viii Appendix No. 1.
20th, and upon Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson and Lord Eustace Cecil on
March 9th. Sir H. Selwin-Ibbetson's reply was very valuable as expressing
the opinion of the statesman best qualified to give an opinion as to the
meaning of the Act of 1378, and the intentions of its framers. It was
indeed an emphatic condemnation of the scheme and of any interference
with the Forest.
In order to refute the many misstatements made as to the inaccessibility
of the Forest from existing railway stations, and of the motives and
arguments of the " Naturalists' Opposition," a resume of the facts of the
case was drawn up and a very large number of printed copies circulated
(see page xxxii., infra). The matter was felt to be so serious that every
exertion was made by well-known friends of the Forest to inform the
public of the nature of the injuries likely to be inflicted upon it by the
projected railway ; a considerable number of petitions were presented to
Parliament against the bill, and the verdict of the press was almost
universally adverse to it—in the few cases where the contrary view was
taken the writers being evidently insufficiently informed of the true state
of affairs. The bill came on for the second reading on Monday, March
12th, when Mr. Bryce moved and Prof. Thorold Rogers seconded the
following important amendment:—
" That this House, while expressing no opinion as to the propriety of
making a railway to High Beach, disapproves of any scheme which
involves the taking for the purposes of a railway of any part of the
surface of Epping Forest, which, by the Epping Forest Act, 1878, was
directed to be ' kept at all times unenclosed and unbuilt on as an open
space for the enjoyment of the public' "
After a most interesting discussion the bill was rejected by a majority
of 118 in a house of 312 members, and Mr. Bryce's amendment was added
to the resolution. And thus ends the story of the second rescue of
Epping Forest from the hands of the spoilers. The hearty approval with
which the press greeted the verdict of the Commons was an accurate
index of the level of public opinion in the matter, and a sufficient
justification of the energetic action of the "naturalists" and their friends.
We understand that the resolution so emphatically affirmed by Parliament
will act as a bar against the introduction of any bills dealing with the
soil of the Forest, and we can only hope that such attempts will not be
renewed. But the history of the past few years is not calculated to
induce a feeling of security; the public must be the guardian of the
integrity of the Forest, remembering always the wise and divine in-
junction given in the olden time—"What I say unto you, I say unto all,
Watch."