PEACH AND NECTARINE-TREES. 
339 
my views, I will endeavour, in the plainest anrl most intelligible 
manner, to answer Mr. Cameron’s observation at page 203. I con¬ 
sider it a subject of first rate importance to gardeners, and have only 
to regret, that the discussion of its merits, for its defence is no part 
of the question, has not fallen to the lot of an individual more capa¬ 
ble of doing justice to its superiority. 
The first remark of Mr. Cameron necessary to be noticed, at page 
203, Vol. 2, is the positive assertion that Mr. Harrison’s statement 
is correct, at page 532, Vol. 1, namely, “ that the origin of a new 
shoot will each year be farther removed from the main branch 
*/ ' 
while in the same sentence he admits, “ never so much so, as to 
have an unsightly appearance.” From this assertion and admission 
of Mr. Cameron, I must positively dissent. As to the assertion, had 
Mr. Cameron taken the trouble to read attentively the first para¬ 
graph, page 675, Vol 1, and the last paragraph on page 676, he 
would have spared me the pains of again refuting such arguments. 
He may rest assured, that had Mr. Harrison felt his ground tenable, 
the advocacy of Mr. Cameron would have been superfluous. For 
after the third year’s training in of the laterals, if in any instance an 
inch or two of naked wood should arise, which has been inappropri¬ 
ately denominated a spur, it will generally admit, under proper ma- 
; . nagement, of being cut away, together with the fruit-bearing lateral, 
at the latter end of October, or the commencement of November, in 
consequence of a young shoot having struck, at or about the base of 
the original lateral. Since Mr. Cameron attempts to train trees on 
Mr. Seymour’s system, and has not yet discovered the mode of ex¬ 
tirpating what has been called a spur, probably he may yet be dis¬ 
posed to cavil about the matter ; in which case, I beg to refer him 
to the originator of the system, and if that be not satisfactory, let 
him go to the trees at Carlton Hall, and have ocular demonstration. 
If his assertion be allowed, his admission is consequently abrogated ; 
for, by permitting what has been termed a spur not only to remain 
from year to year, but to become lengthened from time to time, on 
account of the young shoot being, as he states, farther removed from 
the main branch, an unsightly appearance would soon present itself; 
; but this is obviated in the manner described. As to Mr. Cameron’s 
|j opinions, “ that a greater quantity of bearing wood may be obtained 
u in the same space, and consequently larger crops by the method of 
ij fan-training, than by Mr. Seymour’s,” I beg to inform him, that, on 
c the seventh day of May instant, Mr. Seymour abstracted from one 
of his peach-trees upwards of one thousand of fruit at the first thin- 
I ning, still leaving a great quantity to thin off afterwards, indepen- 
z 3 
