With the beginning of the 18th century we find, besides these
prescriptions against wasteful use, and ordinances regulating the
management of the properties of the princes, definite forest policies in
some sections, having in view forest preservation and improvement of
forest conditions, and also means of providing wood at moderate prices.
Between the years 1515 and 1590, most of the German States had already
enacted ordinances which had the force of general law exercising police
functions over private forest property, although in Prussia this general
legislation did not occur until 1720. The objects in view with this
legislation were entirely of a material kind: the conservation of
resources. Besides securing the rights of the _Landesherr_ to the chase,
it was to secure a conservative use of the princely as well as private
forests, since devastation of the latter would require the former to be
drawn on extravagantly; it was to stave off a timber famine, and in
certain localities to assure particularly the mining industry of their
wood supplies. There were, however, concessions made to the privileged
and influential classes of forest owners.
By the end of the 18th century, this forest police, owing to the
uncontrolled harshness and the grafting practices of the lower
officials had become the most hated and distasteful part of the
administration.
The argument of the protective influence of forest cover did not enter
into this legislation; this argument belongs to the 19th century.
Yet reboisement of torrents had already in 1788, been recognized as a
proper public measure in German Austria, although active work in that
direction was not begun until nearly a century later.
The rise of prices during the 17th and 18th centuries had been very
considerable, doubling, trebling and even quadrupling in the first half
of the 18th century. The mercantilistic doctrines of the time led,
therefore, to attempts to keep prices low by prescribing rates for wood
and in general by restricting and regulating wood commerce.
This was done especially by interdicting sale to outsiders, forbidding
export from the small territory of the particular prince; or, at least,
giving preference to the inhabitants of the territory as purchasers and
at cheaper rates.
Owing to the small size of the very many principalities, the free
development of trade was considerably hampered by these regulations.
Sometimes also wood imports were prohibited, as for instance, in
Wurttemberg, when, in 1740, widespread windfalls had occurred which had
to be worked up and threatened to overstock the market.
Wood depots under government control were established in large cities,
and the amount of wood to be used per capita prescribed, as in
Koenigsberg (1702).
In Berlin, in 1766, a monopoly of the fuel wood market was rented to a
corporation, excluding all others except by permission of the company.
This was in 1785 supplanted by government administration of the
woodyards.
Another such monopoly was created in the “Nutzholzhandelsgesellschaft”
(Workwood sales agency) for the export trade of building materials from
Kurmark and Magdeburg, which had prior right of purchase to all timber
cut within given territory, the idea being to provide cheap material for
the industries. This, too, came into the hands of the State in 1771.
In Prussia, to prevent overcharges, the Jews were excluded from the wood
trade in 1761.
The exercise of the Forsthoheit (princely supervision), originating in
the ban forests, and favored by the mercantilistic and absolutist ideas
of the 17th and 18th centuries, gradually grew until the end of the 18th
century to such an extent that the forest owners themselves were not
allowed to cut a tree without sanction of some forest official, and
could not sell any wood without permission, even down to hop-poles,
although the large landed property owners vigorously resisted this
assumption of supervisory powers. Much discussion and argument regarding
the origin of this right to supervision was carried on by the jurists
upon the basis of Roman law doctrine, and it was proved by them to be of
ancient date. The degree, however, to which this supervision was
developed varied considerably in the different parts of the empire,
according to different economic conditions. The interference, and the
protection of forests appeared more necessary, where advanced
civilization and denser population created greater need for it. We find
therefore that the restrictive policy was much more developed in the
Southern and Western territories than in the Northern and Eastern ones,
where the development begins two centuries later.
The oldest attempts of controlling private forest property are found in
Bavaria (1516), Brunswick (1590) and Wurttemberg (1614). Here, forest
properties were placed either entirely under the supervision of the
princely forest administration, or, at least, permission for intended
fellings had to be secured. Later, these restrictions were considerably
reduced in rigor (Bavaria, 1789).
In Prussia, private forest property remained free from government
interference well into the 18th century. An edict by the Great Elector,
in 1670, merely inveighs against the devastation of forests by their
owners, but refrains from any interference; and the Forstordnung of 1720
also contains only the general injunction to the owners not to treat
their forests uneconomically. But, in 1766, Frederick the Great
instituted a rigid supervision providing punishment for fellings beyond
a special budget determined by experts. Soon after the French
revolution, however, unrestricted private ownership was re-established.
Church and cloister property had always been severely supervised,
similar to the Mark and other communal forest property, under the
direction either of specially appointed officials or the officials of
the princes. Finally, in some sections (Hesse-Kassel, 1711; Baden,
1787), the management of these communal forests was entirely undertaken
by the government.
In Prussia, by the Order of 1754, the foresters of the State were
charged with the supervision of the communal forests, in which they were
to designate the trees to be felled and the cultures to be executed; but
as there was no pay connected with this additional duty and the
districts were too large, the execution of this supervision was but
indifferently performed.
In 1749, a special city forest order placed the city forests in Prussia
under the provincial governments, requiring for their management the
employment of a forester and the inspection of his work by the
provincial forestmaster.