Appendix No. 1. xxvii
has cost a sum of money considerably exceeding a quarter of a million
pounds sterling, and it will be generally admitted that this amount has
been well, if not wisely, spent in the public cause. There are no doubt
many who have suffered by their own cupidity, or by that of former
manor lords, who still feel aggrieved at the action of the Corporation,
and it must indeed be conceded that many whose estates have suffered
curtailment have been the unconscious receivers of illegally acquired
property, and are thus deserving of commiseration. The principles
involved in the conflict between public rights on the one hand and
manorial actions on the other are of the very deepest importance to the
community at large, and it is therefore no matter of surprise that the
"Forest Question" should have acquired a quasi-political aspect during
the last few years in this neighbourhood.
As far as I have been able to learn, the motives leading to the preserva-
tion of our Forest at the great cost specified appear to have been purely
philanthropic. The main object was to secure this splendid area for the
"recreation and enjoyment" of Londoners generally, and more espe-
cially for the East-end inhabitants, whose chances of holiday-making are
only too often limited to an occasional day in the country. In one sense
the latter class may now, thanks to the movement first set in action by
Mr. J. T. Bedford, claim to have a decided advantage over their wealthier
West-end brethren, for the total area of the West-end parks (including
Regent's) amounts only to about 1150 acres, as compared with the 5000
to 6000 acres of open country so easily accessible to East-Londoners. In
the face of such an obviously enormous gain to the country rambling
holiday-folk, it may perhaps seem ill-advised to attempt to criticise the
action of the Conservators in their dealings with the Forest. It is with
great reluctance on my part that I forsake the peaceful paths of scientific
study to take up a question which generally appeals to lead to nothing
more than a manifestation of angry controversy, and I only do so now on
behalf of that numerous and ever-increasing scientific class of holiday-
makers whose claims thus far appear to have been altogether put out of
court.
Long before the question of encroachment or of preservation had been
brought into its present prominence, botanists, entomologists, micro-
scopists, and students of Nature generally were in the habit of frequenting
our Forest, and of rambling in quest of the objects of their study through
this woodland expanse so conveniently situated with respect to the great
scientific centre of this country. There are records which prove that
Epping Forest has been for more than a century the hunting-ground of
many who have gathered materials from its glades for the great store-
house of human knowledge, and who have taken a true and purely
intellectual delight in studying its animal and vegetable productions.
The London naturalists of the present time should surely have something
to say in connection with the fate of the favourite haunt made classic
ground to them by the memories of such men as Richard Warner, the
author of the 'Plantae Woodfordienses' (1771), Edward Forster, the
Essex botanist, who wrote between the years 1781 and 1849, and Henry
Doubleday, of Epping, our own grocer-naturalist, who died in 1877. It
is time for the natural-history public, by no means such an insignificant
body as is generally supposed, to raise their voice on behalf of these
" happy hunting-grounds." The position to be taken up is not neces-
sarily one of antagonism towards the Conservators, but it is certainly
desirable that some understanding should be corne to respecting the
claims of those who, in pursuit of knowledge, have long been contented
to bear with the pitying smile of the ignorant for "trifling away their
time upon weeds, insects, and toadstools." The numerous scientific