THE ESSEX FIELD CLUB. IO7 



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., Ixvii.). 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 Epping Forest Clauses of the Bill were ultimately withdrawn 

 [Ihid. II., V.) Again, in 1881, the proposed extension of the 

 tram-line along the " Ranger's Road " was opposed by the Club 

 [Ihid. Ixxxiv.) and that Bill was also withdrawn [Ibid. 

 Ixxxvii.j. 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 numl)ers 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 gth, 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 



