Yet, in this state of things, there is reason to suspect, that a prejudice still exists, at least in England, against any attempt to supply these defects, and to raise it to the rank of a regular art. In either division of the island the attempt will be deemed a bold one, and by some treated as altogether visionary. The only ground on which I venture to look for a different result in my own country, is not laid in any fanciful theory, however ingenious, but in the laws of vegetation plainly applied to practice. In attaining the object, I shall strive, in the words of a great orator, (which have been chosen to grace my title-page,) "so to adopt the ministration of art as humbly to imitate nature; to tread in her footsteps, wherever they are to be found, and to strike out a kindred path wherever they are wanting." It is on such principles alone that I can hope to communicate to this neglected practice some stability from arrangement, and some light from science. SECTION III. ATTEMPT TO SUGGEST A NEW THEORY, OR PRINCIPLE FROM the cursory view which has been given of the rise and progress of transplanting, from the earliest times down to the present, it appears, notwithstanding the objections of some ingenious men, that it is an art worthy of an attentive cultivation; and that, if it could be established on principles founded in nature, and confirmed by experience, it might, within a short period, become extensively useful. The best-informed phytologist who has treated the subject is the judicious Miller, the author of the Gardener's and Botanist's Dictionary-a work which, in the enlarged edition of Professor Martyn of Cambridge, should be diligently studied by every planter of education. On the art in question this accurate observer has no formal disquisition; but in the article "planting" he has introduced some strictures on the practice of removing large trees as it was in his time prevalent, and some general objections to the art itself, which are deserving of attention. These, then, it would be proper to consider in the outset, before we proceed to inquire respecting the improvement of the art. His main objection to the then existing system (which, as we have seen in the foregoing chapter, is precisely that of modern planters) is, that the lopping or mutilating the tops and side branches of trees, and still more the decapitating of them, is utterly destructive of their health and growth; and that, whatever other advantages might be supposed to attend the art, that alone is sufficient to neutralise or counterbalance them. It was this weighty objection, brought forward by Miller, that first led me to bestow particular attention on the subject, and to seek for some general theory or principle which, if founded on the laws of nature, as affecting woody plants under different circumstances of climate and soil, might serve to regulate and improve the practice. But independently of all partial faults that might be found with transplanting, as now generally practised, Miller objects to all transplantation whatever, whether of young trees or old. Every tree, he holds, in order to reach the greatest size and perfection of which it is susceptible, should be raised at once from the seed to remove it at all is sensibly to deteriorate it. 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 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, * NOTE I. 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 Miller are, to the transplanting of trees of considerable magnitude; because, if we either admit those objections as relevant, or obviate them as unfounded, 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 Or, let 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. 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 increase 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 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, * NOTE II. |