60 TRANSACTIONS OF ROYAL SCOTTISH ARBORICULTURAL SOCIETY. 
true forest, whilst a large part of the area included in the British 
return is merely pleasure ground, and another large portion is only 
plantation; of real forest the area is extremely limited. It is not 
surprising, then, that we are not able to furnish ourselves with 
an adequate supply of timber. But although there is so little 
land under wood, there are thousands of acres unsuited for any 
other crop, and these, for reasons I have already indicated, it is 
desirable to have planted. Hew to have this accomplished, and 
how to secure that woodlands already existing shall be tended so 
as to produce a maximum result, giving a profitable return, are 
the problems we wish to see solved. 
It will conduce to appreciation of the question if I briefly discuss 
the causes which have been active in developing the present con- 
dition of woedlands in Britain, and in bringing about the disparity 
between it and other countries in respect of woodland area. 
State ownership of Continental forests will probably occur to 
most people as the reason for the difference in area just pointed 
out. This is true, with, however, some qualification. In con- 
sequence of the circumstances of their situation, Continental States 
have been compelled to recognise the national economic importance 
of forests. This they have done, not so much by the creation of 
State ownership in vast forests as by the organisation of a State 
department of forestry and a State system of forestry education. 
It is altogether a mistake to suppose, as is often the case, that the 
whole or even a large part of the forests on the Continent belong 
to the respective States. The amount of State-owned forest is 
surprisingly small. Fernow gives it in Germany as about 33 per 
cent. of the whole forest area; in Scandinavia 15 to 20 per cent., 
in France some 10 per cent., in Switzerland 4 per cent., whilst in 
Italy it is not 2 per cent. The bulk of the forest is in the hands 
of private owners or corporate bodies, subject, though apparently not 
always, to some control or limitation by the State. But the 
example of the States in the management of their own woods, their 
readiness to give advice through their officials, and the education 
which is carefully provided for those concerned in forestry work, 
have resulted in those privately-owned forests being as well 
managed as those of the State. It is important to make clear this 
distinction, because it shows that a State system of conservancy 
and supervision of forestry is quite compatible with large private 
ownership in forests, and that efficient sylviculture upon a large 
scale is not inseparable from State ownership. 
