CHAPTER IV DEER FORESTS: THEIR SOCIAL AND ECONOMICAL ASPECTS IN view of the long and heated controversy which has raged between the advocates and opponents of the system of converting large areas of pasture land into deer forests, it seems not only proper but almost essential that in a treatise like the present one some reference should be made to the preservation of deer from an economical aspect. To deal comprehensively with this branch of the subject, bringing out all that has ever been said for and against the system, analysing the evidence and going minutely into facts and figures, would alone fill a volume of the 'Fur and Feather' series, and is here out of the question. I propose, in the following pages, to deal briefly with-first, the origin of the attacks made on deer forests, and the various quarters whence such attacks have proceeded; secondly, the judgment pronounced on them after hearing evidence on both sides by responsible members of Royal Commissions or Parliamentary Committees; and, thirdly, the possibility of remedying the grievances of any class of the community which may still exist as against owners and occupiers of forests. It is no use denying that there has prevailed for very many years a popular feeling, based largely on sentiment, hostile to the enlargement of the area devoted to deer, if not to their preservation even on ground where they have been established from a remote antiquity. An idea was entertained, which is not lightly to be contemned, that in a thickly populated country it was not desirable to restrict the land which was available for the production of beef and mutton in order to turn it into a game preserve ; while there were vague notions floating about that whole regions had been depopulated in order to secure their undisturbed occupation by wild animals. Thus, whenever any practical objection to deer forests was started by any class of persons whose interests were involved, these had no difficulty in obtaining a share of popular support by no means. commensurate with the importance of those interests or the numerical strength of their representatives. The first to take the field against deer and deer forests were the large sheep-farmers. That they had grievances is beyond doubt. I am personally only too well aware of the fact, as at the time I incurred a considerable amount of unpopularity (unjustly as I thought then and still think) from having, as was alleged, taken up a hostile attitude on the question towards a large and at that time an influential section of the constituency which I represented in Parliament. Well do I remember the year 1880, when I nearly lost my seat. I had to go about the country making speeches on Afghanistan and Zululand, defending the policy of the Government, and expressing views— which perhaps I have since seen reason to modifywhile all the time I felt it was not so much the aggressive attitude of my political chiefs in far-away regions that provoked a certain hostility towards myself, as the aggressive attitude which I was supposed to have assumed on the subject of deer forests. And yet I was completely misunderstood. That sheep-farmers had reason to complain of injury inflicted on them arising out of the proximity and development of deer forests no one, myself least of all, could deny. The question was, whether if one class of the community made less profit in the business in which they were engaged, owing to the existence of a new and in a way competitive industry in the same district, it was In a proper or expedient to put an end to the latter for the benefit of the former by legislative enactment. free country, and especially in a country where free trade is established, such a proposition would appear to be inadmissible. If it could be entertained for a moment, a much stronger case has since arisen, where the principle might, on grounds of national as well as private interests, be more appropriately applied. At the present time, owing to the low price of corn, more and more arable land is being converted into pasture, with the result that agricultural labour is less required, and those who used to earn a living in connection with the raising of crops are being gradually driven into the towns; and thus our rural population is steadily decreasing. A comparison of the two cases is striking. In the first you have the grazing of deer substituted for the grazing of sheep; in the latter, the grazing of sheep or cattle for the raising of crops. So far the similarity holds good. But it goes no further. Whether we regard the number of those whose interests are adversely affected, or the importance of those interests from a national point of view as regards the well-being of a large portion of our population, or in respect of our food supplies, it seems placed beyond the region of doubt that if it is desirable to interfere by special legislation with the free development of industries, as these may spring up in consequence of new trade requirements or economic changes, at least we should begin by attacking the greater and more serious evil. And yet no one so far has proposed to pass a law to compel farmers to plough their land or even to abstain from continuing the process of converting arable into pasture. In the days of which I am now speaking there were-besides those which still remain, with which I will deal presently-two main grievances on the part of farmers against owners of deer forests. The first was what will be easily imagined-viz. the incursion of deer from adjoining forests on to the sheep grazings. It was alleged that much of the sweet grass on the tops of the hills was consumed by deer in summer, and that they also poached on the lower grounds in winter, to the detriment of the legitimate stock. That such was the case on certain farms I know for a fact; but I hardly think that at any time the evil extended over a large area, and at the present day it must be still further limited, seeing that most of those farms which proved so attractive to deer have been handed over for their legitimate use, so that they can no longer be said. to 'poach.' It must also be remembered that it was always in the power of the shepherd, when going his |