8oo The Journal of Forestry. 



iu first as noble names, usually associated with lauded possessions or 



noble offices ; and an authority says, " Of these ancient patronymics, probably 



the mo8\ ancient one which has descended unchanged to the present time is 



that ofDu Bois," and that the only other of equal antiquity in the records 



of the Imperial (or IS^ational) Library of France is Pierrepont, the first 



being the *' Grand Masters of the Forests of France," and the other the 



" Grand Masters of the Waters of France." In early times the forests 



were the king's, and so was the game, which was so carefully preserved 



that it has been said that " to kill a king's deer was a greater oflfenee than 



to kill a king's subject." He could grant a forest to a subject, as was 



often done, but this grant did not carry ownership as we now understand 



that title, but merely " all the Deere and game are included, but nothing 



else." Even more, where private ownership of lands was recognised, the 



same authority I have been quoting (Manwood, 1598) says that " the lawes 



of the Forrest do restraine euery man from cutting doune of his woods 



within his own freehold in the Forrest." What wood was to be cut or 



gathered, where it was to bo cut, by whom and in what manner it was to 



be cut, were regulated by the most elaborate and stringent legal enactments. 



To be sure the game was the most important part legally. Manwood says, "As 



a Forrest hauing neither beast of Venerie, nor beast of Chase in it, is no 



Forrest at all, but a void and unproffitable peece of ground," yet the wood 



was cared for as already mentioned. The rert in the above quotations is 



defined by the same legal authority to be all the trees and underwood, and 



all the vegetation which could harbour, shelter, and comfort the game, so 



that later English law came to consider it as meaning " everything that 



grows and bears a green leaf within the forest." All this was protected by 



law, administered by numerous officers. 



However curious it might be to follow this up, or interesting to you to 

 liear further extrcats from the quaint old volume, time forbids further 

 notice. I have introduced it to show and illustrate how useless is much 

 of the complaint that we hear made against Americans for their destruc- 

 tion of woods and woodlands, fcr in all the countries of Europe, despite 

 the legal restrictions, the numerous officers to protect woods, and the 

 careful administration of the laws, the forests dwindled just as ours have, 

 uatil their present needs must be largely met by artificial planting. If 

 their forests were destroyed despite all the care and preservative enact- 

 ments, it is surely not wonderful that a similar or even worse destruction 

 goes on here, where such restraints are almost unknown. 



During the century following our first settlement, the eastern United 

 States were colonized by representatives of several European countries, who 

 brought their traditions and customs, and, to a certain extent, their laws. 

 The laws relating to lands were essentially those of the various mother 

 countries; but as regards the character of tlic woodlands, the New AYorld 

 differed greatly from the Old. There, the forests were not so heavy, and 

 were composed of but ^^iw si)ecies of trees, (Jreat Britain having only 

 twenty-nine indigenous species, France but thirty-three or thirty four, and 

 all Turope west of Paissia sea reel v fife v. fiat iti tlic American colniiics 



