And now let me ask—_if this be the state of many woods—if neither a crop of timber nor of underwood is found—to what is it owing?_ the reply is not difficult: it is _mainly_ attributable to proprietors themselves, and to their agents: to woodmen in a subordinate degree. In proof of my first position, I would respectfully remark, that if a gentleman _chooses_ to sacrifice every thing to the idea of having _good covers_; and, supposing that any thing which interferes with the primeval state of his woods, is incompatible with this object, _refuses to do any thing at them_, the woodman may not bear the blame. Again: if a proprietor happen, unfortunately, to have _such an aversion to felling timber_—and there are many such—that he will sooner let it _rot down_, or _allow one tree to destroy another_; or again; suffer the timber trees to stand so thickly that they not only totally destroy each other, but the underwood below also, the woodman ought not to be censured; except indeed, he have advised such a course, which I can hardly think any man accustomed to woods could do, in the present day. Once more; if gentlemen lack the moral courage—and I have met with _some_ of this description—to treat with the contempt which it deserves the vulgar meddling, the idle tattle of those who are ever ready to say, when timber is felled, that the owner’s _poverty_, and not his _will_, consents to the deed, we are furnished with abundance of reasons for the serious waste of property that is going on, but the woodman is not in fault, neither ought he to be blamed. Lastly: if proprietors commit the management of their woods to persons who are wholly incompetent—as is too often the case—to discharge the duties confided to them, I cannot see that the men are to be condemned, but rather their employers. Wherever such “mismanagement” prevails as I have attempted to describe, and have seen so much cause to lament, it may generally, I think, be traced, either to ignorance on the part of woodmen, or inattention on the part of their employers: but it will be quite clear to all, who will allow themselves time to think on the subject, that the _grossest_ mismanagement is to be met with, not on first, nor even on second, but on _third_, and _fourth-rate_ estates, where _regular woodmen_ are not kept, and below that grade downwards, to property which is in the hands of Trustees, or mainly under the control of Solicitors, or Corporate bodies; or, which is probably worse than all, under the supreme direction of men who having, during the whole of their business life, had too many Stewardships, &c. _for any human being to look after and manage well_, cannot of course be deemed capable of judging rightly on a subject which requires _the closest possible attention, the nicest discrimination, and an extended and varied experience_.