APPENDIX. 347 



apply to the forest, nor is there any proof given that they did apply, 

 or that any extension of the neutral country then took place. On the 

 contrary, from the care Mr. Hanbury and Mr. Calvert bestowed on 

 these matters, it is hardly possible that, if anything was done, no 

 written memorandum should have been kept : and the probability is 

 that, on discussing the matter, the objections of Mr. Hanbury to 

 extend the neutral country were found insurmountable, notwithstand- 

 ing his desire to accommodate Mr. Houblon. 



" 6. The forest continued to be drawn by the Essex till 1832, 

 when Lord Petre took the Herts Hounds, and ' claimed an exclusive 

 right to the forest and the other coverts, and asked for a reference.' 

 A meeting took place, and the result was that there was no reference, 

 and that Mr. Conyers was not dispossessed. Again, in 1838, Mr. 

 Houblon, the owner of the forest, became master of the same hounds, 

 and desired ' to have the forest drawn on certain defined conditions, 

 or a reference,' but Mr. Conyers still kept his old ground. It is clear 

 that if Mr. Houblon's father had only got leave to draw the forest 

 conditionally from Mr. Hanbury in 1812 there must have been posi- 

 tive evidence of that fact in 1832, as it must have been known to 

 many. It is asserted that in 1832 the claim was only waived during 

 Mr. Conyers's life, but, as in 1833, the owner of the forest, then 

 master of the Herts Hounds, asked to have the arrangements respect- 

 ing that draw ' denied, or a reference,' it is clear that no abandonment 

 of the Essex claim of right took place in 1832, while Mr. Houblon's 

 demand negatives the idea of any agreement having been then entered 

 into by the Herts to abstain from making a claim only during Mr. 

 Conyers's life. 



" 7. The reference asked for on these two occasions has now been 

 brought before us, and, after having given our best consideration to 

 the subject, we are of opinion that, according to foxhunting laws, 

 the forest does not belong exclusively to either hunt, but must be 

 considered neutral for the reason assigned in the third and fourth 

 paragraphs. 



" Yarborough. 

 " November 19th, 1854. " Redesdale." 



