THE CENTRAL FOREST AUTHORITY, 1 59 



Mr Stebbing. — "I would modify my amendment by simply 

 saying matters should be left as they are instead of passing 

 the resolution which is before the meeting." 



The Chairman. — "Then you move the previous question, a 

 direct negative." 



Mr A. D. Richardson. — "Colonel Stirling and Colonel Balfour 

 spoke of the French service. In the United States of America, 

 where the woodland area is, I think, twice the area of the 

 French one, the whole thing is administered by a Central 

 Authority. The American service was, up to the year 1905, 

 worked in connection with the Department of Agriculture, but 

 it was found that it was so difficult to carry on forestry in 

 conjunction with agriculture that the whole thing was divorced 

 from it, and now forestry is entirely administered by a Central 

 Authority, and it is only in those states where the bulk of the 

 land is agricultural, that forestry education is carried on along 

 with agricultural education. In the main forestry states, the 

 educational part is divorced entirely from agriculture. That 

 is now the only connection between agriculture and forestry in 

 the United States. Each state has its own organisation, a 

 Central Authority controlling the whole, and I understand 

 that the scheme which the Reconstruction Committee have 

 recommended is on all fours with that — to have a Central 

 Authority for the United Kingdom, and each of the kingdoms 

 to have its own administration. That is my reading of this 

 report. But the most essential thing is that forestry should 

 have a fund of its own. It should be administered by a 

 Central Authority without any interference whatever from any 

 other body. The difficulty just now is that nothing can be 

 done because we have several bodies working at cross-purposes, 

 and as for the Board of Agriculture for Scotland, I think the 

 sooner we get away from it the better. Whitehall was never 

 mentioned by this Society in connection with control until we 

 went as a deputation to Mr Munro, when the question was put 

 to the President — Would we rather have a Central Authority in 

 Whitehall than an authority in Edinburgh, to which of course 

 we said yes. That was a choice of one of two things, but we 

 are not thereby committed to Whitehall. What we want is 

 a Central Authority, and, as the chairman said, we might have 

 that Central Authority anywhere. I do not think it matters 

 where it is so long as we get it. I have pleasure in supporting 



