676 REPORT— 1894. 



are provided. I would, therefore, ask the President to consider what I have just 

 said with regard to State forest experimentnl areas. These cannot, of course, be 

 created by a stroke of the pen, but the initiative for their formation would 

 naturally come from the Board of Agriculture. It is possible that, with better- 

 ment in forestry jjractice, landowners might be found who would be willing to 

 devote portions of their land for the purposes of instruction, following for forestry 

 the noble example of Sir John Lawes in his work for agriculture ; and everyone 

 interested in forestry' must hope this may be so. But v.dien the State has already 

 in its hands the means through which a large national industry can be fostered, it 

 is surely incumbent on it to utilise them for the pui-pose. And mark you, in 

 asking for this, one does not make a large demand upon the Treasury. The whole 

 could be done at no ultimate cost, for the profits from the areas could unquestion- 

 ably more than repay any outlay incurred upon them. 



The true solution of the forestry question in Britain is to he found in the 

 diffusion of accurate knowledge of forest science. The landowner has to be 

 convinced that through scientific forestry a sound and profitable investment for 

 his capital is to be found in woodlands ; the factor or land agent must be 

 instructed in the scientific principles of tree-growing for profit to enable him to 

 secure a steady income to the landowner from his invested capital ; and the 

 working forester has to be taught methods of cultivation based upon science, by 

 which his fnith in traditional practice, when it is, as is so often the case, un- 

 scientific, may be dispelled. It is through education alone that we can arrive at 

 improved forestry. 



This was recognised by the Select Committee upon Forestry of the House of 

 Commons in its report in 18S7, which performed a very valuable service by its 

 exposure of the prevalent ignorance of scientific lorestry and of well-known facts 

 of tree-cultivation amongst those professedly engaged in its practice and study — 

 an ignorance the continued existence of which manifests itself in some of the 

 ■writings in current periodicals. The remedy it suggested of a State Forest 

 Board, including representatives of science and of bodies interested in forestr)^, 

 charged with the superintendence of the formation of forest schools and the 

 preparation of forest literature, was superseded by the later institution of the 

 Board of Agriculture, in which were absorbed such functions in regard to forestry 

 as the Government of the day accepted. "We are so accustomed to anomalies in 

 our administrative system that the discovery of an additional one hardly surprises 

 us. Yet it is difficult to understand why it is that a board which "deals witli 

 subjects so essentially based on science as does the Board of Agriculture should 

 not have on its start' scientific men representative of the fields of science within its 

 purview. But I do not know that either agriculture or forestry is so represented. 

 It seems odd that this Board should be dependent for scientific advice upon out- 

 siders, and now that it proposes to undertake the responsibility of the publication 

 of a journal which, I take it, will be a means for the circulation of accurate infor- 

 mation upon scientific questions, I do not see how ita functions can be adequately 

 performed without scientific help from within. No one of us would expect to see, 

 either to-day or to-morrow, in this countrj' a Board of Agriculture with an organi- 

 sation like that of the similar department in the United States, which excites our 

 admiration by the excellence of the practical information it circulates. But there 

 is a wide interval between the completeness of the American department and the 

 incompleteness of ours; and if I may make another suggestion to the President of 

 the Board of Agriculture, I would ask him to consider whether it would not 

 strengthen the Board in the discharge of its rapidly growing functions if it had 

 competent scientific advisers upon its staff. Such a man for forestry would, I 

 believe, do much for ' the increase of sound technical knowledge ' in Britain, and 

 promote to no little extent its interests. 



Since 1887 we have made some advance along the lines of improved literature 

 and of teaching pointed out by the Select Committee as those by which reform could 

 be accomplished. 



If one looks at the literature available up to a recent period to anyone desirous 

 of learning something about forestry, one need feel little surprise at the ignorance 



