1874 .] 
EVIL EFFECTS OF TREES IN HEDGE-ROWS. 
257 
produced by some kinds of trees is, however, more detrimental than that of others, 
as in the case of the dense shade of Beech and broad-leaved Elm, while the lighter 
shade of Oak and Ash does less damage. The searching and spreading roots of 
the Ash, however, not only affect the growth of the fences, but that of the 
adjacent crops ; while the more directly descending roots of the Oak seem to do 
less harm than those of any other deciduous tree. 
Doubtless the barbarous plan of pollarding trees in hedge-rows arose from 
the circumstances just mentioned, in connection with the utility of their tops as 
fire-wood. In any case, however, whether in hedges or in park scenery, they are 
most unsightly, especially to lovers of trees in their natural state of growth. I trust 
that this remark will be enough to free me from the blame of being like too 
many farmers—having no taste for the beauty of trees. If not, I instance another. 
I once inquired of a Shetland man what objects took his attention the most on 
his first arrival in this country. He said, the beautiful trees ; and this, no doubt, 
because they were new to him, since there are no trees worth notice in his native 
isles. How diJBferent were his views of trees from that of a Fen man, who told me 
that trees and undulated land only obstructed one’s sight! 
As regards the fences introduced to divide land under tillage into fields, depend 
upon it there are none equal to Hawthorn kept shorn or clipped, for thus treated 
they become thick and close, and afford better shelter for cattle, as well as for 
checking the progress of the sweeping blasts across the fields. In this part of 
the country, except in few instances, it is often otherwise, both large and small 
fields being enclosed by rough, unshorn hedges, studded with deformed trees. 
Now, respecting the damage done to the crops by the shade and roots of such 
trees, I believe I shall not be far out if I say that it extends 6 ft. beyond the 
fences—at least, fully that space of land hardly pays for culture and seed, 
especially in small fields. I once knew a good landlord who was fond of trees on 
his farms. After his decease, the tenants complained to their new landlord of the 
losses occasioned by the shade of so many trees ; some estimated it at five pounds 
yfearly, others ten pounds, and so on. But he, being a shrewd man, took notes 
of what they said, cut down the trees, sold the timber, and added to their rents 
the amount of estimated losses. This they did not expect, but after a while, 
they found themselves gainers by the change. 
I am well aware of what has been said, and truly said, respecting the beauty 
of our country scenery, when compared with the fenceless fields in some parts of 
France and Spain. This epithet, however, may apply in some measure to large 
tracts of land under tillage even in this country. Take, for instance, some open 
fields in West Norfolk, some of which are upwards of a hundred acres in extent. 
Now if there had been a few round clumps of trees planted in them, according to 
Brown’s plan of adornment, to break the monotonous scenery, they would when 
aged have required no fencing-in, but they would have afforded shade for cattle in 
summer, as well as shelter from cold blasts in winter, and perhaps have taken up 
less space of ground than the deformed trees in the hedge-rows. 
Y 
