AFFORESTATION. 171 



even now facilities for theoretical training are few and superficial, 

 and there are no object-lessons in silviculture, save those due to 

 individual experiments. We have to set up a true standard of 

 excellence in silviculture before we can either improve existing 

 woodlands by State or private enterprise, or rightly afforest the 

 waste partially-utilised land suited to timber. Until we have 

 such a standard we need not expect to have any successful 

 silviculture carried on by owner, corporation, or State. 



In my country there ought probably to be the same area 

 under silviculture as under agriculture, or about 4^ million 

 acres, but without a survey the areas available in that or any 

 other part of the United Kingdom are mere guess work. All 

 that is certain is, that several million acres in the United 

 Kingdom now under heather or rough pasture are eminently 

 suited to aff'orestation, and that there is no reason why our 

 silviculture should not, like our agriculture, be the finest in 

 Europe instead of the worst. Actual facts suggest action on 

 a large scale by the State. It is to be noted, however, that 

 eminent authorities maintain either that afforestation, like any 

 other business, is best left entirely to private enterprise, or else 

 that it could best be developed by State loan, applied under 

 State supervision and control, the owner pooling his land, and 

 the State the costs of stocking, the profits being allocated so 

 as to remunerate both parties. Purely State Afforestation is 

 objected to on the grounds that the Nation is embarking on an 

 immense speculation, with which it is traditionally and other- 

 wise unfitted to cope ; that State employees would be immensely 

 increased, and that they have given rise to enough trouble and 

 corruption already in many constituencies ; that the position in 

 France to-day, in this respect, is not one to emulate. To the 

 nationalisation of many undertakings these objections would 

 apply, but the advantages the State has in dealing with 

 silviculture are wholly exceptional, and sufficient to outweigh 

 the disadvantages. The State can provide a management that 

 never dies over operations covering a century or even two. It 

 can afford to have its capital locked up for this lengthy period ; 

 while on the other hand, the area to be dealt with is so large 

 that it must be developed on right lines, and under one general 

 scheme, so as ultimately to secure a definite and certain supply 

 of timber in view of a probable shortage in the world's output. 

 From the commercial point of view, a patch of one kind of timber 



