68 REPORTS ON THE STATE OF SCIENCE.—1918, 
Kent’s Cavern. 
The question of Kent’s Cavern was raised by Mr. Bevan, and after some 
discussion he proposed a resolution to the effect that the Council be asked to 
appoint a Committee consisting of Mr. William Whitaker, Mr. Mark Sykes 
and Mr. Wilfred Mark Webb to deal with the matter. This was seconded 
by Mr. T. Sheppard and carried. 
The second meeting was held at 2 p.m., and Mr. Martin C. 
Ducuesne started a discussion with the following paper upon :— 
Afforestation: Its Practice and Science. 
Introduction. 
Afforestation—a life-long interest to a few—until recently was little more 
than a word to the average politician and the public. The war, however, 
has opened many eyes to the grave and pressing importance of an assured 
national timber supply. My object is to emphasise this importance and to 
bring out the need also for closer association of science with practice in building 
up our future timber reserves. 
The case for afforestation was strong before the war, but actual war experience 
has made it overwhelming. Our imporis of timber, amounting to 3 cubic 
feet per head of population in 1851, had steadily increased to 104 cubic 
feet per head in 1911. Meanwhile the home supplies had deteriorated. The 
United Kingdom, caught without sufficient home reserves, had to continue 
importing timber on a large scale at any expense. The costs were enormous, 
involving (1) an additional expense of nearly 40,000,000/. above the pre-war 
prices for necessary supplies of timber during only the first two years of war; 
(2) absorption of tonnage urgently needed for other purposes; (3) loss of cargoes 
sunk by the enemy; (4) depreciated exchange. In our extravagant reliance 
on imported timber we ran risks, as the recent Forestry Report reminds us, 
‘against which every other considerable country has long taken care to protect 
itself.’ 
National Timber Demands. 
Up to comparatively recent times the national importance attached to timber 
was confined almost to the provision of oak for the Navy and wood for fuel. 
These demands have been supplanted by others, and the problem of oak for 
the Navy is replaced by that of props for the mines and timber for national 
industries and uses. Building, constructional, and transport trades demand 
timber in vast quantities. As a munition—for aeroplanes, army wagons, 
artillery spokes, sleepers, huts, ammunition boxes, shipping, railway and trans- 
port purposes, trenches, fuel, and in many other directions—timber has never 
been so indispensable as in this war. For national reconstruction purposes— 
not only here, but also with our allies, especially in the devastated areas— 
the demand for timber will be very great. 
The Coast Erosion Commission, in 1909, recommended afforestation of 
9,000,000 acres to make the country independent of foreign supplies. The 
Government reply was the creation of the Development Fund, which we were 
promised would do much for forestry, but which has been a severe disappoint- 
ment to all parties. With our 3,000,000 acres of woodlands, we are still, 
with the exception of Portugal, the worst afforested nation in Europe. 
The need—great in any event—for a comprehensive scheme of real encourage- 
ment to forestry the war has now shown to have very vital relation to the 
safety of the realm. 
