Mr. Auberon Herbert complains in the Times, with justi- fiable
bitterness, that even an Act of Parliament specially passed for that end cannot protect the trees of the New Forest. The Act of 1877 specially provides that " the ancient ornamental woods and trees in the forest shall be preserved and wood shall be provided for the satisfaction of fuel rights without the sacrifice of ornamental timber." Nevertheless, the trees are cut, the oldest oaks and yews being felled in numbers, in order to provide money for the needless salary paid to the Deputy-Surveyor, and for the expenses of the management, which Mr. Herbert says is bad. Nothing is let alone ; the leaf-mould which nourishes the young trees is sold ; privileges of getting fuel, which are always abused, are allowed to continue ; huge fences are put up to protect young trees which would be protected by the natural undergrowth; and of the trees planted, a considerable pro- portion are exotic and out of place. Mr. Herbert has made forestry his hobby, and is, we believe, entirely right ; but is he not a little behind his age ? He actually wants to keep trees because they are among the most beautiful objects in nature, forgetting that to keep trees there must be seclusion, and land which is not devoted to " finding bread for the people." If he would only write a letter advocating the cutting down of the New Forest, and the sale of its site in five-acre patches to the unemployed of Whitechapel, fifty Members of Parliament would send him a testimonial. The argument from beauty is monstrous to democrats.
Previous page
