52 TRANSACTIONS OF ROYAL SCOTTISH ARBORICULTURAL SOCIETY. 
landowners with appointments to fill who are desirous of secur- 
ing the services of scientifically-trained men is limited, and 
therefore our young foresters of the new school must not give 
way to despondency if, on finishing their science course, they do 
not at once find the opportunity of putting modern sylvicultural 
methods into practice. Nor need they, under any circumstances, 
expect to have a perfectly free hand in the management of their 
employer’s property. But even if they have frequently to act in 
a manner which is not in conformity with good sylvicultural 
practice, it cannot be doubted that the knowledge which educa- 
tion has given them must, on the whole, have a beneficial influence 
on the woods placed under their charge. 
As for the prospect of estate forestry being encouraged by 
loans to planters, I cannot put much faith in it. As already 
pointed out, the planter derives no actual benefit from his work, 
and in most cases suffers personal loss, and I do not see how this 
loss would be obviated (although it would doubtless be diminished) 
by aloan. Interest would have to be paid upon it in any case, 
and a proprietor who planted a deer forest or grouse moor would 
simply change his position from that of a rent-receiver into that — 
of a rent-payer for someone else’s benefit. Some assert that the 
private ownership of land forms no great obstacle in the way of 
economic forestry, and point to the Continental forests owned by 
private individuals. Bat I am afraid they forget that the tradi- 
tions and conditions are totally different in the two cases. In the 
first place, these forests are regarded as such, and game is not the 
only objective consideration. In the second place, they exist, and 
have existed for centuries, and the owners have come to regard ~ 
them as constituent elements of the estate. In the third place, 
forestry is a recognised institution, and Governments and legis- 
lation keep an eye upon it in a fatherly spirit. With us, no 
such advantages are present. To begin with, we have no forests 
on an extensive scale, our woods are valued according to their 
game-producing powers, and whenever a landowner converts a 
barren waste into a productive property, he is promptly taxed for 
it. Forestry and the utilisation of waste land concern the 
nation at large, and not merely an individual or a particular class, 
and I see no reason why a proprietor should sacrifice his own 
interests for the good of a public who are quite able to carry on 
work of this kind for their own benefit if they choose. Un- 
fortunately, the British public wants a good deal of education on 
