FORESTRY IN BRITAIN, 63 
It is nevertheless frequently urged as a reason for not growing 
timber, that wood will not pay in Britain. A landowner will tell 
you he has acres of land which do not return him more than half- 
a-crown, and if it would pay better he would be glad to put them 
under timber, but he does not believe it would; and he will point 
to rates on woodlands which must be paid although no crop is 
being reaped. He will demonstrate that there is no market for 
home timber, which seldom fetches its value, and that there is a 
prejudice agaiust it which increases the difficulty of any attempt to 
compete with the foreigner. 
There is some reason in the latter part of this contention. The 
wood-grower in Britain has, I think, just cause for complaint when 
he finds his produce not only handicapped by preferential transport 
rates to foreign timber, as has been the case in the past, but that 
it is also disparaged by exclusion from, or admission only under 
stringent conditions to, competition with foreign timber by the terms 
of building specifications. It is said to be the common practice 
of architects and others to debar the use of home timber in this 
way, and the Government itself has not been guiltless in the matter. 
The Post Office form of tender a couple of years ago for telegraph- 
poles entirely cut out native produce from competition, and the 
conditions of contract framed by the Board of Agriculture under 
the Land Improvements Act were until recently almost prohibitive 
to home timber. These latter are now modified, but whether or 
not the Post Office still boycotts home produce I cannot say. 
However it has come about—and there are no doubt various 
effective causes—this undervaluing of home-grown timber is quite 
unreasonable, and the slur cast upon it is undeserved, so far as its 
quality is concerned. At the same time, there is ground for saying 
that the difficulties occasioned in this and other ways, of disposing 
of home timber at remunerative prices, are due to causes not 
altogether beyond the control of landowners who grow timber. 
It is generally admitted that with a more regular and certain 
supply, as well as a larger amount in different districts, home 
timber would have a better chance of holding its own in the market. 
This is just what scientific forestry would bring about. Given a 
systematic cultivation of forest on scientific principles of rotation, 
and the conditions are prepared for a steady output of timber by 
annual cut, as well as for a supply of raw material for utilisation in 
the manufacture of the many subsidiary products derivable from 
forest growth. If landowners would ouly provide such supplies, 
