CANADIAN FORESTRY ASSOCIATION 63 



In 1840 the system was described to be as follows : The person desiring to cut 

 applied in the summer or autumn, stating quantity desired to be cut. A license was 

 issued ; the licensee paid 25 per cent of the dues on the quantity applied for in advance 

 and entered into a bond to pay the balance when the timber came out. When the 

 timber reached Bytown, the following season, it was measured and went on to Quebec. 

 The parties applied for a license for only a small quantity so as to keep down the ad- 

 vance payment, but in practice they cut as much as they pleased. The dues were 

 finally paid at Quebec on all the timber they took out. 



We now come to the period of responsible government, and the union of the Pro- 

 vinces of Upper and Lower Canada, which brought about a closer guardianship of the 

 natural wealth of the country. The union took effect on the 10th February, 1841. 

 A year later instructions were issued by the Hon. John Davidson, Commissioner of 

 Crown Lands. They were intended to secure greater strictness in suppression and to 

 introduce the principle among lumbermen. These instructions are dated the 30th 

 March, 1842. Under them licenses could be issued at the former rates. The licenses 

 were to be for a fixed period, at the expiration of which they were to absolutely cease 

 and determine. The former licensee could get a new license for the same territory 

 provided he came forward and applied before the 1st August. Provision was made 

 for sale by public auction, in cases where there were conflicting applications. No 

 greater extent than ten miles was to be licensed to one person; 5,000 cubic feet of 

 timber per mile had to be made annually. 



On the 24th June, 1846, new regulations were made. Under these new limits must 

 not exceed 5x5 miles; current licenses to be renewed for three seasons, after which 

 they were to be curtailed to 5 x 5 miles, but existing licensees might select the par- 

 ticular part of their limits they desired to keep. Licenses not applied for before the 

 15th August were to be put up for sale on the 1st September following, as well as any 

 other berths for which more than one application had been received, and sold to the 

 highest bidder. Here again we have the principle of a public sale, although one would 

 say that fifteen days was a very short period in which to make an examination. The 

 quantity of timber to be taken out in each mile was reduced from 5,000 feet to 1,000 

 feet, and, after the 1st September, limits were to be granted to the .first applicant 

 complying with the conditions of sale. Parties applying for territory or unexplored 

 limits were- to furnish a sketch by a sworn surveyor, describing the territory and tie- 

 ing it to some known point. If the sketch was afterwards found to be incorrect the 

 license could be declared null and void. In order to induce the lumbermen to keep a 

 close eye on one another, provision was made that a forfeited limit was to be licensed 

 to the party giving information as to the non-fulfilment of the conditions of the 

 license, and failing the application of the informer, then to the next applicant. These 

 instructions also specifically declared that licenses were not transferable and that any 

 attempt to transfer them would entail forfeiture. Applicants had also to declare who 

 were associated with them in the application. 



Two months later, on the 14th August, 1846, other regulations were published. 

 The only important change made by these regulations was that limit-holders might 

 transfer their limits with the sanction of the Department of Crown Lands, a pro- 

 vision that has come down to our own time, and the quantity of timber to be cut each 

 year per mile was reduced from 1,000 feet to 500 feet. 



In 1849 a Select Committee of the House was appointed to consider the ran 

 depression in the lumber trade, and suggest a remedy. This committee made two 

 reports in which they stated that the depression was caused by over-production, which 

 was stimulated by the uncertain tenure of licenses, and the threatened subdivision 

 of the licenses already granted. Also that provisions requiring a certain quantity to 

 be produced, without respect to the state of the markets, had a bad effect, and that 

 the want of any decisive action by the department with respect to disputed boundaries 

 was demoralizing. The uncertainty of the tenure and the disputed boundaries caused 

 great trouble. Wealthy lumbermen who had the advantage of large numbers of men, 



