DISCUSSION ON REPORT OF FORESTRY SUB-COMMITTEE. 1 43 



scheme of a Central Authority do not express ourselves to-day 

 our opportunity will be gone. Let those who agree with the 

 view that there should be a supreme directing forest authority 

 for these three kingdoms make that clear to-day, especially in 

 view of the interpolation of one of the Development Commissioners 

 this morning, Sir William Haldane. I am sorry he appears to 

 think the matter implies something personal to himself as a 

 Development Commissioner, It is not that. What we complain 

 of is that the only funds from which the Board of Agriculture 

 can help us are the funds administered by these Development 

 Commissioners. It is not their fault that they are not 

 expert foresters. They were not placed there for that. It is 

 not their fault that they do not give the Board of Agriculture 

 as much money as they would like to give. They have to 

 watch over those funds for the purposes of education and a 

 heap of other things. It is not in their power to see that 

 sufficient funds are set aside for the demands of the Board of 

 Agriculture for forestry, and therefore it is really not a personal 

 matter. But we want a directing authority for forestry purposes. 

 Let that authority act through the Boards in England, Scotland, 

 and Ireland. But the directing authority should be independent 

 of these Boards so far as direction of plans goes. 



" Lord Lovat has summed the matter up very well in his 

 Minority Report. (I do not know if it is generally known that 

 this Blue Book containing the report can be obtained for is. 

 through any bookseller, and I advise people to get it.^) The 

 first reason Lord Lovat gives for insisting on the importance of 

 a Central Authority is to make a definite break with the past, to 

 get out of the welter of conflicting authorities, and to escape 

 from the arena of party politics, Royal Commissions, and 

 amateur inquiries. It is to emphasise the view that Lord 

 Lovat has so clearly put before us, that those of us who 

 think in that way should take this opportunity of saying 

 so, and saying that we ought not to be content with anything 

 less." 



The Resolution was then put to the meeting and carried 

 unanimously. 



Sir Hugh Shaw-Stewart suggested that the emphasis laid on 

 the Central Authority should be put in the form of a motion, and 

 he proposed that they express the opinion that the only way 

 ^ See Transactions^ Vol. xxxii., Part i, p. 97. — Hon. Ed. 



