February 7, 191 8 
Land & Water 
17 
British Forestry : By Sir Herbert Matthews 
To those who have always been concerned with 
the land, and interested in every branch of the 
industries connected with it, it is gratifying to 
role how the war has brought into prominence 
the fundamental fact that home production is the 
keynote of national defence. To enable a country to wage 
war, food is the first essential ; of that there can be no two 
opinions. As to what takes the second place there may be 
different ideas, it may be ships, guns, ammunition, or other 
equipment, but hirdly any item under either of these heads 
can be treated without the use of timber in some form or other. 
The same remark applies to most of the manufactures and 
arts of peace time, and to the everyday needs of the people 
in times of cither peace or war, but it takes a war to bring the 
facts home to the public. Like most othet commodities in 
general use it has been, in normal times, so easy and so cheap 
to buy whatever was required that the place of origin, or the 
means of transport and distribution were never thought of. 
War transforms everything, and a sudden inability to saticly 
some apparently simple need gives a shook to the would-be 
purchaser. 
These thoughts are prompted by reading a report wluch has 
recently been issued by the Ministry of Reconstruction on 
Forestry,* which presents many startling points of intense 
interest to everyone. The man in the street usually connects 
anything about land with the farmer, and until three years 
ago the idea liad become crystallised that what concerned 
the farmer was of no interest to anyone else. The problem of 
afforestation is not a farmer's ques ion. It concerns first the 
nation as a whole : secondly, the consumer, the man in the 
street himself ; thirdly, the landowners ; fourthly, those 
interested in the development of small holdings, and men 
likely to find employment in forestry ; but only to a very 
— tail extent the ordinary farmer. 
5 : he Committee responsible for this rep)ort was carefully 
.losen ; and it has done its work well. Every debatable point 
IS well argued out, and every statement well supported by 
the facts presented. Its proposals, therefore, command and 
deserve attention. Bearirg this in mind, let us turn to the 
report itself. The Qommittee say^, " the forest policy of the 
State has hitherto been totally inadequate," and it adds 
" (i) that dependence on imported timber is a grave source 
of weakness in war ; (2) that our supphes of timber, even in 
time of peace, are precarious and lie too much outside the 
Empire : (3) that afforestation would increase the productive- 
ness and population of large areas of the British Isles which 
are now little better than waste." 
For lack of a sufficient supply of its own this country hds 
been compe'led to continue to import timber on a very large 
scale, an(i at a very heavy loss. The tonnage so occupied has 
been much needed for other purposes, and the importation 
has affected price, freight, insurance, and the rate of exchange. 
The country has taken risks against which every other con- 
siderable country has long protected itself, and consequently 
we have lost heavily. The Committee estimates this loss at 
£37,000,000 for the two years 1915 nad 1916 only. To that 
must be added the loss in 1917, and how much more cannot 
be said. By loss it means the additional cost compared with 
the average value of the same material for the five years before 
the war. This additional cost is stated to be mainly due to the 
increase in freight and insurance, and three-fourths of this 
extra outlay has gone into the pockets of shipping owners, 
chiefly of Scandinavim nationality. " It is certiiin that these 
risks and losses will increase rather than diminish in any 
• I'inal I<c;iori: nf the Forest y Sub-Committee (Cd. 833 1). Pric. 
ts. ntt. Obtainable through any bo k-,eller. 
future war. In case of war with the northern timber-produc- 
ing countries thty might even prove dtcisive. They are not 
nec(ssaiily limited to war in which we ourselves take part, 
or to war at all, since international disputes may be decided 
by commercial boycott." 
The Committees next points out that anxiety is by no means 
confined to national safety, but that it is hardly less necessary 
to ensure against scarcity of timber in time of peace, o>ving 
to the steady increase in consumption everywhere ; and they 
show what this increase is, and how it is overtaking the rate 
of production. " We believe that the policy of neglect cannot 
be further prolonged without very grave risks." 
To realise the gravity of these statements, the fuU report 
must be read, but it may be said that 'the Committee's claim 
to have estabhshed them is amply justified. 
One point that stands out clearly is that that much- 
maligned class — the landowner — has proved his utility to the 
nation, and his willingness to make sacrifices. For the last 
two generations the plantirtg of woodlands has been done by 
owners at their own expense,, with no prospect of profit to 
themselves, and at best in the hope that their successors may 
not make a loss ; while the conversion of waste, or semi-waste, 
land into woodland by planting has rendered them liable to ■ 
increased charges for rates and taxes. The only benefit 
accruing from this expense, and increased outgoing, has been 
a possibly improved sporting value. Had it not been for this 
past action the present position of this country hardly bears 
thinking of. For nearly two years now owners have been 
offering their timber to the Government regardless of resulting 
loss in amenity value or the seritimental loss of fine timber 
which has grown into an owner's being ; ignoring their 
financial inability (in many cases) to replant ; for landowners 
(as such) have not made profits out of the war. On this point 
the Committee writes : 
Many owners have offered their timber for sale during the 
war from patriotic motives, or have felt themselves compelled 
to take low Govenrment prices. In this way they have 
received for it very little mcT3 than its pre-war price and 
substantially less than its open market value, and the prices 
received have not made good the losses previously incurred 
or brought in anything like a normal return on the money 
expended. 
The public can hardly realise what has happened, as the 
chief clearances are taking place in out-of-the-way and little- 
known areas ; but it is estimated that 100,000 acres had been 
cleared up to April, 1917, and that there would be a great 
speeding up of felling after that date. No figures are given 
for other areas where thinning has taken place, many of which 
must have been denuded of timber of any size. 
Having established their case, the Committee considers the 
first essential is the setting up of a Forestry Authority, properly 
equipped with funds and power to survey, purchase, lease and 
plant land, and to administer the areas acquired, and it 
urges that the care of forestry, which is now divided among 
several departments, should be concentrated. The cost of 
carrying their scheme into effect is estimated to cost 
£3,425,000 in the first ten years, and possibly £15,110,000 
durii^g the first forty j-ears, after which time it should be self- 
supporting. Their sclieme is carefully worked out, and the 
figures are not too optimistic. But suppose they are : sup- 
pose the scheme costs 25 per cent, more, 20 milhons spent in 
forty years on something that is going to be productive. 
Compare that with £3 -,000,000 absolutely lost in two years, 
and in addition we secure our timber supply. 
Moreover, as the Committee itself points out, this aspect 
of profit or loss is not, from a national point of view, the most 
important, and it has never been so regarded in other countries 
