Rtirospcctivr Criticism. 1-85 



coRsisC^ Undoubtedly, both you and Mr. Thompson are at Hbsrty to 

 prefer, and recommend, whatever system you think best ; but my mode of 

 training by two stems is also exhibited in the Chiswick garden ; and you 

 know that 1 have, in my book, not only given specific reasons for the posi- 

 tion of every branch, but have explained the [jrinciples and laws of nature 

 which render the position of the branches, as 1 have directed them to be 

 placed, absolutely necessary, to produce that equal division of the sap 

 which is essential to make the most of a tree trained within a given 

 space. Then, how can jou, who have quoted my book, feel justified in 

 making such a public declaration as that above quoted in italics ? Is it 

 that your understanding of the term science is different from that which I 

 have explained in your Magazine, Vol. V. p. 394'.? You say, Mr. Sey- 

 mour's mode is most scientijic, because a specific reason is assigned for the 

 position of every branch ; but may not any person assign a specific reason 

 for what he does, however absurd ? And may not any one suggest a 

 theory of the cause of an effect, however unfounded and erroneous ? Now, 

 I have not only assigned a specific reason for the position of every branch, 

 but have explained the principles and laws of nature which constitute the 

 cause of the effect desired to be produced: then, how can Mr. Seymour's 

 method be more scientific than mine ? You refer to Mr. Seymour's mode, 

 published in your Magazine in the years 1825, 1826, and 1830; but my 

 mode of training was published in a treatise in 1818, and laid before the 

 Horticultural Society of London long before that time : it must be clear, 

 then, that I could not have benefited by Mr. Seymour's mode and prin- 

 ciples ; but he possibly may b}' mine. The fair question, then, is, are the 

 principles and laws of nature such as I have explained them ? Or, has 

 Mr. Seymour, or any other person, proved my notions to be erroneous, and 

 his correct ? If I am correct, it must result that Mr. Seymour can have 

 obtained no advantages, by his mode of training, over mine, or any other 

 method; but inasmuch as he has established the principles and con- 

 formed to the laws of nature (which I have explained) more correctly 

 than I, or others, have done; and, if Mr. Thompson, or others, who have 

 adopted my mode of training by two stems, have failed in perfecting my 

 plan, it must have been occasioned by their having neglected, or not under- 

 stood, those principles and laws of nature. 



Although you and I may differ as to what constitutes science, it surely 

 cannot be a matter of indifference to your readers whether they possess a 

 knowledge of the science of horticulture, as defined by me, or not. How- 

 ever, to settle this, we will refer to Mr. Herschell's definition of science, as 

 given in Lardner's Cyclopcedia. He says, " The great, and indeed the only, 

 ultimate source of our knowledge of nature and its laws is experience. 

 But experience may be gained in two ways : either, first, by noticing facts 

 as they occur, without any attempt to influence the frequency of their 

 occurrence, or to vary the circumstances under which they occur; this is 

 observation : or, secondly, the putting in action causes and agents (over 

 which we have control), and purposely varying their combinations, and 

 noticing what effects take place ; this is experiment. To these two 

 sources, then, we may look as the fountains of all natural science." Now, 

 how does this apply to the subject before us ? This author also says, 

 " Arts cannot be perfected, until the whole processes are laid open, and 

 their language simplified and rendered universally intelligible. Art is the 

 application of knowledge to a practical end. If knowledge be merely accu- 

 mulated experience, the art is empirical ; but if it be experience reasoned 

 upon, and brought under general principles, it assumes a higher character, 

 and becomes a scientific art." He further says, " The whole tendency oi 

 empirical art is to bury itself in technicalities, and to place its pride in 

 particular short cuts and mysteries, known only to adepts ; to surprise and 

 astonish by results ; but to conceal processes. The character of science is 



1 1 3 



