Obrazy na stronie
[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors]

- ----------- ------------_

the one with which I saw you engaged, in
December, 1811.

“When I came home, I caused a cutler

make me an instrument similar to the one f

you she'ele, for barking your trees, and

commenced my operations on an old Scotch
Carnock, with a very hard and corrugated

bark, which regularly produced plenty of .

tlossom, but seldom or ever any fruit. I
began among the small branches near the
top, and continued working downwards,
destroying in my progress many thousands
of insects, with their eggs. Most of the

professional men blamed me for spoiling a

good tree. In spring it produced a profu-
sion of flowers, which they declared useless,
and the last it would ever shed. In autumn,
however, it yielded as much fine fruit as it

could possibly carry. The bark is now in

a healthy and vigorous state, and the tree

has every appearance of bearing a large crop this season.

(Signed) “JAMES HARDIE, Jun.”
- - - 2. '

Another argument has been brought forward against the practice of peeling, “ that nature would not have given the bark, had it not been for some useful purpose.” This is certainly true, when applied to sound inmost bark, because it is so essential that the tree cannot live without it; as the juices. which nourish the tree are carried on between it and the wood : but it is difficult to conceive the use of dry hardened scabs: and though the whole bark may be necessary at an early period to carry on the circulation, as it is them very thin and yielding, and cannot much injure the tree by its.

[ocr errors]

stricture; yet, at a more advanced period,

it seems not only unnecessary, but hurtful.

So the food that is necessary for the young animal, is not only unnecessary, but unfit for the old. And it may be observed, that the transverse bark, which is the principal cause of almost all the maladies of fruit trees, is always destroyed by nature,

and never replaced.

We do not suppose that nature gives any thing in vain; but we see, as in the transverse bark, and in the blossom, that when she has served her purpose, she throws them aside; and when we observe her too weak, or too tardy, it is our duty to assist her. But the vanity of man makes him think that nothing is of use in nature but what is for his own. He fancies the earth was made


for him. The sun and moon were made for him, and the stars are only as so many brass nails to adorn the roof of his carriage. Further, if we are not to venture to take off the bark because nature has given it, we ought not to root out weeds, because nature has given them also ; and why destroy the vermin They too are the gift of nature. If we were to follow out this mode of reasoning, where would it lead us? Nature could have produced crops without weeds, and fruit without trees. She could have produced the fruits of the earth without tilling and sowing: Why not loaves and rolls ready made, and then there would have been no occasion for sowers, reapers, millers, or bakers ? Nay, nature could as easily have made man to live without food : but in that state what he would have been we can

have no conception. I can give no other


reason for these productions of nature, than
that they are to make man industrious.
The stricture of the outer bark, however,
which gives rise to the greatest part of the
labour on fruit trees, can easily be explain-
ed, without referring to the final cause.

The outer bark forming a greater circle than the inner, would require to expand faster, but is prevented, being rendered more rigid by exposure to the weather, and

is burst by the growth of the tree". But


[ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors]

* If we were to reason, or rather imagine, like the medical tribe, we would not suppose that the bark was burst by the growth of the tree, but that the vis medicatric naturae brought on a spasm or constriction to

remove the constriction.


« PoprzedniaDalej »