82 FORESTRY IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS. [June 



FORESTRY IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS. 



BY A VISITOR OX THE 15TH ULT. 



ALTHOUGH np till the last moment the course of business 

 appeared to presage another postponement of Sir John 

 Lubbock's motion, still the Hon. Baronet was fortunate to introduce 

 an animated discussion in a fairly full House. The motion was for 

 the appointment of a committee to consider whether, by the estab- 

 lishment of a Forest School, our woodlands could be rendered more 

 remunerative. Sir John briefly, though emphatically, spoke of the 

 opportune character of the present time for this, now that the head 

 of the Indian Forest Service is at present in this country to aid the 

 India Of&ce in completing educational arrangements for his future 

 officers. Dr. Lyons seconded the motion, adducing appropriate 

 statistics on timber supply, advocating the supercession in many 

 localities of tillage by arboriculture, and showing the disadvantages 

 of a foreign training to Government forest service aspirants. On 

 Sir Flerbert Maxwell concluding a speech in support of the motion, 

 by a somewhat amusing reference to the Prime Minister's tree- 

 felling propensities, the latter exhibited the enthusiasm of the old 

 man eloquent on this subject in a speech delivered with much vivacity. 

 The Government, he said, would willingly accept the motion, but 

 it must be clearly understood that they would not be committed 

 thereby, in the slightest, as regards a grant for a School of Forestry 

 in this country. Mr. Gladstone stated that there were two objec- 

 tions to that : the first, that we, in this country, do not depend so 

 much on State aid as do our continental neighbours ; and secondly, 

 that there was not the same field for the practice of forestry in this 

 as in other countries. In dealing with some of the favourable 

 arguments, the Premier laid stress on the fact that although land 

 agents were usually a very intelligent set of men, there were very 

 few who had any knowledge of forestry. He also dwelt on the 

 fact ^ that landed proprietors lose a vast amount of money by not 

 cutting their timber, and that whereas, in some parts of the country, 

 there were men who could cut down trees beautifully and skilfully, 

 there were other parts where there was the grossest ignorance on 

 this score. (Surely Hawarden was not before the speaker's mind's 

 eye.) ^ Sir W. Barttelot followed in behalf of the motion, showing 

 that m his district the systematic growth of underwood provided 

 remunerative occupation for the poorer classes, at a time of year 

 when work was scarce. Sir George Campbell, in supporting the 



