The foregoing remarks will apply, of course, most directly, to woods where there is an _apparent redundancy_ of oak. I will now suppose the case of a wood where there is a _deficiency_, or little or no oak. Here there ought, unquestionably, to be _a full crop of underwood_. This underwood ought to be adapted, as to _kind_, first, to the nature of the soil; and, secondly, to the _local demand, if the local demand be good_: and as to its _age_, of course it must be that which best suits the market, or when, comparatively, it will fetch the best price; so that in some districts, as in Kent, for instance, it will _sell_ best, and therefore ought to be _cut_, at about twelve years of age: in others it would not sell so well at less than from fifteen to twenty years old. But it does _not_ follow as a matter of course, that because a wood has always, previously, stood from twenty to twenty-five years, it should for ever continue to do so; on the contrary, I should say, that there are _very few woods indeed, if any_, which ought to stand more than twenty years, and a great proportion of them, nothing like so long. The great reason why the produce of woods does not earlier come to maturity, is the gross “mismanagement” to which they are subjected: but when the time shall arrive that they shall be deemed worthy of as much “care, attention, and culture,” as any other part of an estate, then will they be found, probably, to yield quite as good a return for it; and the present _no system_ management will be exploded.