196 A. G. HAMILTON. 
Many observers competent to form an opinion on the subject, 
agree with Mr. Moore that deforesting does not lessen rainfall. 
The New South Wales Government Astronomer, Mr. H. C. 
Russell, who has devoted much attention to the subject, and is 
certainly specially qualified to form an opinion thinks that the 
trees are the result of rain, and not the rain the result of the trees. 
Mr. Russell gives a comparison between the records of a gauge 
in densely timbered country, and of a number in a circle in open 
conntry round about. His summary is as follows :—‘‘ In 1887, 
therefore, the forest station had 6:26 inches less than the average 
for the district ; in 1888, again 3-79 inches less than the average 
for the district; and in 1889, again 2:24 inches less; again in 
1890 it was 3:03 inches less than the average for the district.”* 
Although a single set of observations like this cannot be taken 
as conclusive, yet it adds greatly to the probability of the theory 
that forests do not increase rainfall. 
Dr. Draper in an article on the subject in the Scientific American 
supplement for January 3rd, 1880, is satisfied that deforesting 
does not lessen the fall of rain. He bases his opinion on the 
records of rainfall in the Eastern States of America (an area 
probably more cleared than any other in the world) and demon- 
strates that there has been no alteration of any moment in either 
the annual amount of rain or in temperature. And he corrobor- 
ates this evidence by a consideration of the meteorological records 
of Paris, which show a slight increase in the amount of rain, but 
with oscillations either way. These records embraced at that time 
a period of one hundred and ninety years, and are probably the 
most extended series of observations in existence. It is rather 
strange that an opinion exactly opposite should be based on the 
same set of records—I take them to be the same—in the passage 
before quoted from Petermann’s Mittheilungen. 
Mr. W. E. Abbott, in a paper which I shall have further occasion 
to quote, remarks, ‘‘ Indeed it is hard to understand how any 
* On Results of Rain, River and Evaporation Observations made in 
New South Wales during 1890, [1892] p. 4. 
