The Saxons and Normans were primarily hunters, and this propensity to
the chase has impressed itself upon their forest treatment into modern
times.
The Teutonic Saxons undoubtedly brought with them the feudal and
communal institutions of the Germans, under which territory for the
king’s special pleasure in the chase was set aside as ‘forest’, and this
exclusive right and privilege was on other territory extended to the
vassals, while the commoners were excluded from the exercise of hunting
privileges on these grounds.
The Normans not only increased the lands under ‘ban’, but they increased
also in a despotic manner the penalties and punishments for infraction
of the forest laws, and enforced them more stringently than was done on
the continent. The feudal system was developed to its utmost. Besides
‘forests’ in which the king alone had exclusive rights, and in which a
code of special laws, administered under special courts, was applied,
there were set aside ‘chases’, hunting reserves without the pale of the
forest laws; ‘parks’, smaller, enclosed hunting grounds; and ‘warrens’,
privileged by royal grant or prescription as preserves for small game.
Whole villages were wiped out, or lived almost in bondage to satisfy
this taste for sport. In the ‘forests’, of which in Elizabeth’s time not
less than 75 distinct ones were enumerated, withdrawing an immense area
from free use, both ‘vert’ and ‘venison’,--wood and game,--belonged to
the king; a host of officers,--stewards, verderers, foresters,
regarders, agistors, woodwards,--exercised police duties, and oppressed
and ground the people by extortions, while special courts,--‘woodmote’,
‘swainmote’, ‘court of justice seat’,--enforced the savage and cruel
laws. The first of these laws was supposed to date from Canute the
Great, in 1016, but was eventually found to be a forgery perpetrated by
William I in order to lend historical color to his assertion of ‘forest’
rights.
A partial reduction of forests, and a modification of the cruelty and
unreasonableness of the laws was obtained by the _Charta de Foresta_, in
1225, which formulated the laws into a code, and again by the Forest
Ordinance of 1306. But not until 1483, under Edward IV, were the people
living within ‘forests’ permitted to cut and sell timber, and to fence
in for seven years portions of the reserved territory. The last
territory was ‘afforested’, i.e., withdrawn for purposes of the chase,
under Henry VIII, but he had to secure the consent of the freeholders.
The Long Parliament, in 1641, stopped at least the extension of forests,
and modified the application of the laws to a more reasonable degree.
The forest laws are still on the statutes, but have fallen into
desuetude; the last ‘forest court of justice seat’ was held under
Charles I. The ‘forests’ themselves have also almost entirely vanished,
some being abolished as late as Queen Victoria’s time, by act of
parliament, but the last action under the ‘forest laws’ was had in 1862
when the Duke of Athole tried to establish his right as ‘forester’ for
the crown. A full account of the forest laws is contained in Manwood’s
volume, the title page of which is here reproduced.
[Illustration:
A
TREATISE OF THE LAWES OF THE FO-
rest: Wherein is declared not onely
_those Lawes, as they are now in force, but also the ori-_
ginall and beginning of Forests: And what a Forest is in
his owne proper nature, and wherein the same doth dif-
fer from a Chase, a Parke, or a Warren, with all such
things as are incident or belonging there into, with
their seuerall proper tearmes of Art.
ALSO A TREATISE OF THE
Pourallee, declaring what Pourallee is, how the
same first began, what a Pourallee man may do, how he may hunt
and vse his owne Pourallee, how farre he may pursue and fol-
low after his chase, together with the limits and bounds, as
well of the Forest, as the Pourallee.
Collected, as well out of the Common Lawes and
_Statutes of this land, As also out of sundrie learned auncient Au_-
thors, and out of the Assises of Pickering and Lancaster,
by IOHN MANVVOOD.
_Whereunto are added the Statutes of the Forest, a Trea_-
tise of the seuerall offices of Verderors, Regardors, and Fore-
sters, & the Courts of Attachments, Swanimote, & Iustice seat
of the Forest, and certaine principall Cases, Iudgements,
and Entries of the Assises of Pickering and Lan-
caster: neuer heretofore printed for
the publique
LONDON,
Printed for the Societie of Stationers,
_Anno Dom._ 1615.
_Cum Priuilegio._
Facsimile of Title page of Manwood’s celebrated volume.
(Original, the property of Mr. Joly de Lotbinière).]
In Scotland the same usages and laws existed, only very much less
rigorously enforced, until, in 1681, the extension of ‘forests’ was
discontinued by parliamentary act.
It will be understood that the term forest did only distantly refer to
woodland and that no economic policy had anything to do with the laws.
Only incidentally was forest growth protected and preserved for the sake
of the chase--the same medieval policy which still largely animates the
forest policy of the State of New York.
The woods outside the ‘forests’, which had mainly served for the raising
of hogs, and for domestic needs, experienced at various times unusual
reduction by fire. General Monk, among others, laid waste large areas on
the Scottish borderland in Cromwell’s time.
The first serious inroads by extensive fellings occurred under Edward
III in the first half of the 14th century to enrich the treasury for the
French wars. Again, Henry VIII in the 16th century, when he seized the
church properties for his own use, turned them into cash. A hundred
years later, James I reduced the forest area, especially in Ireland, by
his colonization schemes. Yet both, Henry VIII and James I, are on
record as encouraging forest planting for utility. Charles I, James’
successor, always in need of cash, alienated many of the crown forests,
and turned them into cash, besides extorting money through the forest
courts. During the Revolution, beginning in 1642, and during Cromwell’s
reign a licentious devastation of the confiscated or mortgaged
noblemen’s woods took place.
Finally, under Charles II, the needs for the royal navy forced attention
to the reduction of wood supplies, and as a result of the agitation to
encourage the growth of timber, a member of the newly formed Royal
Society was deputed to prepare an essay, which, published in 1662, has
become the classic work of English forest literature, namely John
Evelyn’s _Sylva_, or “_A Discourse of Forest Trees_,” which has
experienced eleven editions. It should, however, be mentioned that an
earlier writer, whom Evelyn often quotes, Tuffer, before the reign of
Elizabeth, in 1526, published his “Five Hundred Points of Husbandry,” a
versification in which treeplanting received attention. Ever since that
time, periodically and spasmodically, the question of forestry has been
agitated, without much serious result.
From 1775 to 1781, the Society of Arts in London offered gold medals and
prizes for treeplanting, and in the beginning of the 19th century a
revival of arboricultural interest was experienced, perhaps as a result
of an interesting report by the celebrated Admiral Nelson on the
mismanagement of the forest of Dean, concern for naval timber giving the
incentive, in which he recommended the planting of oak for investment.
At that time, a Surveyor-General, with an insufficient force, was in
charge of the crown forests. In 1809, the management was placed under a
board of three Commissioners, one of whom being a member of the
parliament was to be changed with the administration. Under this
management, graft became so rampant that, in 1848, a committee of the
House of Commons was appointed, whose report revealed the most
astonishing rottenness, placing a stigma on government management such
as we still uncover in the United States from time to time. A
reorganization took place in 1851. At that time the royal forests and
parks, reduced in extent to about 200,000 acres, showed a deficiency of
$125,000, mostly, to be sure, occasioned by the parks. There was then
still a tribute of some 600 bucks to be delivered to various personages,
as was the ancient usage.
At present there are some 115,000 acres classed as royal forest, but
only 67,000 acres are really forest, consisting of more or less
mismanaged woods, under the administration, not forest management, of
the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, with Deputy Surveyors in charge
of the ranges. Although there are a few notable exceptions in the
management, it is to be noted that the same stupid ignorance, which
introduced the clause into the Constitution of the State of New York,
was enacted into law in 1877 by the English Parliament, forbidding in
the New Forest all cutting and planting. In 1900, there existed just one
planting plan, made by a professional forester, namely, for a portion of
the forest of Dean, while now only two other State properties and two or
three private estates are managed under working plans.
In 1887, a Committee appointed to inquire into the administration of
this property, expressed itself most dissatisfied, but a Committee of
Parliament in 1890 whitewashed the administration and reported that the
management was satisfactory.
These committees, as well as an earlier one, in 1885, were also to
recommend measures for the advancement of forestry. They laid in their
recommendations the main stress upon education, but no action followed,
and it can be said that the government has never done anything for the
advancement of forestry in the home country, whatever it may have done
for the dependencies. A Departmental Committee again reported in 1902
with all sorts of recommendations, which have remained unheeded.
The interests of forestry as far as the government is concerned are at
present committed to the Board of Agriculture, an unwieldy body created
in 1889, from which this Departmental Committee was appointed. There is
now, however, a strong movement on foot, led by foresters returned from
India, to commit the government to some action with reference to the
waste lands, and towards providing for educational means.
Another committee, appointed in 1908 to enquire into prospects of
afforestation in Ireland, reported in favor of acquiring 300,000 acres
of wood and 700,000 acres of unplanted land, dwelling especially on the
benefit to be secured by providing employment and a check upon
emigration of the rural population. Instead of acting upon this
proposition the government directed the Royal Commission on Coast
Erosion, which had issued its first report in 1907, to suspend its
inquiry into the inroads of the sea and apply themselves to the inquiry
as to “whether in connection with unclaimed lands or otherwise it is
desirable to make an experiment in afforestation as a means of
increasing employment during periods of depression, and how, and by whom
such experiment should be conducted.”
In 1909, the Royal Commission on Afforestation and Coast Erosion
reported at length, proposing the reforestation by a special Commission
of nine million acres of waste land at a rate of 75,000 or 150,000 acres
a year to be acquired by purchase--an elaborate plan, which so far has
remained without result.
The government, although various committees have recommended it, has
remained also callous in respect to educational policy, except that, in
1904, the Commissioners of Woods and Forests instituted a school (one
instructor) in the Forest of Dean for the education of woodsmen and
foremen.
As illustrative of the government’s peculiar attitude to forest policy
in general, we may note a curious anachronism, namely the act of 1894,
which relieves railway companies from liability for damage from
locomotive fires, if they can prove that they have exercised all care,
although traction engines cannot offer this excuse.
The first attempt to secure educational facilities dates to 1884 when a
chair of forestry was established in the Royal Engineering College at
Cooper’s Hill, an institution designed to prepare for service in India
purely. Through private subscriptions, another chair of forestry was
instituted in 1887 at the University of Edinburgh, and several
agricultural colleges, notably that of Cirencester, as well as the
Universities of Cambridge and Oxford, had made provisions for teaching
the subject in a way, but outside of Cooper’s Hill no adequate education
in forestry was obtainable in Great Britain, until 1905.
In 1905, the forest department in Cooper’s Hill was transferred to
Oxford, the three years’ course--one year to be spent in the forests of
Germany or other countries--being as before designed mainly for
aspirants to the Indian forest service. Now, besides Oxford, some nine
other institutions offer courses in forestry--the reason for this
educational development being difficult to imagine.
The name of Sir William Schlich, a German forester, and for some time
the head of the Indian forest department now in charge of this school,
is most prominently connected with the reform movement.
* * * * *
Altogether forest management and silvicultural practice are still nearly
unknown in England, and, until within a few years, the useful idea of
working plans had not yet penetrated the minds of owners of estates.
This apathy is, no doubt, in part due to the fact that the government is
in the hands of the nobility, who prefer to keep their “shooting
ranges”, and do not see even a financial advantage from turning them
into forest as long as they can derive a rent of from 10 to 40 cents per
acre for shooting privileges.
* * * * *
Private endeavor has been active through the two arboricultural
societies, the Royal Scotch, founded in 1854, and the Royal English,
beginning its labors in 1880. The transactions of these societies in
annual or occasional volumes represented the current magazine
literature on forestry since the monthly Journal of Forestry and Estates
Management, which began its career in London in 1877, transferred to
Edinburgh in 1884, ceased to exist in 1885.
At present, a very well conducted Quarterly Journal of Forestry, started
in 1907 by the Royal English Arboricultural Society replacing its
Transactions and that of the Irish Forestry Association, also the
Journal of the Board of Agriculture, occasionally, supply the needs of
the continuously improving chances for development on forestry lines.
Until within a short time the English professional book literature has
been extremely meager, although a considerable propagandist,
arboricultural, and general magazine literature exists. Schlich’s
_Manual of Forestry_, first in three volumes published from 1889 to
1895, now in its second to fourth edition, enlarged to five volumes, is
the most comprehensive publication. Another author deserving mention is
John Nisbet, known by his _Studies in Forestry_ (1894), who also
engrafted continental silvicultural notions into later editions of James
Brown’s _The Forester_, an encyclopædic work of merit. Several German
and French works have been translated into English, notably K. Gayer:
Die Forstbenutzung; R. Hess: Der Forstschutz; H. Fürst: Waldschutz.
John Croumbie Brown’s sixteen volumes on forests and forestry in various
countries may be mentioned among the propagandist literature. The
Arboricultural Societies mentioned also make a brave effort to advance
professional development of forestry in their publications.