IS BRITISH FORESTRY PROGRESSIVE 2 by: 
this point, and [I noticed that the Minister of Agriculture 
himself expressed an opinion, when replying to the Scottish 
deputation on Forestry last year, that State forests might 
possibly do estate owners an, injury, by adding an element of 
competition into the growing of timber in this country. The 
facts, in my opinion, rather lead to an opposite conclusion, viz., 
that an increased production of timber would tend to enhance its 
value by placing the home-timber trade on a sounder basis, and 
inspiring greater confidence in the minds of merchants regarding 
a steady supply. At any rate, action by the State or other public 
body is the only means by which a rational system of forestry 
can ever be properly established in this country, and the only 
way to bring this about is by united action on the part of all 
interested in the matter. There ought to be no great difficulty in 
enlisting the sympathies of all societies which have the welfare of 
the land at heart, and in this connection it is gratifying to note 
what has been done by the Highland and Agricultural Society to 
promote forestry. But considering the intimate connection between 
agriculture and forestry in any part of the country, I do not under- 
stand why a national society like the Royal Agricultural Society 
of England should pay little or no attention to this subject. State 
forestry would do far more for rural England, Scotland, or Wales 
than many minor industries encouraged by that Society; and 
although the latter may have no power in itself to carry on such 
work, yet its sympathy and support in such a cause would carry 
great weight. That we are likely to see State forestry established 
on a large scale is hardly to be expected for many years to come 
at least, but when once a beginning has been made, the most 
elaborate dreams and aspirations may ultimately be realised. 
In conclusion, I only wish to say that if my opinions and views 
on British forestry and its future prospects are regarded as too 
pessimistic, no one will be better pleased to be assured of this 
than myself. That an improvement in the detailed management 
of woods (in Scotland, at least) will result from the educational 
work so ably carried on by Professor Somerville, Colonel Bailey, 
Professor Bayley Balfour, etc., during the last few years, I cannot 
but believe, and the only question is, ‘ Will proprietors of wood- 
lands do their share in promoting economic forestry?” for upon them 
depends everything, not so much as regards actual operations, as 
the principles and motives which underlie them. How this aspect 
of the case affects the question, I have already tried to make clear, 
