CONTINKNTAL NOTES— FRANCE. 59 



The late report dealing with aflforestation in the United 

 Kingdom was severe in relation to private lands to be afforested, 

 recommending expropriation. One feels that expropriation is a 

 very hard measure, and only justifiable for extreme reasons. It 

 goes dead against all one's ideas of personal liberty. It is 

 thought that example is better than precept — and especially 

 precept of a sort that would take a man's woods out of his hands 

 to work them as the State chooses. As mentioned above, 

 M. Broilliard has noticed that the example of State management 

 is followed by private proprietors in France, and the same thing 

 is seen in India. As to afforestation by private owners, perhaps 

 the new Budget arrangements as to taxing undeveloped land 

 may induce afforestation of bare land, but inasmuch as afforesta- 

 tion amounts to a public benefit, and is not carried out without 

 some sacrifice, in view of the long years that have to pass before 

 any financial return is obtainable, it would be but just to give 

 the public benefactor some direct help also — say by remitting 

 taxes during the period of waiting. Once the forest is made, 

 and worked in a regular sequence of crops, it reaches the same 

 position as agricultural land, and should no doubt be taxed in a 

 similar manner — but till that condition is established it is not 

 fair to tax it. If the private proprietor himself asked the State 

 to take over his woods and place them under the "regime 

 forestier,'' let the State be ready to undertake the task, having its 

 expenses refunded. The American forest service has strongly 

 taken up a line of this kind, and in France the forest associations 

 help with expert advice. On the Continent, although private 

 proprietors are not bound to submit their woods to Government 

 control, all parishes and public establishments .must do so. 

 This rule appears to be very general among continental nations ; 

 nor would sentiments of liberty be so much affected by thus 

 treating British municipal woods as they would in the case of 

 private properties. Our small parishes do not own woodland 

 nor, very often, land suitable for afforestation, and it is thought 

 that wealthy municipalities might be trusted to work their 

 woods wisely, provided always that Government forests were in 

 existence to afford an example. 



Government then, one would think, should most certainly buy 

 woodland and waste lands for afforestation, steadily year by 

 year, and should also be ready to help private effort, but let 

 us keep clear of annoying interference with private properties. 



