FORESTRY AND THE NEW FOREST 



those claims had not long concluded its labours. Out of 1,311 claims 

 put in by commoners, no less than 442 had been disallowed altogether, 

 while every single claim that was admitted had to be amended by the 

 commissioners. It was very clear that, in the apportionment to be 

 made, the commoners would not err on the side of moderation as to 

 the share claimed by them. The public became seriously alarmed, and 

 it was evident that the practical loss of the New Forest would never 

 be borne with equanimity. 



This was by no means the first time that the question of dis- 

 affbrestation had come to the fore, owing to the great difficulty of deal- 

 ing with the conflicting interests involved. So great has that difficulty 

 always been that the remedy of a complete separation was one which 

 must have occurred to every person who studied the matter, and it was 

 no wonder that the Lords' committee should have adopted that view. 

 But so long ago as 1789 the commissioners appointed to examine and 

 report upon the condition of the whole of the royal forests and land 

 revenues had considered the question and expressed the view that ' from 

 an attentive personal view of the forest, we are of Opinion that it would 

 be difficult to make such a Division as would admit of convenient and 

 satisfactory Allotments of Land to the Claimants, for the Purpose of culti- 

 vation in lieu of their Common Rights, and would not at the same time 

 be disadvantageous to the Public.' ] This was the view which com- 

 mended itself to those persons who, apart from all question of their own 

 peioonal profit, desired to see the forest maintained as a whole at any 

 reasonable cost ; hence it was felt that fresh inquiry and further legis- 

 lation were a necessity. 



A resolution was therefore proposed in the House of Commons by 

 the late Mr. Fawcett and was passed on June 20, 1871, to the effect 

 ' That in the opinion of this House, pending legislation on the New 

 Forest, no felling of ornamental timber and no fresh enclosures should 

 be permitted in the New Forest, and that no timber whatever should 

 be cut, except for the purpose of thinning the young plantations, 

 executing necessary repairs in the forest and satisfying the fuel rights 

 of the commoners.' This of course brought every thing in the shape 

 of forestry operations of whatever kind and with whatever object (save 

 only thinning plantations) to a standstill, and practically things have 

 remained in this condition ever since that date. 



Meanwhile the commoners were very actively engaged in agitation 

 and in making common cause with all those who desired to conserve the 

 forest. As the object of both was to some extent the same, viz. to 

 prevent further enclosure for the sake of obtaining revenue, both parties 

 (though inspired by different motives) were able to act together. On 

 the one hand there was genuine desire to preserve the forest as a national 

 park in such form as should be most enjoyable to the public ; on the 

 other there was a keen and very natural desire to maintain all rights or 



1 Fifth Report of the Commissioners on Woods, Forests and Land Revenues (June 22, 1789), p. 31. 

 " 457 58 



