"care shall be taken to maintain the picturesque character of the ground."
Several weeks ago I stumbled across a debate in the House of Lords from 1927, between various Lords making the exact same argument that I am making now in 2023. It is discouraging that nearly 100 years later, Forestry England/Forestry Commission is still arousing significant public upset and controversy by their blunt management of the New Forest. The central themes that Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, Lord Danesfort and Lord Darling argue is that the Forestry Commission are not taking into account the aesthetic value of the trees they are felling, which they are legally obligated to do by the Act of 1877. Therefore, their actions were in breach of laws protecting the New Forest. The Lords note that local residents of the New Forest are very upset by the actions of the FC and wish to pursue legal action against them. In the course of the debate it emerges that the felled trees have little commercial value, not enough to replace their lost aesthetic value, and barely enough to recoup labour costs to fell and collect the trees. Lord Montagu wants management of the New Forest to be ‘undertaken by the Office of Works instead of by the Forestry Commission, who are chiefly concerned with the planting and cutting of timber for commercial purposes, and are not primarily interested in preserving the beauty or amenities of forest areas.’ Lord Clinton and Lord Lovat argue for the Forestry Commission. It certainly makes interesting reading. 100 years ago these men in positions of power felt the same way as I do in 2023 regarding protecting the beauty and assets of the New Forest. The debate over whether the New Forest National Park is a commercial resource to be exploited, or National Park with beauty to be protected still seems unresolved. The original debate was 23 pages long, but I have extracted below the quotes I felt were most relevant. There is much debate over the value of hardwood (beech and oak) vs. softwoods. (Scots Pine, which at the time was not accepted as native, but is now.) In 1927, Scots Pine was not as highly valued as oak, although there was greater post-war commercial demand for softwood. The Forestry Commission argues that oak does not grow in all areas of the New Forest, and those areas are more suited for growing pine.
"You have got to have regard to the ornamental character of the Forest and you cannot cut down old-standing and beautiful timber simply because you say: "It is in my enclosure and I have a right to do it in my enclosure."
HANSARD 1803–2005 → 1920s → 1927 → July 1927 → 6 July 1927 → Lords Sitting
THE NEW FOREST.
HL Deb 06 July 1927 vol 68 cc184-220184
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU rose to call attention to the recent cutting of old and ornamental timber in the New Forest contrary to the provisions of the New Forest Act of 1877, and to ask His Majesty's Government whether orders can be issued to treat the New Forest henceforth as a national park dedicated to the enjoyment of the public, and whether its management in future could be undertaken by the Office of Works instead of by the Forestry Commission, who are chiefly concerned with the planting and cutting of timber for commercial purposes, and are not primarily interested in preserving the beauty or amenities of forest areas; and to move for Papers.
It is the duty of that Commission, as your Lordships know, to plant trees, to cut them and generally to promote the interests of forestry, but the Forestry Commission has mainly to look at the matter from a commercial point of view.
The Commission is not primarily interested in any question of beauty. By its very constitution it has not to consider even the interests of the public; it is a body which has to make as much money as can be made by cutting the trees and by planting so as to provide for the needs of posterity in case a shortage of timber should arise. Whether that shortage will ever occur to the extent that some foresters think is a matter of opinion…….. It is true that we who live in the locality naturally have taken up this matter more keenly than it has been taken up in other places, but the New Forest is a national possession. In addition to that, there are unborn generations coming after us who, if the policy that is at present in force is carried on, will not, in our opinion at any rate, enjoy the beauties of the Forest in the way they would have done had the trees now being cut been preserved.
Just fifty years ago, my father and Mr. Briscoe Eyre got the Act of 1877 passed, with the consent of the Government of the day. That is our charter in the New Forest. It limited the rights of the Crown in some directions, it defined the duties of the Crown representatives, and it renewed and re-established the old Court of Verderers, one of the oldest courts in the country. That is the Act on which we principally rely.
Since the middle of April a great deal more cutting has gone on in certain woods. I will not trouble the House with the names of all of them, but I will mention Pitt's Wood. This wood was planted under the Act of William III, the timber is a little over a hundred and fifty years old and it is one of the most beautiful woods in the Forest. That wood has been very seriously damaged from a picturesque point of view, and what we consider to be clear felling has taken place on the eastern side of it. There had been clear felling again at Aldridge Hill Wood.
There seems to be a curious haste to cut down these old woods, and how can we wonder if it is interpreted locally as being caused by the fact that the representative of the Forestry Commission in the locality is so afraid of some check being put on his actions that he is cutting, as many trees as possible before anything is done to stop him?
I see from a Parliamentary Question on June 23 that 835 acres of conifers have been planted since January 1, 1926, as against 32 acres of oak. That does not look as if oak is being replaced by oak, and it seems to suggest that oak is being replaced by fir. I am one of those who have a good deal to do with the engineering trades, and my experience in engineering is that concrete and steel are more and more taking the place of wood for constructional purposes. I very much doubt whether these 800 acres of conifers that have been planted will ever repay the cost of their planting. Certainly no private owner would have done this. It may be that there will be a rise in timber in the next 100 years, but all I can say is that it is much more likely that fresh methods of construction will be used and that we shall have lighter steel and better concrete, and wood will become just as much a thing of the past in house construction and other purposes for which it is now used as oak has given way to steel in the building of ships.
With regard to the cutting of old trees, I would ask the noble Lord who is going to reply for the Forestry Commission, even if he cannot see his way to give all the undertakings to-day that we hope he may be able to give, to realise that we do feel most deeply on this question. To many of us, including myself, these old trees are like old friends and to see them cut down—trees that you have known all your life—is a very sad thing indeed. No one would do it in his private park, no one would think of doing it in an area like Windsor Park or Richmond Park or any of the great London parks. But all the answer that we have had, at any rate up to now, is that the matter will receive consideration and that after all this is a forestry area.
Then I come to a second grievance of the commoners. Although up to a few Years ago the gates of some of the enclosures were locked at times, they are now locked for something like three to four months of the summer, and no one can get through. I have had the courtesy of having a key myself, but I am talking about the ordinary commoner. In some cases his cattle cannot get through to feeding grounds and it has become a very serious deprivation of the commoners' rights. One of the grievances which they keenly feel—I am bound to say that I sympathise with them—is that these gates are unlocked during the hunting season and locked up during the non-hunting season. I am the last person to throw a stone at hunting, but is it fair and in accordance with the democratic spirit of our age, and in accordance with what should be understood to be the wishes of the Crown, that you should open the gates to those riding horses while hunting, and close them to the poor man and his pony? I do not think it is justifiable from any point of view. If the gates are open to one class they should be open to another. The treatment should be equal to all classes, whatever their social position.
I do not propose to detain the House much longer. I would like, however, to refer to that part of my Notice which has reference to the Office of Works. It merely is an idea of my own, but since that was down on the Paper I have received a very large number of letters and resolutions backing up that point of view. The Forestry Commission, as I have said already, is essentially a commercial body. It is quite right, to be a commercial body. The Office of Works, however, is always in contact with the public. Everybody knows how well it has restored the abbeys of London, and how well it has run the London parks. It looks after Richmond Park, Windsor Park and other great, areas of that sort. It has that sort of public spirit in it which does not seem to exist in the Forestry Commission. If it were possible from the administrative point of view to take the New Forest, make it a national park, and hand it over to the Office of Works, not only would matters run much more smoothly but we would have absolute confidence that, in the future, the beauty aspects of the New Forest would have precedence over every other consideration.
It is not as if the Commission wanted the New Forest badly. According to their last Report, they have 350,000 acres that they can use for commercial forestry. If they want to exercise this commercial forestry, why cannot they leave our old wood alone and practise their commercial forestry elsewhere?
If I have spoken somewhat strongly on this question, I know the House will forgive me. The New Forest is a unique area in the world. Its old trees are a wonder to those who visit them, whether they come from the State forests of Germany, from the great natural forests of North America or from the forests of the Himalayas. The hardwood trees of the New Forest are one of the wonders of the land. Cutting those trees is like selling your soul. To make money you might have building sites in Hyde Park, you might allow advertisements to be put on the Cenotaph, but it is selling your soul. This policy of cutting the old trees is, in our opinion, selling the soul of the New Forest. I believe that when England knows it will protest in far stronger terms than I have done to-day against what is a national calamity. I beg to move.
My Lords, I rise to support the appeal of my noble friend Lord Montagu. The New Forest has from time immemorial been one of the most prized possessions of the Crown. It has been regarded and treated for centuries past as a great national park, of which the beauties and the amenities were to be preserved and maintained for the benefit, not only of the inhabitants of the Forest, but of the nation at large…….The result of the Report of the Select Committee was the passing of the New Forest Act of 1877.
I should like to refer to two passages in that Act. In Section 8 there is an express provision that "the ancient ornamental woods and trees in the Forest shall be preserved." In Section 6, which deals with timber in the enclosures in the Forest, it is laid down that, as regards the enclosed lands, in cutting timber or trees or in improving the woods, "care shall be taken to maintain the picturesque character of the ground."
No one, certainly not myself, would call in question the competence, the diligence and the care with which the Forestry Commissioners have transacted the commercial part of their business in regard to those areas—many large areas outside the New Forest—which they had to carry on, and very properly, for commercial purposes. But I cannot but think that they, or their subordinates, have formed a somewhat erroneous opinion as to their rights and duties in regard to these woodlands which are vested in them in the New Forest, or portions of those woodlands. Because it appears that they do not pay sufficient attention to the provisions of the Act of 1877. They appear to think that their primary duty as regards the whole of these woods in the New Forest is not to preserve the ancient ornamental woods and trees in the Forest and to maintain the picturesque character of the grounds but to develop the Forest on commercial lines.
My Lords, I recognise that my noble friend has brought a very heavy charge against the Forestry Commission for its administration of the New Forest; at the same time I acknowledge that the noble Lord has used a considerable amount of restraint in his language, because I know something of the somewhat thunderous atmosphere which pervades the forest at this moment and the really excited state of public opinion there. I think if my noble friend had translated the views of the people there accurately into the words or the phrases they might have used, he would have gone to the full limit of language which is prescribed by Parliamentary usage.
I think the noble Lord did say that we had sold large quantities of hardwood trees and planted pine in their place. The pine, as my noble friend says, was an exotic so far as the New forest was concerned, but not so far as this country was concerned. It was brought here in the year 1770 for the main purpose of making masts and bowsprits for the Royal Navy, and the planting of that fir has been continued, but only in ground that is not suitable to the growth of oak. No one managing a forest, particularly when managing it for a nation, would plant the inferior timber of Scotch fir if he could get the valuable timber of oak to grow, and it is only on those places where oak will not grow that fir has been put in.
Oak, probably more than any other tree, is exacting in its demands for light. It cannot compete in the struggle for existence with these other classes of trees, and in time is crowded out. Go through the whole Forest now, and in any of the older enclosures you will frequently see that oak has germinated on the ground. You will find, perhaps, oak two or three years old, but it will be exceedingly difficult to find any proportion of trees which are between ten and fifteen years old. That is obviously insufficient to keep the oak forest growing in its natural beauty. I do not know of any instance of an oak forest which has grown up without treatment.
But while I recognise that to many people there is a great beauty in a mixture of heather-land and clumps of Scotch fir, I think that in this particular case it has been overdone. I must also remind my noble friend that great care will have to be exercised in getting rid of the trees now, otherwise you will get a most unsightly and deserted-looking place for many years to come.
I believe the best security for the continued preservation of the New Forest, with all its privileges and all its charms, is to be found in enlisting public interest and sympathy, in protecting from encroachment those rights under which it exists. That is what we feel and that is why this debate was originated.
…..and the end of it was the Act of 1877.
What did that Act provide? In the New Forest theme is a strong opinion that the Act only applies to the enclosed land, and that in any other part they can do as they please. Any one who will read it carefully will see that it applies to the whole of it. In all that they do they are to have regard to the ornamental character of the place, and not only—
Does the noble Lord say that we are only to have regard to the ornamental character of the place?
I say that the Act says that wherever you go to plant or to fell timber you must have regard to the ornamental character of the place. You can destroy a distant scene by putting up a tall chimney. You have got to have regard to the ornamental character of the Forest and you cannot cut down old-standing and beautiful timber simply because you say: "It is in my enclosure and I have a right to do it in my enclosure." If the Commissioners will read this Statute and will have regard to it, they will see that they cannot work their own sweet will within their enclosures and say: "If the Forest looks hideous in consequence, we have not broken the Act." My noble friend Lord Clinton mentioned what sort of timber they had been cutting and why it fetched so little. That is exactly one of the things of which the inhabitants of the Forest complain. Unthrifty timber was cut that it was a trouble to get rid of. Yet it looked well and people came from afar to see it. Was it really necessary to cut it down?? Why did you not leave it there? I should like to see the bill for cutting it and for hauling it and find out what profit was made in the transaction. It may have been a very bad bargain to have cut this unthrifty timber if it was picturesque.
A month ago I went through Pitt's Wood and there were oak trees there which I was told were about 200 years old. They were beautiful trees and things of beauty while they stood. I saw them lying on the ground, worth what? Tenpence a foot, is it? Go and look at the place and tell me if due regard has been had to the ornamental character of Pitt's Wood.
The Act says, in Section 6:— Provided also, as respects lands in this section mentioned, that in cutting timber or trees for improving the woods, or for sale, care shall be taken to maintain the picturesque character of the ground, and not wholly to level or clear the woods, but to leave from time to time a sufficient number of the most ornamental trees; and to keep the woods replenished from time to time by protecting the self-sown plants, or by planting trees in the vacant spaces, having regard to the ornamental as well as the profitable use of the ground.
EARL RUSSELL
I do not desire to associate myself directly with either of the protagonists, but merely to speak as one of those members of the public referred to by Lord Montagu, to whom the New Forest is a very precious possession, and who value it for its beauty and not, I am afraid, for its commercial value.
LORD LOVAT
With regard to the question of the Scotch fir, I think our arrangements for that were satisfactory. The Commission are thoroughly alive to the encroachment that the Scotch firs have made info the commons pasturage, but we have had no complaint. The ordinary process is a complaint made by the commoners to the verderers, who bring it before the Verderers' Court and so it is passed on to the Forestry Commission. Orders have been issued for burning as much as possible. Some commoners have themselves said to me during my visits to the New Forest that they were satisfied and that the burning of the pasturage was much better done than in the past. The Forestry Commissioners have done what they could to get the heatherland burned, and as to those horrible little Scotch firs that spring up all over the commons, we have done what we can to get that rectified.
With regard to the question raised by Lord Montagu of Beaulieu on the subject of the replacement of timber by steel, may I assure your Lordships that one of the duties of the Forestry Commission to-day is to pay special attention to, and watch the fluctuations in, the world's timber supplies. We believe, and we know that the American authorities believe and that the world conference held in April last year in Rome believed, that there is a grave danger of the shortage of coniferous timber. As your Lordships are aware about 95 per cent. of the timber used in this country is coniferous and only something just over 5 per cent. hard wood. I would not advocate that land which can grow oak should be planted with coniferous timber, but to say that coniferous timber may not be wanted in the future to the extent that it is at present is certainly prophesying a thing which is against the evidence. It has been proved over and over again by statistics that a nation's requirements in timber vary with its commercial development and, curiously enough, that substitutes add to rather than decrease the amount, of timber that a country uses.
We are continually accused of being desirous of turning the whole of the New Forest into coniferous timber, whereas in fact we are carrying out the exact working plan, which has not been altered in any important detail, that was laid down something like thirty years ago…….. In the rage for hard woods one hundred years ago, some areas of the New Forest which were not suitable for hard woods were nevertheless planted with them, and there are some hard woods, seventy, eighty or possibly one hundred years old, which are even now only in the state in which, properly grown, hard woods should be after twenty or thirty years' growth.
I would like to add that I sincerely hope that a good feeling will exist once more between the inhabitants of the New Forest and the Forestry Commission. May I say on behalf of the Forestry Commission, that that small area of land out of the 300,000 acres under the Forestry Commission presents more difficulty than any other. We get more petitions from that quarter and very often one is exactly opposite to another. While I am sure the Forestry Commissioners wish to carry out their duties to the best advantage there, they have to deal with three groups of people who, as a rule, do not see eye to eye on many of the subjects with which they have to deal.
There are just two points with which I would like to deal. One is the question whether oak replenishes itself naturally. Obviously it has done so in the New Forest for centuries. I do not think there need be any fear on that score. Great woods like Mark Ash are all naturally planted. As to the gloomy prognostication of the noble Lord, I would like to quote a report by Mr. Clutton, a man of great experience, who in 1875 said that in his opinion Mark Ash would not exist fifty years hence. I am glad to say that it is in a splendid state now.
Comments