FORESTRY IN BRITAIN, 69 
subjects so essentially based on science as does the Board of Agri- 
culture, should not have on its staff scientific men representative of 
the fields of science within its purview. But I do not know that 
either agriculture or forestry is so represented. It seems odd that 
this Board should be dependent for scientific advice upon outsiders ; 
and now that it proposes to undertake the responsibility of the 
publication of a journal which, I take it, will be a means for the 
circulation of accurate information upon scientific questions, I do 
not see how its functions can be adequately performed without 
scientific help from within. No one of us would expect to see, 
either to-day or to-morrow, in this country a Board of Agriculture 
with an organisation like that of the similar department in the 
United States, which excites our admiration by the excellence of 
the practical information it circulates. But there is a wide interval 
between the completeness of the American department and the 
incompleteness of ours; and if I may make another suggestion to 
the President of the Board of Agriculture, I would ask him to 
consider whether it would not strengthen the Board in the dis- 
charge of its rapidly growing functions if it had competent scientific 
advisers upon its staff. Such a man for forestry would, I believe, 
do much for ‘‘the increase of sound technical knowledge” in 
Britain, and promote to no little extent its interests. 
Since 1887 we have made some advance along the lines of 
improved literature and of teaching pointed out by the Select 
Committee as those by which reform could be accomplished. 
If one looks at the literature available up to a recent period to 
anyone desirous of learning something about forestry, one need 
feel little surprise at the ignorance which prevailed. It was alike 
meagre in amount and deficient in quality, consisting chiefly of the 
records of empirical practice of men who had had no scientific 
training. It is satisfactory to note that these are now being 
replaced by works having some pretension to scientific method and 
accuracy. From Coopers Hill there is issuing, more slowly than 
could be wished, Professor Schlich’s excellent “‘ Manual of Forestry,” 
and from his colleague Professor Fisher we may, I believe, soon 
expect an important forestry book. You all know Professor 
Marshall Ward’s lucid little books on timber and _plant-diseases, 
and we are promised immediately, under his editorship, a translation 
of Hartig’s ‘‘ Diseases of Trees,” by Professor Somerville. A most 
valuable and interesting contribution to forestry literature is the 
book by Dr Nisbet, recently issued from the Clarendon Press, 
