BOUNDARY FENCES 373 



especially in the more arable counties, where such a radical change 

 in the law of boundary fences might entail a very serious expendi- 

 ture on fencing in respect of certain lands which might not benefit 

 from nor need such fences. 



26. It has been urged that to disarm this opposition any 

 amendment of the law of boundary fences might be permissive, 

 and should only be adopted in those areas where there was a 

 desire for it. 



27. This proposal does not commend itself to the Committee 

 as practicable, or as a satisfactory solution of the difficulty. 



28. They are of opinion that to obtain such a revision of the 

 law it would be necessary that the whole country should be practic- 

 ally unanimous in the desire for the change. 



29. It is with great reluctance they arrive at the conclusion 

 that, though the existing state of the law in the matter cannot 

 be regarded as satisfactory they are unable to suggest any form 

 of legislation whereby doors will not be opened to litigation, 

 which may prove a greater evil than any that exists at present. 



30. The Committee wish to acknowledge their indebtedness 

 to a handbook on the subject prepared by Mr. A. E. B. Soulby, 

 of Malton, Yorkshire. 



CHRIS. MIDDLETON (Chairman). 

 W. H. BARFOOT-SAUNT. 

 W. FITZHERBERT-BROCKHOLES. 

 RICHARD BROWN. 

 H. TRUSTRAM EVE. 

 R, L. EVERETT. 

 JNO. KENDRICK. 

 S. KIDNER. 

 HENRY WILLIAMS. 

 29th March, 1904. 



RESERVATION BY MB. HENRY WILLIAMS. 



Whilst signing the report, for the sake of unanimity, I desire 

 to make some remarks. 



I think the inquiry of the Committee, and the legislation sug- 

 gested, go much further than the desire or intentions of those 

 who have been asking that the law should be brought into con- 

 formity with the prevailing custom. They do not wish to touch 

 the question of the ownership of a fence where such is in dispute, 

 nor the respective obligations of adjoining owners as to making 

 new fences w r here none have previously existed. Wliat has been 

 asked for is that where a fence has existed for the purpose of 

 restraining animals for a period of (it was suggested) twelve 

 years, and is known to belong to one owner, such owner shall be 

 obliged to keep that fence in such repair as will restrain all ordinary 

 domestic animals (with exceptions see below), whether his 

 own or his neighbour's, and, in default of this, he shall not have 



