the chemical products from the destructive distillation of wood form a handsome source of revenue in themselves. The reserve stock of timber thus secured may serve the wants of generations. I do not think it relevant to say that such a mode might be all very fine for India, or France, or Germany, or Great Britain, but it would not pay in Australia. I say, give it a trial and see. "It wouldn't pay" is too often the cry of ignorance and sheer laziness.
The usual Australian mode, as my readers must know, is to cut and slash and burn indiscriminately everything, and very often the timber that goes to build the settler's habitation has to be bought actually from some foreign importation. Surely in this vaunted age of enlightenment and utilitarianism such methods are worse than imbecile—they are sinful.
I have heard it said that "there are three things in this world which deserve no quarter: Hypocrisy, Pharisaism, and tyranny." To these I would add a fourth, "waste."
Instances might be indefinitely multiplied. Is a paling post wanted, or a log for a culvert, or a rail to stop a gap, the nearest forest king is straightway hacked down, leaving frequently three or four feet of the very primest stuff in the ground. One length is cut up, and possibly as much precious material left wantonly to rot as would suffice almost to keep a family for a month under better management.
It is true a few faint, but none the less laudable,
