BERKHAMSTED COMMON. 67 
the action, from its nature, could not be revived, at 
the instance of the defendant, against the brother who 
had succeeded in the title and property. Mr. Smith, 
therefore, found himself saddled with the costs already 
incurred, without the means of recovering them, and 
without a decision of the case; but at least the fences 
no longer existed. 
Meanwhile Mr. Smith had been advised to bring 
a cross suit in the Court of Chancery against the 
Brownlow Trustees, claiming on behalf of himself and 
the Commoners that their rights should be ascertained, 
and that the Lord of the Manor should be restrained 
from interfering with them or from inclosing the Com- 
mon. This suit did not terminate with the death of 
the late Earl, but continued against his successor, who 
had the misfortune to inherit this lawsuit together 
with the family estate. 
The case thus commenced led to a complete examina- 
tion of the Court Rolls of the Manor, and of the history 
of the Common from the earliest times. From these it 
appeared that the rights of common had always been 
esteemed of great value by the freehold and copyhold 
tenants of the Manor. So far back as the death 
of Edmund, Earl of Cornwall, in 1300, there was 
an inquisition, in which the rights of the Commoners 
were clearly defined. In 1607 there was another 
survey of the Common by Mr. John Dodderidge. A 
jury on this occasion presented— 
“That the inhabitants and tenantes of this manor dwelling 
in Berkhamsted and Northchurch have used by ancient 
F2 
