NOTES AND QUERIES. I j i 



" It is necessary to repeat, as often as this condition appears in 

 the terms, that it is fatal to the development of afforestation in 

 Scotland on any considerable scale — unless indeed afforestation 

 is to be developed by the forfeiture of the elementary rights of 

 individuals. 



" So far we have been on ground familiar to the point of 

 weariness. We are now told that the eventual division of the 

 proceeds between the Board and the landowner is to be governed 

 by the proportion existing between the sum provided by the 

 Government for afforestation and the rental value of the land — 

 and that applications from landowners should specify present 

 rental values and public and parish burdens. 



" Now the crux of afforestation is the discovery of the fair share 

 of the whole rental and burdens to be borne by the afforested 

 part of any area. The refusal of the Board to consider the 

 question of compensation for loss of rental makes the question 

 for the moment an academic one — but it must be kept steadily 

 in view if any generally applicable solution of the afforestation 

 problem is to be found, and it is only right to welcome the first 

 sign of a wish on the part of the Board to examine this vital 

 question of rental and burdens. 



" After this ray of light, we return to darkness ; there is a very 

 significant omission from the Board's scheme, so important that 

 it can hardly be due to carelessness. The Board ignores entirely 

 the silvicultural value of the land. On the face of the proposals, 

 the landowner will receive no more for the best larch land, as 

 such, than for land only suitable for Scots pine. He will of 

 course receive a larger sum from his share of the more valuable 

 crop, but the Board's proposal ignores the owner's right to the 

 silvicultural value of the land. Under the scheme as it stands 

 the landowner who can afford it would be well advised to plant 

 his better forest soil for himself, and leave the doubtful and bad 

 to be dealt with by the Board. 



" It is to be feared that these proposals will not greatly further 

 the cause of afforestation, since they are only applicable, on the 

 one hand, to land at present producing no rent, and, on the other, 

 to landowners to whom the loss of rental involved in acceptino- 

 them is no serious objection. In the present time of war, the 

 loss of any opportunity of benefiting a part of the country largely 

 deprived of its wage-earners, gives cause for deep regret. Planting 

 is capable of giving a great deal of employment to women and 



