THE ESSEX FIELD CLUB.
107
the Forest in our collective capacity as a scientific organiza-
tion we may, I think, feel satisfied that our influence has
made itself felt on many occasions for the benefit of the
Forest and its frequenters. Sometimes we may have found it
our duty to take side against the Conservators; at other times
to support their policy with equal vigour. Whatever action we
may have taken has been solely in the best interests of the
Forest as far as knowledge and judgment could lead us. On
the whole I venture to think that such action as we have from
time to time felt called upon to take has resulted in nothing but
good from the naturalists' point of view. I may remind you
that very early in our career we felt bound to organize an opposi-
tion to a projected railway extension across the Forest by the
Great Eastern Railway Co., and a resolution of the Council of
Jan. 8th, 1881, was brought before the Club on Jan. 22nd (Proc.
I., lxvii.). On Feb. 4th deputations from the Club and other
Societies waited upon the Metropolitan Board of Works and the
Epping Forest Clauses of the Bill were ultimately withdrawn
(Ibid. II., v.) Again, in 1881, the proposed extension of the
tram-line along the "Ranger's Road" was opposed by the Club
(Ibid. lxxxiv.) and that Bill was also withdrawn (Ibid.
lxxxvii.). On May 6th, 1882, the Forest was formally
dedicated to the public by our late revered Sovereign, Queen
Victoria, and shortly after this ceremony the Club had again to
take action in opposing another and more serious attempt at
railway encroachment (Ibid. III., xcviii.) The agitation in this
case assumed more than local significance, and our action was
watched, approved of and supported by large numbers of natural
history societies and by individual men of science throughout
the country. Deputations convened by the Club were received
at the House of Commons on Feb. 20th, 1883, by Sir John
Lubbock, and on March 9th, by Sir Selwin-Ibbetson and Lord
Eustace Cecil, and three days later, on the motion of Mr. James
Bryce, the Bill was thrown out on its second reading by a
majority of 148 (Ibid. IV., viii.) The story of these polemics is
buried in our archives and may be regarded as ancient history.
It does not often devolve upon a scientific society to assume the
functions of a body militant, but it must be remembered that
we looked upon the Forest as a natural-history preserve which it
was our duty to guard most jealously from unnecessary molesta-
tion. It is to be hoped that this policy will be maintained by