The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1883-03-17 00:00:00

THE EPPING FOREST RAILWAY BILL.

In the Honsi OP CoaiMorse, Lord Claud J. Hamilton, in
'moving the second reading of the Great Eastern Railway
( High Beech Extension) Bill, said that the railway company
had, with the full approval of the Conservators of
Epping Forest, projected a line from Chingford to High
Beech. It would intersect a small arm of the low-lying
part of the forest, and it would be necessary to take
nine acres; but the line would open up some of the
most beautiful parts of the forest, which were now
practically inaccessible. The line would intersect only
a low-lying part of the forest that was not passable
except in the finest weather. This would be drained,
as in that way opened up to the other portion of the
,iorest. The embankment would not be SO feet high, as had
been stated, but only 21 feet at the highest point, and would
be so planted with trees as to make it an ornamental
feature of the landscape. (Ironical laughter.) Strong
opposition had been raised to the bill on the part of
several professors and by a good many butterfly fanciers
and gentlemen who visited the forest in pursuit of the
insect tribe. (Laughter.) In favour of the bill there
were petitious signed by 16,000 persons living in the metro.
pelts, including 2,000 rainiaters, managers of Sunday Schools
superintendents of Band of Hope Unions, and other heads,
of educational and temperance and social agencies, repre-
slanting in the, aggregate something like 800,000 adults and
children. if the House threw out the Bill it would be an
infrlafa'ament of the Act of Parliament, which dedicated the
foreat, not to a few interested persons, but to the whole of
ties poor of London. (Cheers.)
Mr. 13ryce moved the following amendment; "That this
House, while expressing no opinion as to the propriety of
snaking a railway to High Beech, disapproves of any
scheme which involves the taking for the purposes of a
railway of any nart of the surface of Fpping Forest,
whieh, by 'the Epping Forest Act, 187 P; was directed
to be 'kept at all times unneclosed and unbuilt on
as an open space for the enjoyment of the. public.'"
The hon. member contended that, however desirable
it might be to make the Forest easily accessible to
the inhabitants of East London, even that advantage should
not be secured by destroying the Forest itself ; but the fact
was that the existing means of Recess were sufficient, and if
the proposed line were made it would take nine acres, and,
by the construction of a lofty embankment, cut off two hun-
dred acres of the most beautiful part of the Forest.
Ifr. Alderman Fowler said it seemed to be supposed that
the Corporation of London was in favour of the Bill. The
'Corporation had not taken any part in the matter whatever,
and many of them personally were opposed to it. He,
for one, would deeply regret the passing of any Bill
which would injure a portion of the forest, and
would therefore cordially support the action of the hon.
member for the Tower Hamlets. (Hear, hear.)
Sir T. Chambers quite agreed in deploring any action
-which would tend to spoil the scenery there, and as far as
as the Corporation of Loudon were concerned, they were
extremely anxious that it should be maintained in its full
beauty and integrity. Their records showed that both in the
year 1872 and in 1879, when the matter came before them at
the instance of the Great Eastern Railway, they had opposed
'a certain proposed extension of their line to High Beech on
that very ground. But the very reasons which had then
led them to oppose the scheme—namely, the interests
of the public—now induced them to favour it. What
was the use of having a beautiful piece of the forest
unless you could enjoy its beauties? It was all very well to
say the distance of a mile and a half or two miles was a
small matter; but it was sufficient te prevent the very
youag and the old from enjoying it altogether. It seemed
absurd to suppose that the severing of so small a portion as
ZOO acres out of s,l3o—though, no doubt, that was to be
regretted—ought to interfere with so important a considera-
tion as the accessibility of the forest. When the House of
Commons remembered that the Great Eastern Railway
carried no leas than 350.000 people down to Chinatord every
year, they must feel how desirable it was on all grounds that a
portion of that vast number should have the opportunity of
sentinuing their journey to another point if they desired it.
Much had been said about the damage which would be
caused to the beauty of the scenery, but the railway company
was prepared to shape the sides of the embankment to any
extent, so as to give it the effect of an undulation of the
land (laughter), in order to reduce the disfigurement to a
minimum. The Corporation of London had no interest in
the Bill. They were not promoting it, and it was unfair
that, without even seeing maps or plans, the House shouid
throw it out at this stage, beforeat was allowed to go before
a committee.

Sir H. Selwin-Ibbetson seconded the amendment, and
•ondemned the Bill as a direct violation of the conditions
and terms on which the Epping Forest Act of 1878 was passed.
Of that measure he was the draughtsman ; he had also con-
elected the negotiations between the Lords of the &tenor and
the commoners on one aide and the Corporation on the
other with regard to the terms on which the ;Bill should
pass.

Mr. Firth read a letter from one of the Conservators of
Epping Forest, written at the time when the Bill was
before the House in 1881, in which he spoke of the scheme
as a grave mistake. He (Mr. Firth) was astonished at the
observation of the hon. member for Marylebone that the
Corporation had nothing to do with the metier, and he was
tinder the impresaion that that was the Corporation's Bill.
The solicitor to the Great Eastern Railway had said that
the authority of Parliament for a station on that land was
sought at the instance of the Epping Forest Committse of
the Corporation of London. An officer of the Corporation
had purchased. 11 acres of land for £5,100, and he had re-
Deated that it was the intention, if the Bill pasted, to build
a large hotel on the land. At any rate, that measure, if the
lame people were behind it now as when it was formerly
before the House, had not been fairly put before them as
one with which the Corporation of London had nothing
whatever to do. He would point out that all London was
interested In this matter, as the forest had bean paid for hy
a tax on the rood of the people. They hoped before long to
have a constituted authority able to speak and act in their
name, and he hoped Parliament would defer the Bill.

Several other members having spoken, on the House
dividing it rejected the Bill by 230 to 82, and agreed to the
Amendment nem. con.