Therefore, it follows, that if, by Removal when young, it suffer injury, it must, by the same process when old, suffer much greater injury. On this opinion of the expediency of sowing the seeds of Trees, instead of transferring plants from the seed-bed to the nursery, and from thence to the open plantation, he is not singular, as the doctrine has been supported, both before and since his time, by very eminent phytologists: While others, of no small weight and name, have as strenuously taken up the adverse side of the question, and maintained, that plants may not only be safely transferred, from the seed-bed to the nursery, before being planted out, but that woods, raised with such materials, possess advantages, which those, at once springing from the seed, can never possess. These different systems, within the two last centuries, have been widely propagated, and as keenly supported; and, as the mass of mankind never think for themselves, it so happens, that the Art of Transplanting has its friends and its enemies, its advocates and its opponents, among the learned and the unlearned.

Without entering into so extensive and intricate a question as the above (which, however, might lead to many interesting details), let us see what the objections of so judicious a writer as

NOTE I

Miller are, to the Transplanting of Trees of considerable magnitude; because, if we either admit those objections as relevant, or remove or obviate them satisfactorily, it will pave the way for some rational Theory of the Art.

The objections, brought forward by Miller, seem to be Three in number. The First and radical one, as above noticed, is to the lopping, or cutting off the Tops or side Boughs, or both, at the period of Removal, as utterly ruinous to Trees. This objection, he says, is obviously so well founded, that no one will stand up for the safety of the practice, who is acquainted with the way, in which the Circulation of the Sap is carried on; for, in that case, he must know, that Branches being organs, just as essential as Roots to the nourishment of Trees, it must be doubly destructive to mutilate both, at one and the same time. If any one, he adds, doubt the fact, let him try the experiment on a healthy subject of the same age, not intended for removal, and he will find, that mutilation will so stint its growth, that it will not recover, till after several years, if it recover at all; and it will never attain the same size and figure, or produce the same sound and perfect wood as others, on which the branches have been left in an entire state. Or, otherwise, let him make the trial on two Trees of equal age and health, and cut the boughs from the one, while he

leaves them, at the time of Transplanting, on the other; in that case, the latter will be found to succeed far better than the former. Or, let him practise the same thing on two permanent Trees of equal health and appearance; and the Tree, of which the boughs are lopped, will not be found to make half the progress of the other, nor will the bulk of the stem encrease, in nearly the same ratio.*

But, say the planters, who advocate the Mutilating system, since the Roots are severely curtailed, by the operation of taking up, the Branches must necessarily be curtailed in proportion, and suited to the ability of the roots, whose province it is to sustain the branches. If, however, there be any truth in the foregoing statement, and that it be reciprocally the province of the branches also to nourish the roots, that argument, how specious soever, must fall to the ground; for it is obviously calculated to make bad worse, by subjecting the Tree to two evils, instead of one, to which it must, at all events, be subjected. Besides, these reasoners are well aware, that, if they abstained from the lopping of the top and branches, and left them entire, the greater part would decay, during the first season, for want of nourishment, to the utter discredit of their system. The objection of

*NOTE II.

Miller, therefore, is perfectly unanswerable. It would be quite superfluous to add any further illustrations, however conclusive, drawn from the constitution or anatomy of plants, as these will more properly be brought forward in the sequel.

His Second objection is, that, if Trees be removed with large heads, it is next to impossible to maintain them, against the violence of the wind, in an upright position, with the aid of supports or fastenings of whatever species. To this it may be answered, that, almost all Trees, with large heads, have short and stout stems, with correlative roots; and, at all events, that, by art skilfully employed, Roots may be increased to the ability of the Tops, and almost incredibly multiplied, if time be given for nature to second the efforts of art. Besides the nourishment, which is prepared by the leaves, sent down to the stem, and ultimately, by means of the branches, to such extensive roots, the branches and stem together serve to balance the Tree properly against the winds; so that, when due precautions are used, an extensive Top is an aid, rather than an impediment to the progress of Trees, and may be rendered advantageous, by a skilful planter.

The Third and last objection is, that Transplanted Trees do not survive above five or six years, after being so injudiciously removed, as above described, and their boughs mutilated :—

That, in a particular instance, which Miller quotes, where Oaks were so treated, and where they were found to thrive, beyond all expectation, in the beginning, they yet died at the end of fifty years; whereas, according to the characteristic properties of that Tree, they should then have been increasing in vigour. To which it may be fairly replied, that the occurrence of such miscarriages evidently proceeds upon the supposition, that the injurious practice of lopping the Tops and side Branches is still to be continued; when, on the contrary, by an improved practice, as soon as that cause is removed, the evils that flowed from it will be removed in consequence. As to the effects of fifty years growth on Transplanted Trees, it is not so easy to speak: But, at the place, from which these pages are dated, some Oaks, Beeches, and Limes are to be seen, nearly forty years after Removal; and those Trees have constantly exhibited progressive vigour in an extraordinary degree, and might now be taken for plants raised, without removal, from the seed.

Such are the objections against Transplanting, which have been urged by Miller, and which the reputation of the man, not less than the nature of the objections themselves, rendered worthy of particular notice. If we yield to the First objection, which we must do, as being quite conclusive; if we obviate the Second and Third, which, I con