ROADSIDE WASTES. 295 



selves confronted by a body able and willing to enforce 

 its conclusions, with one exception gave way, and, 

 while protesting they had not acted illegally, allowed 

 us to replace their fences on the legal line. The one 

 exception was the owner of the substantial wall already 

 referred to. This gentleman refused our offer with 

 contumely, informed us that he was advised by the 

 best authority that he was legally justified in his 

 encroachment, and threatened that he would resist us 

 in the Law Courts, and fight his case up to the House 

 of Lords. 



Nothing daunted, we were equally sure of our 

 position as members of the public, whose rights to the 

 roadside waste we believed to be undoubted. We were 

 advised by Mr. Robert Hunter, the solicitor to the 

 Commons Society, that our best course was to apply 

 to the Attorney-General for his consent to lay an 

 information in his name against the encroaching land- 

 owner, for interfering with the public right of way. 

 The Attorney-General gave his consent, and an in- 

 formation was filed in the Court of Chancery on the 

 relation of certain members of the Committee, asking 

 that the author of the obstruction should be ordered to 

 remove it. One of the members of the Committee 

 Mr. Ferard was also Lord of the Manor of Wingfield, 

 in which the strips lay, and a claim was in the same 

 proceedings made on his behalf to the ownership of the 

 soil of the strips. 



When tackled in this way, our opponent felt himself 

 unable to defend his encroachment. He submitted to 



