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. R. 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 suffer 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,’ Yol. i., pp. 19, 20. 
