RELATION OF FORESTRY TO AGRICULTURE, ETC. 133 



Mr J. H. Milne-Home, Canonbie, said : — " I was exceedingly 

 interested to hear what Mr Gammell has said, especially the 

 figures which he gave regarding the amount of labour which 

 can be employed per acre in forestry work. I have worked out 

 to some extent similar figures, and putting them side by side 

 with those of Mr Gammell, they give almost identical results, 

 los. to 1 28, an acre is by no means an excessive amount to 

 pay for labour in woods that are even moderately stocked. 

 I include in this sum all ordinary work, fencing, draining, 

 felling and hauling timber, planting, cleaning plants, nursery 

 work, etc. I do not include the labour employed in the 

 manufacture of timber after it reaches the railway or the 

 saw-mill. That would add very largely to the bill. 



" I think there is another point we should also try to keep in 

 mind relating to this question so far as agriculture is concerned. 

 The enthusiastic forester is very apt to want to plant any piece 

 of ground he sees. I confess to having made a mistake in 

 that direction myself. But you have also to look at the 

 question from the farmer's point of view and the national point 

 of view. I hope that in any large scheme that is pushed, either 

 by County Councils or by the Board of Agriculture, every 

 possible endeavour will be made to see that only land which 

 is most suitable in the way of giving the largest increased 

 return will be taken. You have land in the south of Scotland 

 which is at present let for sheep grazing at a rate of from 

 2S. to 5s. per acre. It would be a very great pity, if the 2S. 

 land is worth as much for afforestation as the 5s. land, to take 

 anything but the former, for the reason that the 5s. land is 

 producing more meat and wool at the present time than the 

 lower-rented subject. What we want to get at is to make the 

 country produce the greatest amount of wealth upon the land 

 that we can, whether it is agricultural produce or whether it is 

 timber. By taking the worst agricultural land you do least 

 harm to the farmer and you decrease to the least possible 

 extent the produce of food from that particular area. There is 

 another thing which I think is often lost sight of. There is a 

 great deal of land in the south of Scotland, in that area to which 

 Mr Scott Elliot has referred, which is capable of being made 

 into very fair second-class arable land. It is being let at 

 present at 3s. or 4s. per acre. It is not steep, it is not very 

 high, perhaps 400 feet to 600 feet above the level of the sea, but 



