188G.] EDITOPJAL XOTES. 731 



of tlie inefficiency of the system of teaching at Xancy ; and with 

 regard to the proposed removal of the students to Paris, we fail to 

 see from anything he advances what advantage is likely to result 

 from it as regards any improvement in the qualifications of officers 

 turned out. M. B. de la Grye, who takes part in this correspond- 

 ence, considers that there is room for improvement in the practical 

 training of students at Nancy, so that we may almost take it for 

 granted there is something wrong in the establishment somewhere. 

 Yet it appears to our mind a strange remedy to suggest their 

 removal to Paris, Surely it were easier to improve their practical 

 training at Nancy than at Paris. The economical aspect of the 

 ([uestion is entirely beyond our understanding, but we can hardly 

 believe the State would entertain the question l^y itself apart from 

 that of the maintenance of the highest state of efficiency in the 

 education of its forestry officers. As regards the alleged economy 

 to the students from the proposed change, we think with M. B. 

 de la Grye that money would be easier spent in Paris that at Nancy. 

 In this country, in such a case, we would most probably set about 

 reforming the abuses complained of, if any really existed, rather 

 than blot out such an essential national establishment ; but we may 

 leave our neighbours to manage their own affairs in their own way. 

 What concerns us most, in view of such complaints in Prance, is 

 the question. Have we been acting wisely in sending our students to 

 a school whose efficiency is challenged by those who may be 

 presumed to know well the grounds on which they base their 

 charo-es ? 



The success of the motion of Mr. Labouchere in the House of 

 Commons for reducing the vote for public parks and gardens in 

 the metropolis, must have caused some alarm in the minds of all 

 interested in the efficient maintenance of the great national Botanic 

 Gardens at Kew. The object of the motion was, of course, to relieve 

 the imperial taxpayer of the burden of the maintenance of institu- 

 tions in the benefits of which he is but a very limited participant, 

 and to lay it on the ratepayers of the metropolis. The principle 

 on which the motion proceeded — that of compelling the maintenance 

 of local institutions by local rates — is sound in itself, and com- 

 mended itself to the mind of tlie present House of Commons 

 strongly. But it is to be feared a large number of those who 

 voted in the majority did not realize the fact that Kew Gardens, 

 and certain of the London parks, are public or royal property, 

 which must be administered by the Government, and maintained by 

 the public purse. It cannot l)e said that the public in the national 



