The evidence contained in Table 4 does not conflict with that of Table 3, hardwood forest also being recognized by all the witnesses as making the best farmland‘63, but because much of the land that was still unoccupied in 1875 was poorer land under conifers, the testimony collected by the Land Commission reveals a more subtle differentiation within this poorer range of soils, especially the distinction, made by quite a number of witnesses, between "spruce forest” and ”spruce barren” (as well other types of barren land), the former being labelled by some as ”second quality land" (’first quality’ being under hardwood), capable of making ”tolerable good farms”, the barrens being ”worthless” and ”not fit to be cultivated”.

Thus Tables 3 and 4 contain very useful information on the various combinations of trees that occurred naturally in the pre-European forest, and on the general soil differences that were perceived to be associated with them, and in Appendix 1 I have made extensive use of these forest-soil indicator descriptions in my analysis of the ecology of each of the tree species.

The forest soils — Despite this awareness of the value of the natural tree cover as a useful indicator of the quality of the land for farming, very few recorders paid much attention to the natural forest soils per $9. In fact the only recorder who has left us with a description of the profile of a forest soil before clearance is John MacGregor (1828):

The general surface of the soil is, first, a thin layer of black or brown mould composed of decayed vegetable

substances 164; then, to the depth of a foot or a little

more, a light loam prevails, inclining in some places to a sandy, in others to a clayey character; below which, a stiff clay resting on a base of sandstone predominates. The prevailing colour of both soil and stone is red.

By contrast, what we are given by most other recorders is a brief generalized description of the soil, seemingly based on the soils of cleared

‘53 Land Commission 1875: evidence of John McKaller, Lot 9; Alexander Anderson, surveyor of Lot 9; Peter Doyle, Lot 7; James Smith, Lot 20; and R. P. Haythorne, agent for Lots 35 and 36.

'6‘ The only other recorders to refer to the upper organic layer of the natural forest soils are John Hill, who said that "the top soil, from the falling and rotting of the leaves on the surface, consists of a very good vegetable mould" ([Hill] 1819); and, twenty years later, his son Samuel, who noted that what he called “an unctuous loamy mould" was an element of the island’s soils (Hill 1839). (I note also that Murray (1839) more or less lifts the above description from MacGregor.)

3O

agricultural land, that is intended to be applicable to the whole island, or at least to those parts that had dry upland soils that had once been under hardwood forest. In these short comments, the soil properties mentioned are usually those that had a utilitarian significance for farming, such as the absence of stones‘ss, and the fact that island soils were easily worked or cultivated‘“. This latter property was correctly viewed as stemming from the texture of the soils‘67, and so, many recorders included a brief comment to the effect that the island’s soils were for the most part of a loamy texture, though in some areas inclining more to a sandy texture, and in others to day“. When it came to the fertility of the soils, most recorders tended to over-estimate this property, describing them, for example, as ”rich [and] fertile" or

”exceedingly fertile".169 More correctly, Selkirk

(1805) had noted that the soils of the island were of ”a medium quality”, while Walsh (1803) had said they were ”soon exhausted". And as time went by, it soon became evident that soils that had seemed so fertile while under the forest, and in the first few years after clearance, were indeed soon exhausted by cropping, such that later

‘65 Patterson 1770; Heyden 1782; [Cambridge] 1796; Walsh 1803; Anon. 1808 (not extracted); [Hill] 1819 (not extracted); Stewart 1831 (not extracted); Bouchette 1832; Orlebar 1862.

‘35 Patterson 1770; Anon. 1789; Walsh 1803 (not extracted); [Hill] 1819 (not extracted); Stewart 1831 (not extracted); Bouchette 1832; Orlebar 1862. This property is also implied by Johnstone (1822) and Lewellin (1832).

'67 Soil ‘texture‘ refers to the relative proportion of sand, silt and

clay particles in the soil. It is an innate soil property that is determined by the soil parent material.

‘65 Inglis (1789), Selkirk (1805), Stewart (1806), MacGregor (1828), Lewellin (1832) (not extracted), Hill (1839), Seymour (1840), Gesner (1846) (not extracted), and Bain (1890) use the words ‘loam‘ or ‘loamy’ in their description of the island‘s soils. The high sand component is alluded to by Holland (1765) (October), Patterson (1770), Inglis (1789), Walsh (1803) (not extracted), [MacDonald] (1804), Johnstone (1822), Hill (1839), Gesner (1846) (not extracted), and Bain (1890); while the high clay content of some island soils is alluded to by Holland 1765 (October), Walsh (1803) (not extracted), Stewart 1806, [MacDonald] (1804), [Hill] 1819 (not extracted), Johnstone 1822, MacGregor (1828), Gesner (1846) (not extracted), and Bain (1890).

‘69 It was Inglis (1789) who described the island's soil as “exceedingly fertile"; and Desbrisay (1770-1772) who called it “rich [and] fertile“. Other recorders who said the soil was fertile were: Rogers 1765; Anon. 1768; Anon. 1772; Heyden 1782; Inglis 1789; [Cambridge] 1796 (qualified by “if properly cultivated"); Plessis 1812; Carrington 1837; Blachford 1840; Gesner 1846; Perley 1847; Orlebar 1862; and Bain 1890. It should be noted that some of these writers had never visited the island (i.e, the first three, plus Blachford), and some also had a vested interest in exaggerating the fertility of the soil, in order to encourage settlement (Anon. 1768; Desbrisay 1770-1772; Anon. 1772; Heyden 1782; [Cambridge] 1796).