[ *40 ] 
*ommated Cajianea Vulgaris, by all the ancient Bo- 
tanifts. It is To called by Dr. Johnfon in his Mer- 
curius Botanicus: by the fame author, in his Iter 
Cantianum-, and by Blackftone, in his Specimen Botani- 
cum ; and in this true view of the controverfy, let 
us examine the principal parts of it. 
I have, Sir, in the abovementioned quotation, par- 
ticularly noticed a large tradt of chefnut woods, to 
continue to this day near Sittingborne, in Kent; in 
oppofition to this, Mr. Barrington fays, that he has 
taken a very minute infpeclion of thefe woods ; and 
that, “ finding them planted In rows, and without 
“ any fcattering trees to introduce them, he is con- 
“ vinced that they are not natives.” (p. 27 and 28) 
Such is the argument by which my aflertion is en- 
deavoured to be fet afide. 
I (hall not here enter into an examination of the 
four general rules laid down by Mr. Barrington, 
“ from which it may be decided, whether a tree is 
“ indigenous or not in any country,” p. 23. That 
I leave to the confideration of two of my particular 
friends, who have entered into the Botanical reafons 
produced by Mr. Barrington, and whofe letters to 
me on this fubjedl are hereunto annexed. I con- 
fine myfelf to the fadl. “ Remember, fays Dr. Plot 
“ in his MS. ColleSlanea of Kent (in the library of 
“ Edward Jacob, Efq; of Feverfham) the iron oar 
“ fmelted in Chefnut wood, in the confines of Borden 
“ and Newington.” Dr. Johnfon, in his Iter Cantia- 
num, 1632, Ipeaks of the Cafanea Vulgaris inter 
Sittingbourne et Rcchefler. And this Chefnut wood 
is equally mentioned- as early as the 2 2d of Elizabeth, 
under the title of ^icedam Sylm, vocata Chef encode x 
