680 Pontey versus Cruickshank. 



Mr. Pontey and himself, is in three years not only covered 

 with resinous matter but also with bark ? Oh, Shame ! where 

 is thy blush ! ! 



Mr. Cruickshank proceeds : — " The taking off of a few 

 branches will not, of course, be so injurious as the displacing at 

 once of a great number ; but none can be displaced, as the 

 above experiment 'will show, without materially retarding the 

 growth of the plant." As correctly would he argue, were he 

 to state, that because fire uncontrolled would destroy the 

 house, a little, well managed, is not desirable, and beneficial 

 also. 



By this time your readers will have become a little curious 

 to know how it happens that pruning should not be bene- 

 ficial to firs. The fact is, that, though Mr. Cruickshank tacitly 

 acknowledges, by his remarks on pruning the ash, elm, &c, 

 that Mr. Pontey's demonstrations with regard to pruning 

 firs are correct as to producing clear and straight timber ; 

 yet it would not be quite so convenient for him, and the super- 

 annuated theory he has adopted, to state in so many words, 

 if you mean to have the greatest quantity of fir timber, free 

 from knots, you must prune; that would be showing the 

 cloven foot too clearly. It suits his drivelling ideas better to 

 attempt by a side wind to degrade what he dare not openly 

 attack, by stating that pruning injures fir trees, simply be- 

 cause they bleed after such operation ; and to insure such 

 bleeding to those who try the experiment, by misleading the 

 public with the misquotation complained of: the fact being — 

 and I here dare Mr. Cruickshank to the proof (not to the asser- 

 tion) — that not a single acre, nor any quantity of plantation of 

 from twelve to twenty years' old, or upwards, either in Eng- 

 land or Scotland, which has from its planting been managed 

 by Pontey's theory strictly, has been either entirely or at all 

 injured by such practice ; but, on the conti ary, when com- 

 pared with those under the non-pruning system, will turn out 

 very much superior. 



I am aware of the estimation in which anonymous com- 

 munications are held, but my insignificant name would add 

 little to their weight ; I shall therefore, with all due respect, 

 remain, Sir, yours, &c. 



Bamsley, Sept. 22. 1830. A Yorkshireman. 



Our opinion is, that both Pontey and Salmon were wrong 

 in their theory and practice, as to pruning pines and firs. It 

 is very well to defend Pontey, no longer with us to defend 

 himself; but it is more for the interest of science to acknow- 

 ledge that he rather overpruned the pine and fir tribes. In 

 this opinion we particate with, many others. — Cond. 



