after it had published the correspondence of Matthew and Darwin between 7 April and 12 May 1860, Anon. "Matthew on Naval Timber and Arboriculture". Evans and Ruffy's Farmers' Journal and Agricultural Advertizer, Vol 24 (1831), No. 1218 (Mon 17 January), p. 3 Anon. Literary Criticism. Edinburgh Literary Journal, or Weekly Register of Criticism and Belles Lettres, Vol 6 (Jul-Dec, 1831), No. 138 (Sat 2 July), pp. 1–4 Matthew received a scathing review: "This is a publication of as great promise, and as paltry performance, as ever came under our critical inspection. From its title, On Naval Timber and Arboriculture, it will probably attract readers; but the intelligent among them will suffer considerable disappointment in the perusal, as we must say that there are not ten pages of really new matter in the volume, on those interesting subject" Anon. "On Naval Timber". United Service Journal (1831, Part 2), No. 33 Aug, pp. 457–466; Anon. "On Naval Timber" (continued). United Service Journal (1831, Part 3), No. 34 Sept, pp. 65–76 An extended review in the 1831 Part II and 1831 Part III numbers of the magazine; it praised Matthew's book in around 13,000 words, highlighting that, "The British Navy has such urgent claims on the vigilance of every person as the bulwark of his independence and happiness, that any effort for supporting and improving its strength, lustre, and dignity, must meet with unqualified attention." It approved of Mathew "strictly in his capacity as a forest-ranger, where he is original, bold and evidently experienced in all the arcana of the parentage, birth and education of trees. But, we disclaim participation in his ruminations on the law of Nature, or on the outrages committed upon reason and justice by our burthens of hereditary nobility, entailed property, and insane enactments." The review did not mention the appendix to the book. Anon. "On Naval Timber and Arboriculture". Metropolitan Magazine, Vol 2 (1831), No. 5 Sept, p. 44 Anon (attributed to J. C. Loudon). Matthew, Patrick: "On Naval Timber and Arboriculture". Gardener's Magazine and Register of Rural & Domestic Improvements, Vol 8 (1832), pp. 702–3 This review noted Matthew's argument, "that the best interests of Britain consist in the extension of her dominion on the ocean; and that, as a means to this end, naval architecture is a subject of primary importance; and, by consequence, the culture and production of naval timber is also very important. He