Editor^ s Box. 583 



What I have said iu my pamphlet was in view of the education of 

 foresters generally, and is as follows : — " I have before me the Programme, 

 ieVenseignemrnt a LEcolo Forcstihe at Nancy, and the official report of the 

 prescribed studies in the Centrnl-forstleJir-AnstaU, at AschafFenburg, and I 

 am more or less acquainted generally with the courses of study followed 

 at most of the other Schools of Forestry in Europe ; and I consider that 

 some such course of study as the following would be equivalent for the 

 purposes of our countrymen to that followed in any one of these valuable 

 institutions, with the advantage of not requiring the acquisition of a 

 foreign language, which few of our foresters and sons of foresters 

 have facilities for effecting, or at least of effecting to such an 

 extent as to enable them to understand instructions as thoroughly 

 as they would instructions given in their own tongue ; and seeing that in 

 our colonies, and in our Indian Empire, evils which have existed long are 

 being experienced and remedied, and those whom the country would en- 

 gage to go forth to meet the evils must go, at the country's expense, to 

 acquire the necessary education in other lands, and in a foreign language, 

 unknown to most young gardeners and foresters, and sons of foresters, 

 whose lives have been spent in connection with the management of trees, 

 and which is so taught in many of our schools that few even of the young 

 men of our country who have had a liberal education could understaid 

 instruction given in it as they could instruction given in their own 

 tongue." 



I have also fully recognised in my pamphlet (pages Gl and G5) the 

 treasures of literature on forest science in the French and German 

 languages, as well as in the languages spoken by most of the other 

 European states, and I certainly consider the ability to read those lan- 

 guages a decided acquisition to a forester. 



I do not know how I could have expressed myself clearer on " the 

 difference between Arboriculture and Sylviculture," of which 

 B. H. B. P. makes so much. What I have said is that, "while our 

 French neighbours speak of Sylviculture, the culture of woods, we speak 

 of Arboriculture, the culture of trees. While they, in speaking of Les 

 Forets and of La Code Forestiere, refer to a country covered more or less 

 with trees, we, in speaking of The Greenwood and of Forestry, hitherto 

 have thought chiefly of the game and of the chase, or of the shooting of deer. 

 Our forest laws relate mainly, if I may not say exclusively, to hunting, 

 these laws having nothing to do with shrubs and trees, excepting in so far 

 as they may supply shelter or covert for game. I speak advisedly when 

 T say that, according to the technical use of the term in English law, a 

 forest need not contain a single tree, and a dozen of contiguous counties 

 might be covered with trees without these constituting a forest." 



It is a well-known fact, which B. H. B. P. admits, that British arboricul- 

 ture is decidedly superior to anything of the kiud. to be met with on the 

 continent of Europe or elsewhere ; and by the establishment of British 

 Forest Schools I wish to meet the want he describes as felt by English 

 taught foresters when first they arrive in India, viz., " the need of a 



