xxvi
Appendix No. 1.
of a recognition of the necessity for protecting and conserving our com-
mon lands for out-door recreation—a recognition which must be con-
sidered as marking a decided advancement in the ideas of the British
holiday-maker. If we compare a map of the environs of London, of say
twenty years ago, with the actual state of the country at the present
time, it will be seen that large tracts of open land have disappeared ;
shady coppices and furze-clad heaths have been enclosed and built upon,
and the country-loving Londoner has had to go further and further afield
for his rambles. If it is obviously true that increased pressure of popu-
lation demands more dwelling accommodation, it is equally true that a
denser population requires more open spaces. The indifference of the
public in former times to their own rights and to the wants of their
successors is naturally making itself more and more seriously felt with a
rapidly augmenting population, and a corresponding spread of buildings.
The formation of such public bodies as the Commons Preservation Society
and the Epping Forest Fund was a healthy sign that people were begin-
ning to be alive to the gravity of the situation, and we may now fairly
say that rural London is on the defensive. The remarks which I am
about to offer on the present occasion are based on an unpublished article
written many months ago when that wooded area in which our interest
as a society centres was threatened by tramway invasion. The with-
drawal of the Great Eastern Railway Company's Bill for extending their
line from Chingford to High Beach in 1881, and the apparent collapse of
the tramway scheme, had led to the hope that the " people's forest " would
remain unmolested, and that the Epping Forest Act of 1878 would be
carried out in spirit and in letter. But unfortunately new grounds of
alarm have recently arisen, and our Honorary Secretaries, to whom
I showed the original manuscript, did me the honour of thinking that
the views which I had expressed would still be found to be in accordance
with those of our own and kindred societies.
Like other open tracts in the metropolitan district, the great Waltham
Forest, which comprised the Forests of Epping and Hainault, was
rapidly undergoing absorption. From the Report of the Select Committee
of the House of Commons presented in 1863, it appears that of the 9000
acres which constituted the Forest in 1793, only 6000 acres then remained
unenclosed. In 1871, when the Corporation of London took up the
Forest question, this area had been reduced to 3500 acres. I do not here
propose to trouble you again with the now familiar history of the rescue
of this picturesque remnant of primeval Britain.* The work commenced
more than a decade ago by the Corporation of London received its
crowning reward at the late Royal visitation. We shall the more appre-
ciate the results of the action taken by the Corporation when we bear in
mind that the total area dedicated to the public last May is very nearly
equal to the expanse of 6000 acres reported upon by the Select Committee
of 1863. But whilst expressing the gratitude of metropolitan field
naturalists generally for the restoration of one of their largest and most
accessible hunting-grounds, it certainly does seem to me that the shout of
triumph raised by the Conservators has been allowed to drown the smaller
voices of those who had previously demonstrated to certain rapacious
lords of manors by somewhat forcible means that a "neighbour's land-
mark " was not a movable thing. It must not be forgotten that prior to
the year 1871, besides many vigorous individual protests, both the Com-
mons Preservation Society and the Epping Forest Fund had declared
war against illicit enclosure. The restoration of the Forest to the people
* See Mr J. T. Bedford's 'Story of the Preservation of Epping Forest,' 'City Press'
Office, 1832.