CORRESPONDING SOCIETIES 415 
How much, then, would it be reasonable to expect that the British 
Nation, acting through its Government, should set aside annually with 
a view to securing the benefits of a National Park system to its own posterity 
during the illimitable future ? The answer will not affect our decision as 
to the area which would be reasonably sufficient, but it will affect the time 
which must elapse before that area can be brought into full usefulness. 
It is admittedly difficult to fix a definite figure for expenditure in a new 
enterprise. ‘The Parliamentary Committee of 1931 hesitated between a 
Government expenditure of £10,000 and £100,000 per annum, with a 
leaning towards the higher figure. The wide divergence between these 
two figures seems to indicate that neither was founded upon a reasoned 
basis. Perhaps the best that can be done is once more to endeavour to 
profit by the experience of other countries in which the enterprise is no 
longer new, studying their figures with suitable modifications for economic 
differences. 
You will, I fear, not tolerate the Canadian practice in this matter. In 
the financial year 1932-33 Canada expended $1,100,000 on her National 
Parks. According to reputable statistics the national wealth of Britain 
is about 44 times that of Canada. On the Canadian standard, therefore, 
we should be prepared to spend $5,000,000, say £1,000,000 annually for 
National Park purposes. 
Personally, I think that for a nation with an annual income of £3/4,000 
million, this expenditure would be not unreasonable. But I fear that even 
in this meeting I should find little support for such views. 
Let us turn therefore to the United States. 
The United States has had over sixty years of experience of National 
Parks. During this period there have been trying times, and several 
changes of government; but public opinion has never wavered in its 
support of National Parks. The annual appropriations by Congress for 
their maintenance and development have risen from $784,567 in 1917, 
when the Parks were taken over from the several States by the Federal 
Government, to $10,640,620 in 1933. The total for these seventeen years is 
$72,304,000. ‘This by no means represents the whole cost of their National 
Parks to the American people; many millions of dollars have been 
subscribed for Park purposes by private individuals and by the State 
_ Legislatures ; but it does represent the whole cash contribution of the 
Central U.S. Government to the Parks during these seventeen years, and it 
is Government contributions with which we are at present concerned. The 
average annual outlay has been $4,253,000, equivalent at par exchange 
to £880,000. 
This figure also must be modified to allow for economic differences. 
At least two different sets of figures with authoritative support point to 
the conclusion that the total wealth of Britain is about one-third of that of 
the United States. American experience suggests therefore that for 
Britain an average expenditure of £300,000 per annum would not be 
excessive. ‘This is very nearly the sum originally allowed to the Forestry 
Commission—another new State enterprise having many points of affinity 
with a National Park Service. On the strength of that precedent, coupled 
with the analogies already adduced, I hold that we should claim for our 
National Park Service, provision equal to that originally made for our 
National Forest Service, namely an annual grant of £350,000. 
To bring this claim into true perspective within the national economy 
it is desirable to recall such facts as these :— 
1. Since the War the beet sugar industry has received grants totalling 
over £40 million. 
