more freely than the other, but during a much shorter space of time. These hints, therefore, afford additional evidence against pruning, and particularly against pruning fir trees, which, as Mr Knight justly observes, have larger vessels than the others, and therefore, when in an improved soil and climate, side-branches for the purposes above mentioned are essentially necessary to them, if solid, resinous, and durable timber be the object in view. “From the foregoing remarks, I think the following conclusions may be drawn. “First, That trees should be planted as much as possible in soils, situations, and climates, _analogous to those of their natural state_; and that it is chiefly in this state, or when there are some defects relative to it, that pruning or culture can be exercised with advantage. {298} “Secondly, That in proportion to the superiority of the soil, &c. in which trees are placed, over the natural soil of these trees, in the same proportion pruning and cultivating the soil ought to be avoided, and thinning encouraged. “Thirdly, That particular regard should be had to the soil and situation, where either larches, or any other of the pine tribe, are planted, to remain as the final crop. For as the roots of these chiefly run along the surface, and as in them the great current of the sap is chiefly confined to one channel, that is the trunk, consequently that tribe of trees is peculiarly liable to injury and change, when subjected to unnatural agency. “Fourthly, That the only way in which oak timber of safe quality can be provided for the British navy, is by enclosing, preserving from cattle, and properly managing, those royal forests where oak is the natural produce of the soil. (Alas! there is reason to fear, that on some future day the neglect of this advice will be regretted). Park oak is very frequently much inferior to _forest oak_ in durability.”