THE SOCIETY S ANNUAL MEETING. 7 1 



the question of re-planting the areas which are now being 

 stripped. I have referred to the large demand that there has 

 been for timber for industrial purposes, and now that the 

 Government has come into the market, and is dealing directly 

 with landowners, the area which is likely to be cleared is certain 

 to be very much larger. There is reason to fear that some of 

 these areas, or many of them, might not be re-planted, and the 

 question arises whether something ought not to be done to 

 avoid such a misfortune. It is a question in which this Society 

 cannot help taking a very keen interest. When we urge the creation 

 of new areas of forest we cannot remain indifferent to the destruc- 

 tion of old ones. I have noticed amongst the members of our 

 Society lately a growing feeling in favour of compelling landlords 

 to re-plant areas which are being cleared. Well, I think there is 

 a good deal to be said for it. Re-planting is certainly a moral 

 duty, and compulsion is a word which does not frighten us 

 to-day in the way that it used to do. And if compulsion is to 

 be adopted, there could hardly be a more suitable time than 

 this, when so much timber is being cut down, and when such 

 good prices are being obtained for it. 



'■■ At the same time, it seems to me that if the Government 

 begins to compel individuals to fulfil a duty of this kind, 

 it ought to have a good record of its own. Or at least, it 

 ought to make it clear that the record is going to be 

 a good one in the future. My own personal feeling is 

 this, I should not object to compulsion on principle, I should 

 only object to it if it were to be used as a means of fastening 

 upon landowners alone a task which the Government ought to 

 share with them. I should like to feel sure that the Govern- 

 ment would not consider the compulsion of landowners as 

 absolving them from the necessity of doing anything more 

 themselves. There are countries on the Continent, we are 

 told, where this compulsion already exists, but then in those 

 countries forestry has always been a national business. The 

 State is the chief owner of forests. It runs them for the benefit 

 of the nation, and when it compels private owners to maintain 

 their woodlands undiminished, it is only compelling them to do 

 what it has always done itself. But that is not the case here. 

 In this country the Government has shown very little interest 

 indeed in forestry, and only quite recently, after thirty years or 

 more of preaching by this Society and kindred societies, it has at 



