60
THE MANAGEMENT OF EPPING FOREST.
gether abolished by judicious interference. With this class of correspondent it is
difficult to carry on a discussion.3
And now where is this glaring inconsistency ? I said in 1883 (and I repeat
it in 1894., "To the naturalist—and I am sure I may say to the intelligent
public generally—such a tract of primitive country is beautiful only so long as
Nature is given full sway, and the adjustments which for long ages have been
going on slowly and silently under the operation of natural laws remain
unchecked and uninterfered with by man." But we all know that this ideal
generalised "natural condition" does not exist throughout our Forest. You
have seen examples of closely packed trees, crowded together in unshapely
masses, with spindle branches stretching straight upwards in hideous lankiness.
Nature, far from having been given full sway, has been interfered with for so
long a period that it will be very many years before we can hope to see a natural
state of affairs restored. As the result of lopping in the past we now have dis-
tricts from which a large proportion of the trees might still be advantageously
removed. I maintain that these features are not natural here because they are the
result of man's interference. The policy of the Verderers is to restore and beautify
the Forest as far as possible and as rapidly as possible.4 I take it upon myself
to state their case in broad outline because it is from them that we wish rather to
hear the detailed explanations of management.
The present agitation has arisen almost entirely in connection with the
thinning out of the trees ; more especially in Monks Wood. It is not for me to
explain technically why thinning is necessary ; you can obtain this information
from any of our experts. But the atmosphere must be cleared before the dis-
cussion of this question can be carried on in a fair manner,—I may add in an
intelligible manner to the majority of those present For the correspondence has
been conducted in such a strain as to lead the public to suppose that all thinning
was an act of Vandalism. It is possible that there may be some who hold this
view. I, for one, should be very sorry to see the Forest committed to their
management. The question before us now is not whether thinning is necessary
in our Forest, but whether what has been done in this direction has been done
judiciously—whether too many trees and too much undergrowth has been cleared
or, on the other hand, whether it is not desirable to have further clearance.5
I beg those among you who are not practically familiar with forestal opera-
tions not to form an opinion based on your inspection of the present appearance
of the thinned districts. You must remember that the Conservators hold this
Forest in trust not only for the present, but for the future. And with regard to
the Verderers I am fully persuaded of this ; that not a single tree has been
removed without due consideration—that every trunk which you have seen lying
prostrate has been felled for the purpose of giving freedom of growth to other
and better trees, to open out vistas for distant views, or to break up the uniform
monotony of woodland shade by letting in light for the development of that
picturesque undergrowth which in many parts of the Forest is conspicuously
absent. I ask you to believe, whether you think that these operations have been
3 The discussion drew front Mr. Percy Lindley the acknowledgment that he wrote the letter
referred to.
4 See E. N. Buxton, in "Proc. E.F.C," Vol. III., Appendix I., p. xviii, footnote.
5 Sir John Lubbock, who was with us during the whole afternoon, and who also inspected the
more northern parts of the Forest (Theydon Thicket, etc ) before the arrival of the party, writes
to me as follows : "I write a line to say that I did not see any cases where too much had been
cut; on the contrary, the finer trees cannot reach their full beauty unless by degrees even more
room is given them. This, however, must, and no doubt will be, done gradually."—R.M.