ADDRESS BY THE PRESIDENT, JANUARY 23, 1895. 95 
to Scotland. I think a larger proportion might be given to Scot- 
land by the State. 
Then again, even our methods of advancing the science of 
Forestry are somewhat scantily developed. There are not many 
places, even where there is a good growth of timber, where you 
find the Forestry staff is properly organised. I doubt whether 
owners of land in this country have done all they might have done 
to have efficient Forestry staffs. The Forestry staff on an estate 
is not always so efficient as the staff on an arable farm, and it is 
just as much needed in the one case as in the other. If you 
have a “blow” of timber, such as we had the other day, 
unless you have a staff which is able to deal promptly with 
an emergency like that, there must be a great loss. It is much 
more expensive for the timber merchant to cut up the timber 
than it is for the owner if he has a sufficient staff. Then the 
irregularity of the supply of home timber is greatly against its 
continuous employment for building and other purposes. The 
timber merchant cannot depend on a regular supply of home 
timber. The home market is supplied in great measure by gales 
of wind, or according to the necessities of the owners of the 
estates. If the supply were more regular and larger, dealers 
in home wood would be far better able to compete with dealers 
in foreign wood, and would be able to give much better prices 
for what they buy. Then I think that the State should grow 
timber, because private owners, on account of the long time they 
have to be out of capital before getting a return, are less able 
now than ever they were to invest their money in creating large 
plantations. I doubt whether Forestry in this country can be 
sufficiently developed unless it be by the power of the State. We 
are at a disadvantage in not having the State as a grower of 
timber; and I think the reason for the State not growing timber is 
probably the general belief that Forestry does not pay. It must 
be fully recognised in Scotland that Forestry is a national interest, 
before we can have any great improvement on the present system. 
We all of us feel very much indebted to Sir Robert Menzies for his 
action in trying to create a Chair of Forestry in the Edinburgh 
University. At the same time, I cannot help thinking—I do not 
speak as a member of the Treasury Board, but as a member of the 
Scottish Arboricultural Society, which, at the present moment, is 
the somewhat more important body of the two—I cannot help 
thinking that it should be unnecessary to ask for private subscribers 
