THE CENTRAL FOREST AUTHORITY. 1 57 



and be worse off than before. What we want to do is to get 

 on with the planting of trees. If we vote our power away to 

 some Central Authority the money will go to Ireland and 

 England, and we will get none at all. That is always what 

 happens. Ireland gets everything, but Scotland gets nothing. 

 This motion of Sir Hugh Shaw-Stewart's wants one amendment, 

 namely, that if there is a Central Authority in London, there 

 ought to be in Scotland and Ireland branches such as there are 

 in France." 



Sir Hugh Shaw-Stewart.—" That is understood." 

 Mr Cadell. — " It is not conveyed in the motion," 

 Sir John Stirling-Maxwell. — "This motion contains nothing 

 relating to the executive powers in the three kingdoms, but 

 it has always been assumed that the actual carrying out of 

 forestry must be done locally. There is no question about that. 

 The motion, with which I entirely sympathise, does not commit 

 this Society to deciding whether the Board of Agriculture, 

 of whose activity Mr Stebbing has just now spoken, or some 

 other new body should be the executive body in Scotland. That 

 matter, which is very controversial, and, I may add, also very 

 difficult, is left undecided by this motion, and we are merely 

 recording our opinion that any great national departure like 

 a scheme of afforestation, instead of being divided into three 

 water-tight compartments, should concentrate all the skill we 

 can find to direct the whole movement. That is the sense 

 of the motion. I was very much struck by the spirit in which 

 the mover of the first amendment put his amendment, and 

 also by the way it was seconded. What struck me was that 

 neither was defending the old regime from which we all wish 

 to escape. They admitted, as any sensible person must admit, 

 that our administration in forestry has been a total failure. They 

 wish to get away from the past too. I would commend this 

 to their attention. I do not stand here with the object of 

 criticising the Board of Agriculture in Scotland, but I do appeal 

 to anyone who has watched that Board and knows how things 

 liave developed in this country, whether that Board is not, 

 compared to the corresponding Board in England, a very small 

 and a very powerless thing. The English Board, working with 

 a larger staff on a larger scale, with more power of research, 

 and with a larger number of experts attached to it, is doing 

 work far wider in scope than anything our Board here can 



