THE BEECH FORESTS OF HESSE NASSAU. 61 
State official, forcing an unintelligible course of action down the 
throats of the council. He is there as their friendly adviser, 
working for and with the people, considering their interests as 
well as those of the State, which are in reality the same. 
In no less friendly, if responsible, relationship does he stand 
to the private proprietor. He, too, is not at liberty to cut and 
fell his woods as he pleases. Mumm non possessor sed custos 
solum is the motto which may be written on his private property, 
for, so far as his forests are concerned, he is the steward, not the 
irresponsible possessor of his landed revenues. Here I may take 
occasion to observe that the deer and other game which are 
sheltered in the forests are not necessarily the property of the 
lord of the soil. They are exposed to auction, and the proprietor 
may or may not be the successful bidder. He has, at any rate, 
to pay for his shooting, starting on all-fours with any outsider. 
APPLICATION OF THESE PRINCIPLES TO GREAT BRITAIN. 
I may be told, on the one hand, that such a state of matters as 
interference with the sacred rights of a landlord would not be 
tolerated in Great Britain ; and I may be told, on the other hand, 
that there is no money available in the State treasury to assist 
proprietors in the planting of waste land. I do not think there 
is much in either objection. Many of our proprietors, in Scotland 
at any rate, have been accustomed to hold their lands, as it were, 
in trust for their successors. They have willingly embarked on 
“improvements” of which they could not hope to reap the benefits. 
They have not only expended capital on such improvements, but 
they have submitted to a loss of any interest accruing on such 
capital, They have, in a word, although they have not always 
got the credit for it, acted as stewards for their heirs. The other 
objection—“no funds available,” is the familiar cry whenever 
anything not palatable to the powers that be is proposed. It is 
doubtless perfectly right and proper that the expenditure of the 
national funds should be carefully scrutinised, and their disburse- 
ment jealously guarded ; still, they are there for the good of the 
nation, and should be spent in accordance with their expressed 
wishes. I will not here allude more particularly to the Report 
of the Parliamentary Committee on Forestry. This, if it erred 
anywhere, erred on the side of moderation—and it has suffered 
accordingly. I have no data by me which show the actual cost 
