74 DISCUSSION. 



Mr. Gipps : — I said in the light stratum just above the forest, 

 not in the forest. 



Mr. Abbott, in reply, said : — I have not much to add to what 

 I have written in my paper. I regret a little I did not quote 

 more largely in the paper from a paper I read some seven or eight 

 years back. I referred to the paper, but did not give the 

 particulars there given. It is now about twenty years since 

 ring-barking began on the piece of country I referred to in the 

 paper. Then after ten years had elapsed, and the springs had 

 remained permanent during that time, I made measurements of 

 the water flowing in the creeks where it had been dry before, and 

 those measurements gave a very large flow of water where there 

 had been no water at all, proving that all the water thus measured 

 was water that would not have been there at all except for some 

 change, and the only change I knew was the ring-barking of the 

 forests that had been destroyed. I waited then for eight years 

 more, after some very severe droughts had occurred in this and 

 other Colonies. I found these springs were not affected. They 

 still continued to flow. I think that proves that Mr. G-ipps' 

 theory that the ring-barking alters the barometrical pressure over 

 the country must be wrong, because a barometer does not remain 

 permanently raised or lowered. If the springs were affected by 

 the rise and fall of the barometer they would stop or flow. But 

 they are not affected — the water has a regular flow. In the paper 

 I read some seven or eight years ago for this Society, I referred 

 to some observations by Professor Draper. He was the President 

 of the Observatory at New York. Questions were put to him by 

 I think the Legislature of New York for the purpose of settling 

 whether the cutting down of the forests would cause a diminution 

 in the water supply to the city of New York. Professor Draper, 

 who was I believe a very eminent scientist in America (I suppose 

 he was the most capable man they could find), examined into the 

 matter with reference to the rainfall where records were kept in 

 the Atlantic States of America, these records extending over 

 nearly 100 years I think. He also took the records in Paris 

 extending over nearly 200 years. The conclusion he communicated 

 to those who put the question was, that the destruction of forests 

 had not in any way affected the rainfall. He showed in his 

 report that neither the temperature of the Atlantic States of 

 America nor the rainfall had altered in any appreciable degree 

 during the last century. I think that opinion is as good as any 

 we are likely to get now. As to another matter raised in this 

 discussion : the difference in the rainfall in forests and the open 

 country. I have seen it stated that the temperature was lower 

 in the forest, and therefore it must condense the moisture. It 

 has always seemed to me that if the temperature is lower in the 



