I RETURN to the subject once again, and with these remarks I close the discussion with "D. J.," on my side at least.

After reading his last paper through, I am struck with its meagreness, seeing it is the production of one who, according to his own account, had the accumulated facts of a lifetime to draw upon, but which seem to have evaporated in an unaccountable manner in the first emergency. It seems I am accused of dark and "unscrupulous insinuations," to use my own words; but which are not my words at all, but " D. J.'s " misquoting as usual. Now " insinuations," as Sam "Weller's "respected parient" would say, I take to be the weapons of those who dare not, or hesitate to express their real sentiments frankly. In this sense the term does not apply to me, for I think I may fairly claim to having been exceedingly explicit with "D. J." when accusing him of misquoting my text - or mending it, shall we say? - and not only mine, but also Mr Thompson's, on the assumption that he quoted from his 'Gardener's Assistant,' - and which he has not refuted yet; and as a guarantee of good faith I appended my name to my palter, more especially as it appeared that " D. J." was striving, in a roundabout way, to identify "J. S." and the "worthy Mr Simpson of Wortley" with one another. I see that he, for a most paradoxical reason, prefers to remain safe behind his initials.

As it appears, however, that "D. J." had to go back to my paper to understand it properly a month after he had answered it, I am willing to credit him with having made a mistake, so far. But he "does surprise " me when he says, with regard to temperature, that he counted from morning till noon, and "holds he is right." This looks exceedingly like begging the question. I took it for granted, of course, that he apprehended me in the sense that I put it. I spoke of the decline of the temperature, not of its rise, though I am perfectly willing to take this view of the matter, for it just comes to the same thing. Under natural conditions, the rise of temperature is always more sudden than its decline. As a rule, the minimum is reached just before sunrise; after this, the temperature rises rapidly to its maximum. On a Peach or Apricot wall, for instance, these conditions are aggravated (and without any bad results), for the sun blazes forth upon the trees while they are still wet with dew, and will sometimes raise the temperature as much as 30° or 40° in an hour, or little more; so there is no loop-hole here for your correspondent.

Next, I am accused of culling extreme instances of temperature from the ' Meteorological Society's Journal,' extending over a number of years; whereas, except in one instance, I quoted only from the spring numbers of 1870 and 1871. But " D. J." may quote from any year he chooses; the result will be the same, especially with regard to mean temperatures. An instance comes to hand. The mean temperature of the month of April at Bordeaux is only a few degrees under that of Catania and Cadiz; but only the other day we learn that the vintage there has been destroyed by frost near the end of April - an unfrequent occurrence, perhaps, but sufficient to show that the temperature must frequently be very low when the Vines are well advanced in growth.

Further on, " D. J." makes me to say that if Vines are not treated to a minimum temperature of 45° or 50°, the end will be "failure, ruin, and death." I must refer your readers to my original December statements, to show how my words have been here manipidated by my opponent, and made to express a meaning that was never intended. But his case is desperate, as he shows by quibbling about my words "up to " the setting period, and "while Muscats are in bloom." In my mind these terms are synonymous; but let me be explicit, and say that I see no reason for supposing that Vines, Muscats, or others would be injured by being treated to a minimum temperature of 45° before sunrise, any time up till the berries are set. This is my meaning; but let me add, that I gave that figure in my December paper as the lowest to which it might be safe and necessary to descend in severe weather. My object, as I clearly stated at the same time, was to arrest perspiration at night, as far as that was practicable, by dispensing with fire-heat. It never occurred to me that any sensible person could suppose I objected to a temperature of 60° for instance, or more, if the outdoor thermometer stood at that figure, or near it; the object for which I contend would be accomplished all the same.

I feel sure that to very few readers of the 'Gardener' is it necessary for me to make this explanation. Lastly, it seems I am preaching one doctrine and practising another - an altogether gratuitous and untenable assumption on "D. J.'s" part, evincing a disposition to misconstrue my meaning at all hazards; and having done this, he, with characteristic modesty, fishes for compliments from employers and others, for having challenged successfully my December statements, as it appears some employers are more apt to believe what they read than what their gardeners tell them. Now, in the April number, I described my own practice with perfect frankness, as I had led no one to suppose, by any words of mine, that I had hitherto deviated far from the beaten track. In December I only suggested lower temperatures, and said, "I meant to make the experiment, and was sanguine of the result." That promise I had not forgotten, and the result would have been published in the 'Gardener,' or perhaps elsewhere, whether this discussion had taken place or not.