353 Sweden. 



a rather amusing anticipation. These jeremiads, how- 

 ever, after an imsatisfactory attempt at legislation in 

 1793, led in 1798 to the appointment of a commission 

 which reported after 5 years of iavestigation. A new 

 set of forest regulations was enacted as a result in 1805. 



In further prosecution of these attempts at regulating 

 forest use a commissioner. Prof. F. W. Eadloff, was sent 

 to Germany in 1809, to study methods employed in that 

 country. Long before that time, about 1760, some of the 

 iron masters, owning large forest areas had imported a 

 commission of German forest experts (among them von 

 Langen and Zanthier) with a view of systematizing the 

 forest use; but apparently without result. 



After much discussion of Eadloff's report and consul- 

 tation with the provincial governors, who suggested the 

 propriety of different plans for different localities, new 

 legislation was had in 1810, 1818, 1833, and new regu- 

 lations for the crown forests were issued in 1834. 



Yet at this very time not only the partition of the 

 commimal forests but also the sale of town forests^^as 

 ordered; and this policy of dismemberment lasted till 

 1866, over 1 million acres having been sold by that time. 

 Nor was any diminution in wasteful practices to be 

 noted as a result of legislation, and it seems that while 

 on the one hand restrictive policies were discussed and 

 enacted, on the other hand unconservative methods were 

 encouraged. Indeed, in 1846, the then existing restric- 

 tions of the export trade were removed; apparently a 

 reversion of restrictive policy had set in, and exploitation 

 increased, in the belief of inexhaustible supplies. On 

 the other hand, encouragement of reforestation was 

 sought by giving bounties for planting waste land and 



