xxx Appendix No. 1.
Harting and Prof. Boulger. The evils of deep drainage, from the
naturalists' point of view, which form the text of Dr. Cooke's protest,
have already been pointed out by many, and I will just call your attention
to some remarks on this subject by our eminent honorary member, Mr.
A. E. Wallace, in an able article published in the ' Fortnightly Review'
for November, 1878, wherein he says :—" It must be remembered, too,
that a proportion of bog and swamp and damp hollows are essential
parts of the ' natural aspect' of every great forest tract. It is in and
around such places many trees and shrubs grow most luxuriantly; it is
such spots that will be haunted by interesting birds and rare insects ; and
there alone many of the gems of our native flora may still be found.
Every naturalist searches for such spots as his best hunting-grounds.
Every lover of Nature finds them interesting and enjoyable." After
enumerating some of the rarer marsh plants of our Forest, Mr. Wallace
continues :—" These and many other choice plants would be exterminated
if by too severe drainage all such wet places were made dry; the marsh
birds and rare insects which haunted them would disappear, and thus a
chief source of recreation and enjoyment to that numerous and yearly-
increasing class who delight in wild flowers, birds, and insects, would be
seriously interfered with."
It is somewhat exceptional for a society founded for the study and pro-
motion of natural science to find itself engaged in active polemics, but
in taking up the position into which we have been forced we are simply
carrying out that line of action which at our foundation I ventured to lay
down as our true function with respect to the Forest.* It is extremely
unfortunate that the claims of Science should appear to be opposed to the
wants of the general public—I say should appear to be opposed, because
I am convinced that there is no real antagonism. The grievance of
naturalists is not only that their claims have been ignored, but the action
of the Conservators has hitherto been entirely on the destructive side, and
a feeling of alarm has arisen lest the whole of the Forest should piece-
meal be desecrated in the name of a fictitious philanthropy. The public
wants—as interpreted by the Board of Conservators—are made to take
the form of clearing of underwood, deep drainage, road-making, the
intersection of the Forest by railways and tramways, and ample public-
house accommodation. If these are really the fundamental requirements
of holiday-seekers, then there must for ever be a strong antagonism be-
tween this class of the public and those whose cause I have taken it upon
myself to advocate. At this juncture, however, we may fairly ask
whether this kind of artificialised recreation-ground, a la Cremorne, is
actually demanded by the frequenters of the Forest. I believe myself
that it is not. The notion of keeping a holiday in what is only too often
a bestial manner is not a fair estimate of the British excursionist. If he
gives way to the temptations which have been so lavishly scattered in his
path it is, as Shakespeare puts into the mouth of King John, because
"the sight of means to do ill deeds make ill deeds done." The East
Londoner who wishes to spend a day in a people's park is provided for
elsewhere, but if we consent to the denaturalising of our Forest, the more
intelligent class of excursionists—and their name is legion—will be either
driven from its precincts or will Buffer that degeneration which the line of
action at present pursued is exclusively calculated to bring about.
In the course of these remarks I may have somewhat exaggerated the
supposed antagonism between the two classes most interested in the con-
servation of Epping Forest, but I have done so with the object of defining
as sharply as possible the position of the hitherto unconsidered naturalist.
* See "Inaugural Address," ' Transactions,' Vol. i., pp. 19, 20.