fibres entire, in extricating them from the ground. In this way, in good rooting-ground, he would have roots sixteen or seventeen feet long of a side. As soon as the tree was pulled down, and that the depth or thickness of the mass or ball of earth could be ascertained, I further advised that the bottom of it should be worked as flat as possible, even should some downward or perpendicular shoots suffer in the operation ; when, if there were the slightest declivity in the ground, (as generally happens towards the exposed side,) the ball or mass might be wheeled round on its bottom the entire circle, and thus the position of the branches be completely reversed.

During this process, it is to be observed, that the most favourable opportunity would be afforded, supposing the land to be of a shallow description, to extend the pabulum of the tree by the introduction of fresh mould, and suitable compost, during the replanting. No lightening or mutilating of the top or lateral branches would here be necessary; because the person directing the work would necessarily take care to ascertain, before its commencement, the proper extent of the excavation and the due length of the roots and fibres, so as to proportion the roots to the wants of the top. Were this process conducted with tolerable judgment, and according to the directions given in the present treatise, I ventured to promise the owner, and I think not rashly, that with expert workmen, and at the expense of from 15s. to 20s. per tree, he might substitute a very handsome for a very unsightly object. In a few years, likewise, it would happen that the tree would be beautifully balanced, by an extension of its branches on the deficient side, now turned to leeward, without any loss of the powers of development in either its branches or its roots.

I think it worth while to state the above, as being in a great measure a remedy for that for which no remedy seems as yet to have been discovered, and which is an evil of considerable magnitude to persons so circumstanced. No one, of course, will suppose that it is meant to recommend the reversing or wheeling round of ill-balanced trees in ordinary circumstances; because, where the exposure is not excessive, and the two angles formed by trees with the ground, on the sheltered and the windward sides, are not extremely different, judicious pruning may certainly cure every deformity of top. But in any case, much will depend on the judgment displayed in the execution.

NOTE VIII. Page 103.

The notion that trees, whether young or old, suffer greatly on removal, if not replanted in the same exposure, and also in the same position,

The

according to the points of the compass, in which they previously stood, appears to be a prejudice of great antiquity. Theophrastus, the only writer in ancient times deserving the name of a phytologist, gravely states the opinion, and gives his reasons for entertaining it—namely, the power which habit exerts over all plants, and their inability to resist the elements (see Περὶ Φυτῶν Ἱστορίας, lib. ii. 7, and Περὶ Φυτῶν *Activ, lib. iii. 6.) In all this he is accurately copied by the Geoponic writers, as may be seen by the quotation from Anatolius (Sect. II. Note VII. ante,) also by Cato, Columella, Palladius, and others. mode prescribed by the whole of them is, to mark the trees, before being taken up, with white, or other colours, so that the sides which faced the north or south, &c., may be regularly turned again to the same quarters. Pliny, though usually not slow in retailing the fables or the prejudices of others, is the only ancient writer who treats the doctrine with indifference or contempt, (see Hist. Nat. lib. xvii. 2.) Virgil, like those who went before him, describes the same process of marking the south and north sides of trees, but he describes it like a poet :

"Quin etiam cœli regionem in cortice signant;

Ut quo quæque modo steterit, quâ parte calores
Austrinos tulerit, quæ terga obverterit axi,

Restituant: adeò in teneris consuescere multùm est."

Georg. lib. ii. 296.

It is not to be supposed that, among the phytologists of the seventeenth century, there would be any dissenting voices against such ancient authorities. Wise, Austen, Cooke, and all our other early arboriculturists, advocate the same system. Even the father of English planting, the respectable Evelyn, who united practice to theory, is so convinced of its soundness, that he is regularly angry with Pliny for treating it with contempt. "The southern parts of trees," he says, "being on a sudden turned to the north, does starve and destroy more trees, how careful soever men may have been in ordering their roots, and preparing the ground, than any other accident whatsoever-neglect of staking, (i. e. propping,) and defending from cattle excepted. . . Which monition, though Pliny and some others think good to neglect, or esteem indifferent, I can confirm from frequent losses of my own, particular trials, having sometimes transplanted great trees at midsummer with success, and miscarried in others, where the circumstance of aspect only was omitted."-Silva, vol. i. pp. 98, 99. But it may be observed, that unless these great trees were Fir-trees, or other evergreens, this worthy man should have reflected, that the extraordinary season he selected for the work (a season which, on other occasions, he

and

himself is far from recommending) suggested good ground for miscarriage, without having recourse to imaginary causes.'

There is no writer, ancient or modern, who ever had more science, and more practical skill united, than Miller, in the cultivation of wood; and he distinctly states that, from repeated trials, "he could not observe the least difference in the growth of those trees which were so placed (that is, as they had previously stood) and others which had been reversed."-See Gardener's and Botanist's Dict. in voce "Planting." A few of the later phytologists support the same opinion, in which long experience obliges me to coincide; although I am surprised to observe, that modern writers of some name are not wanting to perpetuate the prejudice.

NOTE IX. Page 103.

Although I have never, in my own practice, made an exception to this rule, yet were I to make any, it would be respecting the small terminal shoots of trees, which certainly might be retrenched without injury, and perhaps with advantage. In a communication with which I was honoured from the illustrious president of the Horticultural Society of London, Mr Knight, after approving generally of my theory as to the preservative principle, he has the following valuable remarks:

"I have only one suggestion to offer for your consideration. All trees have, I think, after they arrive at the age of puberty, generally more slender shoots at the extremities of the branches (which slender shoots are intended to bear blossoms) than are beneficial to the tree itself; and if the number of these were reduced in the transplanted tree, it would still expose as much foliage to the light as if many more such slender shoots remained, while the expenditure of sap in forming shaded, and therefore useless foliage, would be saved. I have transplanted fruit-trees of different kinds of a large size, without shortening their large branches, and I have always found much advantage in diminishing considerably the number of their slender terminal shoots."

SECTION V.

NOTE I. Page 121.

THE important principle here touched upon is not so fully illustrated as it might have been. If the reader have attentively considered, first, the principles promulgated, and next their development and application in the selection of subjects, the conclusions which he should arrive at will necessarily follow. In the words of the text, "He may rest assured, in this case, that his success or miscarriage will be in the precise ratio in which his subjects may have obtained the protecting properties. If fully obtained, the progress of the trees will be visible from the beginning; but if imperfectly, their progress will be retarded until the deficiency be made up." Yet, as the errors most commonly committed by planters, and the ill success that attends them, usually result from an improper selection of subjects, I shall say a few words upon it here, by way of practical commentary.

Nineteen times in twenty, or, much more probably, ninety-nine times in a hundred, planters who remove large trees select their subjects injudiciously. Perhaps, more correctly speaking, they make no selection at all, according to any preconceived principle, or rule of choice. Supposing a man carefully to take up and plant a tree so selected, which has tolerable roots, it necessarily follows that it must have tolerable branches. But it may happen, from the circumstances in which it has been placed, that it is deficient in stoutness of stem, and, what is still worse, it may have no proper thickness and induration of bark to protect the sap-vessels. We shall further suppose, that he has only cursorily perused the foregoing pages; and without altogether denying the correctness of the principles laid down, (because no man, attentively viewing natural causes and effects, can deny them,) he considers this as a pretty fair experiment of the efficacy of the preservative system.

What, then, happens? The roots being not extensive, and the stem slender, it is soon discovered, that without propping the tree cannot stand. This is thought very strange, indeed, in the new system, which

professes to discard all such unsightly appliances. We will next suppose, that the props are applied with due diligence and success for two or three years; and meanwhile, that the roots and fibres, being comparatively undisturbed, extend under ground for five or six years more. As to the branches, few or none having decayed in the beginning, the tree, by the second year, has probably carried a good leaf, but has made no shoots of any sort.

Now this tree, as it is not in possession of all the protecting properties, can develop those which it possesses only in an inferior degree, therefore its progress must be retarded (as the text has it) until the deficiency be made up." If it chance to be in a situation relatively sheltered, and in a favourable soil, it will, after five or six years more in this climate, begin to obtain the proper stoutness of stem, and thickness of bark, which it should have had in the beginning: but if the exposure be great, whatever be the soil, ten or twelve years still may elapse ere "the deficiency be made up." Thus, in the last mentioned case, (which is by far the more common of the two,) after about eighteen or twenty years, the tree, having struggled under the unnatural circumstances of cold and exposure to generate provisions which warmth and shelter, in the previous plantation, or transplanting nursery, would have speedily conferred on it, at length surmounts the evils incident to injudicious selection, and begins to shoot forth with proper vigour. Such at least is its progress in the climate of Scotland.

This is no exaggerated picture, but a plain statement of facts, such as always occur when the laws of nature are disregarded, and the development of the properties she confers are checked in their progress. The above illustration of the doctrine set forth in the text, that "we must wait till the deficiency be made up," is given on the supposition that the tree has tolerable roots and branches, but is without the other prerequisites. But on a supposition that the tree possessed the other protecting properties, and that roots or branches were deficient, there would be a corresponding result; and no vigorous progress could in the same way be expected from the plant, until the deficiency were made up in like manner.