ing Curves, from the Properties of the Variation of Curva ture. The former was inferted in the laft volume of the Tranfactions, and we mentioned it in volume fifty-eight, page 339: it is incapable of abridgement.

The volume is, as ufual, concluded with the list of presents and the names of donors; but these afford no fubject of remark.

Planting and Ornamental Gardening; a practical Treatise. 8vo 8s. in Boards. Dodfley.

WE 7E cannot agree with this intelligent author, in thinking that the two arts, which are the subjects of his work, are fo ultimately connected 'as to become an unity.' That plantations are a part of thofe ornaments, which modern tafte has admitted into gardens may be allowed, and confequently that they are nearly allied; but, in this way, one part of the fubject of planting, viz. the disposal of the various trees, is only the object of the ornamental gardener. There are many others very remotely connected with it. This is not the only part where our author has expreffed himself inaccurately, probably from not being accustomed to compofition. There are many profeffed book-makers in the metropolis, who would have avoided thofe errors; but they would have been unable to entertain and inftruct their readers with a volume fo full of useful information. Man,' he fays, must be employed; and how more agreeably than in converfing with nature, and feeing the works of his own hands, affifted by her, rifing into perfection." In this fentence, we fufpect the works to be thofe of nature, and the affifiance that of art. There are fome other inaccuracies of this kind; but they are venial ones, and the merit of the work is confiderable enough to obfcure them.

6

The introductory difcourfes contain the elements of planting, viz. concife directions for propagating, in the various ways ufually employed, planting, training, and transplanting. Thefe are new and judicious. The outline of the Linnæan fyftem, taken from the English tranflation, follows; and we entirely agree with the author in thinking, that if Linnæus had founded his diftinction of the claffes and orders on the anthere and piftils, as parts of the flower, and not as fexual organs, he would have faved himself from a host of enemies.' We do not perceive how he would have rendered hiɛ system infinitely more fimple and fcientific, and confequently more ufeful than it really is.' The fame diftinctions would have remained, though under different titles; not to add, that the distinction of the orders of the clafs fyngenefia, are better re

membered

membered when once learned in this (perhaps fanciful) language, than they probably would have been in a more floral fystem.

The vegetables employed in planting and ornamental gar dening are next arranged in an alphabetical order. The au thor tells us, and, on examination, we find his information juft, that, fo far as it relates to timber trees and other native plants, as well as to fome of the more ufeful exotics, the remarks are either his own, or contain fuch additions as have refulted from his own obfervation and experience. The defcription and management of ornamental exotics is, in subftance, taken from Hanbury, with fome additions from other authors.

After this extended catalogue, the rest of the fubject is explained in detached articles. Thofe on timber, hedges, and woodlands, are new and valuable. Thofe on grounds are new in form; the fubftance is fometimes taken from Wheatly and Mason, and their ideas are often corrected and limited by a careful examination of the effects, from actual obfervation. In this part the author displays a correct and cultivated taste.

In the catalogue of plants, the author, under each genus, defcribes the different fpecies, with their ufes, and the method of propagating them. There are various paffages which have excited our attention; but we fhall felect the following account of the Tortworth chestnut-tree, to correct a very general er

ror.

The largest (chestnut tree) we know of in this country flands at Tortworth, near Berkley, in Gloucestershire. Sir Robert Atkins, in his Hiftory of Gloucestershire, fays, "By tradition, this tree was growing in king John's reign;" and Mr. Marsham calculates it to be "not lefs than eleven hundred years old." Sir Robert makes it nineteen yards, and Mr. Marfham forty-fix feet fix inches in circumference. With great deference however to the authority and veracity of thefe gentlemen, we have every reafon to believe that what is called the Tortworth chestnut is not one, but two trees: fuppofing them to be only one, its dimenfions are by no means equal to what are given above. We have the highest opinion of Mr. Marfham's ingenuoufnefs and accuracy; and fortunately, in this cafe, he has furnifhed us with a proof of his candour, in faying, "As I took the meafure in a heavy rain, and did not measure the ftring till after I returned to the inn, I cannot fo well anfwer for this as the other measures." We will venture to add, that had the day been fine, and Mr. Marfham had viewed the field fide as well as the garden fide of this venerable ruin; had he climbed upon the wall, and feen the gable of the old building, adjoining, clafped in between the two items; and had further afcended to the top of the old ftump, which is not more

C 4

than

than twelve feet high, and, looking down its hollowness, feen its cavity tending not to the centre of the congeries, but to the centre of the old tree, we are convinced he would not have fuffered fo inaccurate an account to have been published with his fignature, as that which appears in page 81 of the first volume of Papers of the Bath Agriculture Society.'

The article on the oak is particularly entertaining and valuable. Under that of firs, the author mentions that Mr. Marsham faw feveral firs, in the dock-yard at Venice, forty yards long, and that they came from Switzerland. Perhaps it is not generally known, that the main-yard of the late Royal George confifted of a fingle tree, and was a hundred and twenty feet in length. Thofe will be moft aftonished at this furprising height, who will compare it with that of any known building; and we have reason to believe that this tu pendous tree may now be equalled. While we are on this fubject, we shall alfo felect the account of the Boddington oak,' as we believe, with our author, that it does not appear any where on record.

This oak grows in a piece of rich grafs land, called the Old Orchard Ground, belonging to Boddington manor-farm, lying near the turnpike road between Cheltenham and Tewksbury, in the vale of Glocefter. The ftem is remarkably collected and fnug at the root, the fides of its trunk being more upright than those of large trees in general; nevertheless its circumference at the ground, as near to it as one can walk, is twenty paces: measuring with a two-foot rule, it is fomewhat more than eighteen yards. At three feet high it measures forty-two feet, and at its fmalleft dimenfions, namely, from five to fix feet high, it is thirty-fix feet. At about fix feet it begins to fwell out larger; forming an enormous head, which heretofore has been furnished with huge, and in all probability extenfive arms. But age and ruffian winds have robbed it of a principal part of its grandeur; and the greatest extent of arm at prefent (1783) is eight yards, from the ftem. From the ground to the top of the crown of the trunk is about twelve feet; and the greatest height of the branches, by eftimation, forty-five feet, The ftem is quite hollow; being, near the ground, a perfect shell; forming a capacious well-fized room; which at the floor meafures, one way, more than fixteen feet in diameter. The hollowness, however, contracts upwards, and forms itself into a natural dome, fo that no light is admitted except at the door, and at an aperture or window in the fide. It is ftill perfectly alive and fruitful, having this year a fine crop of acorns upon it. It is obfervable in this (as we believe it is in most old trees), that its leaves are remarkably fmall; not larger, in general, than the leaves of the hawthorn,'

Under the article of timber, the author gives an interesting account of the comparative demand for each kind; and we fhall extract, for various reafons, the conclufion.

'We do not deliver the foregoing sketch as a perfectly, correct account of the application of woods in this country: the attempt is new, and that which is new is difficult. We have not omitted to confult with profeffional men upon the fubject; and we believe it to be fufficiently accurate for the purpofe of the planter. If we have committed any material error, we afk to be fet right. We do not wish to defcend to minutiæ: it would be of little fignification to the planter, to be told what toys and toothpicks are made from it: it is of much more importance to him to know, that, of English woods, the oak is molt in demand, perhaps three to one, perhaps in a much greater proportion; that the ash, the elm, the beech, and the box, follow next; and that the chefnut, the walnut, and the prunus and pinus tribes are principally valuable as fubftitutes for oak and foreign timber. It likewife may not be improper in this place to mention, that the oak, though of flower growth than the afh, the elm, the beech, the larch, the firs, and the aquatics, is nearly of twice the value of any of thofe woods at market; therefore, in a private and pecuniary point of view, the oak is the most eligible tree to be planted: in a public light, it rises above comparifon.'

His remarks on hedges we cannot, from the nature of the fubject, either analyfe or extract. Our author is very fond of the Norfolk husbandry in this branch, and his remarks are fo judicious and intelligent, that we recommend them not only to the embellisher of the ferme ornée, but to the practical hufbandman.

On the fubject of woodlands, the different kinds are dif tinctly treated, from plantations of the majestic oak, to the humble ozier-bed. Though we wish to affilt the public fpirit of the author, in encouraging plantations, yet we must refer to his work for the particulars. His own arguments are too long for an extract; and we would not weaken his language by abridging them in our own. The following calculations are curious, and we believe them to be juft.

• From an extenfive knowledge of the different parts of the kingdom, we believe that the nation has not yet experienced any real want of timber. We are happy to find that in many parts of it there are great quantities now ftanding; whilft in many other parts we are forry to fee an almost total nakedness. With refpect to large well-grown oak timber, fuch as is fit for the purposes of fhip-building, we believe there is a growing fcarcity throughout the whole kingdom.

We will explain ourfelves, by fpeaking particularly as to one district-the vale of Derwent, in Yorkshire. This diftri&t

for

for ages paft has fupplied in a great measure the ports of Whit by and Scarborough with fhip-timber. At prefent, notwithftanding the extenfive tracts of woodlands ftill remaining, there is fcarcely a tree left standing with a load of timber in it. Befides, the woods which now exift have principally been raised from the ftools of timber-trees formerly taken down; the faplings from which being numerous, they have drawn each other up flender, in the grove manner; and confequently never will be fuitable to the more valuable purpofes of the fhip-builder.

• When we confider the prodigious quantity of timber which is confumed in the conftruction of a large veffel, we feel a concern for the probable fituation of this country at fome future period. A feventy-four gun fhip, we fpeak from good authority, fwallows up nearly, or full, three thoufand loads of oak timber. A load of timber is fifty cubical feet; a ton, forty feet; confequently, a feventy-four gun fhip takes two thoufand large well-grown timber-trees; namely, trees of nearly two tons each!

The distance recommended by authors for planting trees in a wood, a fubject we fhall fpeak to particularly in the courfe of this chapter, in which underwood is alfo propagated, is thirty feet or upwards. Suppofing trees to ftand at two rods (thirty-three feet, the diftance we recommend they fhould ftand at in fuch a plantation), each ftatute acre would contain forty trees; confequently the building of a feventy-four gun fhip would clear, of fuch woodland, the timber of fifty acres. Even fuppofing the trees to stand at one rod apart (a fhort diftance for trees of the magnitude above mentioned), we fhould clear twelve acres and an half; no inconfiderable plot of woodland. When we confider the number of king's fhips that have been built during the late unfortunate war; and the Eaft Indiamen, merchant hips, colliers, and fmall craft, that are launched daily in the different ports of the kingdom, we are ready to tremble for the confequences. Nevertheless, there are men who treat the idea of an approaching fcarcity as being chimerical; and, at prefent, we will hope that they have fome foundation for their opinion, and that the day of want is not near. At fome future opportu nity we may endeavour to reduce to a degree of certainty, what at prefent is, in fome meafure, conjectural. The prefent ftate of this island with respect to fhip-timber is, to the community, a fubject of the very first importance.'

The obfervations on grounds are dictated by the trueft take, and we fhall beg leave to fupport our own opinions on their authority. We have the pleasure of finding that our very intelligent author generally agrees with the remarks which the dif ferent productions in this way have occafionally drawn from us. A bridge, fays he, fhould never be seen where it is not wanted; a useless bridge is a deception; deceptions are frauds; and fraud is always hateful, unless when practifed to avert

fome