1S84.] LEAF CANOPY AXD PllUNING. 167 



devote to this purpose; such woods will ofteu Ije fuvoured iu various 

 ways wliicli could not be adopted as precedents iu large forests 

 depending entirely on their own resources. A forest, if it is to have 

 an independent existence, and pay all expenses out of its own 

 yield, must be large, and economically worked. Even if pruning can 

 be beneficially employed in the woods on a residential estate, it does 

 not follow that artificial pruning can be considered as more than a 

 I'emedial and rather exceptional operation in economic forestry. The 

 usefulness of pruning for standards among coppice is evident, and it 

 can scarce!}' be denied that it might often be a valuable remedial 

 measure even in high wood forest, if it could be afforded. However 

 desirable and useful it might be even in close coverts, yet in operations 

 on a large scale it has often to be omitted as a too expensive luxury. 

 The question of expense will probably have the greatest force in 

 determining whether the forester shall extensively apply artificial 

 pruning. In investigating the deterrent or limiting effect of expense 

 on the extensive application of artificial pruning, some preliminary 

 inquiries are necessary. The first or general preliminary inquiry 

 has some connection with political economy, and seeks to fix the 

 number of labouring men or families who can be supported by the 

 yield of a given area of forest. The answer to this question will 

 indicate the greatest possible amount of labour which could be 

 continuously bestowed on the forest, and it may be safely estimated 

 at a very small proportion of that amount of labour which may be 

 remuneratively employed on the same acreage of farm land. The 

 inquiry may be put in a more practical shape for our purpose. 

 Having ascertained the average yearly yield of a given area — say, two 

 thousand acres of forest, deduct from it appropriate maintenance for 

 a forester and assistant-forester and the proprietor's share of the 

 profits. The proprietor's share of the profits ought to be at least 

 about 3 per cent, on the total capital of the forest ; that is, about 

 3 per cent, on the sum of the three forms of capital — the ground, 

 the growing timber, and the money provided for working expenses, 

 or sunk in working-plant. The simple question then remains, How 

 many labourers can be employed to earn the remainder of the average 

 annual yield ? Or how many days' wages are available for the 

 employment of labour in the forest? The next inquiry w411 be— Of 

 these, how many days' wages can be devoted to pruning ? 



If these inquiries were to be carefully worked out and answered, 

 vsome guide would be supplied as to the limits of artificial pruning. 

 It would probably appear that the forest can afford to prune only a 

 comparatively small number of selected trees. The forester would, 

 in that case, do w^ell to restrict pruning for the most part to promising 

 Oaks and urgent cases. This is, however, prejudging the/iuestion. 



