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 then' 
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about to offer on the present occasion are based on an unpublished article 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 Kailway 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 Tress ’ 
Office, 1832. 
