THE NEW FORESTRY. 33 



CHAPTER III. 



PRINCIPAL FEATURES OF THE OLD AND NEW 

 FORESTRY DESCRIBED AND CONTRASTED. 



British Forestry of the past. The New Forestry. Timber Trees 

 of the older British Woods. 



THE title, " New Forestry," is applied here, not because 

 the system to be described is new, either in principle or 

 practice, everywhere, but because it is practically new in Great 

 Britain, as contrasted with the system generally recognised 

 and practised in this country. It is important to understand 

 the difference between these two systems ; and to make the 

 difference clear, and also to justify the title adopted, it will be 

 necessary to describe both systems rather fully. There has 

 been a tendency in some quarters to pooh-pooh the difference 

 between the two, and where the difference has been admitted, 

 it has been attributed to other causes than the right one 

 such as climate and soil, etc. ; but the difference is real enough, 

 and the causes assigned will not bear investigation, as will be 

 shown. Besides, the old system, as it may be named, and as 

 represented by long-acknowledged authorities, is now being 

 condemned in its most important aspects by recognised and 

 competent teachers of forestry, while books on the subject, 

 that have long done duty as guides, have been withdrawn 

 from circulation and others substituted in their place. 



SECTION I. BRITISH FORESTRY PRACTICE OF THE PAST. 



In Great Britain, natural forests, such as exist abroad, 

 have long ceased to be. On the Continent they are still of 

 great extent, and have been the real schools of forestry there, 

 particularly in Germany and France, and the absence of such 

 schools in Britain has, probably, been the reason why the art 

 of true forestry has been lost, and empirical practices set 

 up, which, it is now seen, are wrong, and have been the cause 

 of much loss. Primarily, the causes that have crippled forestry 

 in Britain have been the want of a recognised system of general 

 practice, neglect of working forestry plans, and the absence of 

 anything in the shape of a methodical rotation system. The 

 first has been the cause of much confusion of opinion and 

 practice among foresters ; the second has crippled the manage- 

 3 



