of these facts, and on the pretext of our daring to differ from it as to the comparative cost of two systems of flower-gardening (which should never be set in rivalry against each other), the attempt is made to make it appear that we have opposed the culture of hardy plants, and are the bitter enemy of the 'Garden' and its work.

Is our exceedingly charitable and. civil contemporary thus "measuring our corn by his own bushel"?

We are not in the least unwilling to credit the ' Garden' with its true share of the merit that may be due to it for the advocacy of these hardy plants, but in spite of all insinuations to the contrary, we have never opposed them, while we have allowed a free discussion of the merits and demerits of both systems of flower-gardening. Herbaceous plants, however, form but a small part of horticulture. They bear the same relation to it that the shallow brook carrying the "withered leaves" does to the majestic stream that bears the good old ship of horticulture on its way; hence, no doubt, horticulturists with more than one string to their bow do not harp on it without intermission.