Now we have the Indian Agriculturist, which seems to speak as if it were well known in that' country, that "the removal of forests has a tendency to increase the rainfall on the area cleared." It, however, thinks that it has not been proved that this "increase always takes place".

Taken in connection with what is offered as "science" on the subject here, it confirms the point we have held from the commencement of the discussion, that there is no relation between the rainfall and the forests, and that in practical forestry it is not worth while to consider the question at all in this connection. All we have to do is to look at it wholly as a matter of timber supply. Will it pay the landholder to plant forests? is the main question. The national question is, as the prosperity of a country depends on a good supply of lumber, how can we make it the interest of the planter to set out forests where it will not pay to do it without national encouragement?