332 



year, when the first edition of my Treatise came out, nothing was 

 known of the principles, on vvliich Park-ivood sliould be removed, even 

 by persons the most able and scientific. And, I trust, it will not now be 

 thought invidious, when I add, that trees planted at the same time as 

 those in the Botanic Garden, in the most exposed situations of my 

 Park, are seen to make shoots between two and three feet long, and 

 that they never had props or supports of any kind. 



The truth is, that horticultural planting and park planting being so 

 very dissimilar, as just now obsen'ed (owing to the widely dissimilar 

 circumstances under which they are executed), they never can come 

 into comparison, far less into competition with each other. Modem 

 botanists have thought good to divide themselves into two classes, 

 namely, the Systematic and the Physiological ; but under which of tho 

 two the ingenious professor ranks himself is not known to me, although 

 it is pretty obvious in which of them a knowledge of the principles of 

 planting of any sort is to be found, \npark planting I think it probable, 

 that the professor has no experience : but I venture to predict, to which- 

 ever of the two classes of botanists he may belong, that, should he try 

 the practice, the difliculties attending a successful execution will per- 

 haps surprise him, notwithstanding the light that has been thrown upon 

 it by the present Treatise. 



Before concluding this Note, there are two circumstances, which I 

 think it proper to mention, as connected with the subject. The first is, 

 that it has been alleged, by a very respectable and highly accomplished 

 friend of Dr. Graham's and mine, that, in the note on this passage, in 

 the first edition of the book, the doctor " has not been treated with per- 

 fect fairness." This allegation has given me great pain, as there is no 

 man for whom I entertain a greater respect and esteem than himself. 

 The former note I acknowledge, was hastily written, and therefore not 

 so clearly expressed as it might have been. I have, therefore, re-written 

 it as above, and I trust that it will now appear both fair and explicit. 



The second circumstance is, that I understand it has been said by 

 other friends of the professor's, that because, in imitation of my method, 

 he did not decapitate or mutilate his forest-trees, according to the general 

 practice in Britain, and all over Europe, his removals at the Botanic 

 Garden had completely anticipated my system, and deprived it of any 

 priginality, which the public, as well as the periodical reviewers have 

 been pleased to attribute to it. This allegation, I conceive, requires no 

 answer from me. Our respective works, whether literary or arboricwl-r 

 tural, will speak for themselves. 



