CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION. 4 1 



Your No. 3 has been dealt with in my letter of 31st May. 



Vour No. 4 is self-evident, and therefore was not alluded 

 to. 



Your Xo. 5 is also self-evident as regards taking over the 

 standing crop. If the landowner resumes the land and will not 

 purchase the standing crop, he is precluded from interference 

 with it. In my experience divided ownership of soil and forest 

 is not to the advantage of the landowner. Further, the terms of 

 the renewal of the lease would be necessary for consideration 

 towards its close. But the owner could not claim to raise the 

 rental as well as to receive " afforestation value." He might 

 find it more to his taste to take increased "afforestation value" 

 in terms of percentage of increased profits. 



I hope you will now be able to give the information asked for 

 in my letter of 31st May. — Yours sincerely, 



S. Eardlev Wilmot. 



The Warren, Bkamley, 



SuRRKV, iqth/iiiie 1916. 

 4. Dear Galloway, 



In reference to correspondence ending with my letter of 

 7th June, I learn that during the course of the next few 

 weeks the Development Commissioners will forward their 

 proposals for afforestation and land reclamation to the 

 Reconstruction Committee. 



Any information which you may feel inclined to impart in 

 regard to the subject of that correspondence would seem, 

 therefore, to be of special value at this time. — Yours very truly, 



S. Eardley Wilmot. 



19 Castle Strket, 

 EiH.NiiURGH, 20/ h /line 1916. 

 5. Dear Sir, 



I have received your letter of yesterday's date. I hope to 



reply further to your last letter in the beginning of next week, 



but meantime I have been unable to take up the few points 



which are still obscure. — Yours very truly, 



R. Galloway. 



Sir S. Eardley Wilmot. 



