Vlll 
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 1878, 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 
j 3 rojected 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 Bogers 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 148 in a house of 812 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.” 
