CHAP. CV. CORVYLA CE. CASTA NEA. 1998 
decrease, he thinks, may be owing to a slight refrigeration of climate; but, as 
the climate is rather improved, and the spirit of planting become more general, 
this, he thinks, may give encouragement to more extended planting of the 
chestnut. There is one circumstance, he says, connected with the timber of 
the chestnut, in Scotland, which must prevent its general use in ship-building ; 
and that is, that few trees of it of any size are found without the timber being 
shaky or split; some to such a degree, that the annual rings, or concentric 
growths, have separated from each other. Mr. Mathew, who is evidently an 
original observer, though, in this case, he has mixed up facts that have come 
under his own observation with the current opinion respecting the use of 
chestnut timber in old buildings, and in the Spanish navy, remarks, with Bosc, 
that the timber, though a good deal similar to that of the oak, is not “ quite 
so reedy and elastic, but is destitute of the large lamina, or plates (flosh), 
which, radiating from the pith to the outside, become so prominent to view in 
the oak, when the longitudinal section is parallel to the plane of the lamin.” 
(Nav. Tim., p.47.) We have quoted these different opinions, for the purpose 
of showing that the ground on which British authors hitherto have recom- 
mended the culture of the chestnut as timber is the erroneous supposition 
that the roofs of many of our ancient buildings are formed of it; and that, on 
the faith of this, Evelyn, and others of them, appear to have argued in its 
favour, contrary to their own experience. 
The following remarks on the properties and uses of the chestnut by Mr. 
Nathaniel Kent, a well-known and highly respected land and timber surveyor, 
are dated 1792, and were published in the tenth volume of the Transactions 
of the Society of Arts. They seem to us to contain all that can be said, from 
practical experience, in favour of the chestnut as a timber tree in Britain. “In 
1676,” Mr. Kent observes, “ an ancestor of the present Mr. Windham of 
Felbrigg, in Norfolk, had the merit of being a considerable planter of chestnut. 
In the space of 50 years, it is presumed, these plantations required thinning, 
as his successor, about that time, began to apply this timber to useful purposes 
upon his estate. The first account is of the branch or limb of a chestnut, about 
13 in. square, which, in the year 1726, was put down as a hanging-post for a 
gate, and carried the gate, without alteration, 52 years; when, upon altering 
the enclosures of the farm where it stood, it was taken up under my direction, 
and appearing to be perfectly sound, was put down for a clapping-post in 
another place. In 1743, a large barn was built with some of this timber, and 
is now (1792) as sound in every part, beams, principals, and spars, as when 
first the barn was built. About the same time, several chestnut posts and rails 
were put down, which [ have since seen removed ; and, after standing 30 or 40 
years, they generally appeared so sound, as to admit of being set up in some 
other place. The last instance I shall mention, though not of long date, will 
show the great superiority of this timber over oak in fences. In the year 1772, 
the present Mr. Windham made a large plantation in his park, which was 
fenced with posts and rails, converted from young oaks and chestnuts of the 
same age and scantling, such as were picked out of a place where they stood 
too thick. Last year, upon Mr. Windham’s enlarging this plantation, it was 
necessary to remove this fence ; when the chestnut posts were found as sound 
as when they were first put down ; but the oak were so much wasted just below 
the surface of the ground, that they could not be used for the same purpose 
again without the assistance of a spur to support them.” (Zrans. Soc. Arts, 
x. p. 31.) “ When the chestnut is suffered to stand beyond its full growth,” 
Mr. Kent continues, “it is the worst of all timber, being more brittle and 
more apt to crack and fly into splinters, than any other: but I have never 
known this to be the case with young chestnut.”” Hence, he directs the tree 
to be cut when it is in a growing or healthy state; because it is “so early 
useful, that, if it be cut when it squares only 6 in.,it will be as durable as an oak 
of six times its size and age. This is in a great measure accounted for by its 
having so little sap wood in proportion to other trees, as it will seldom 
exceed in thickness the breadth of the bark; whereas the sap wood of an 
