v4 BERKHAMSTED COMMON. 
1866, sped its intricate and dilatory course of proceedings 
for four long years, during which minute investigations 
were made, at great expense, into the past history of the 
Common, the origin and nature of the rights of the Com- 
moners, and the number of persons so entitled. Every 
possible objection was raised by the Defendant. It was 
contended that the Manor was not a single one, but 
that Berkhamsted and Northchurch were two distinct 
manors: it was objected that Mr. Augustus Smith 
could not sue on behalf of the freehold tenants of the 
Manor; it was asserted that the rights of common 
were of a limited character; it was claimed that the in- 
closure was justified under the Statute of Merton. Only 
those, who are familiar with these Commons cases, can 
have an adequate notion of the elaborate nature of 
the documentary and oral. evidence necessary for proof 
or disproof. 
Finally, in January, 1870, Lord Romilly, then 
Master of the Rolls, decided the case in favour of Mr. 
Augustus Smith, on all the points raised by Lord 
Brownlow. “I am of opinion,” he said, “that the 
objection that the Plaintiff cannot sue on behalf of the 
freeholders fails, and that though these rights of com- 
mon may not be co-extensive, yet as the Plaintiff has 
proved, and indeed is admitted to be a copyholder, as 
well as freeholder, in the Manor, he is entitled to sue on 
behalf of both.” He also affirmed that the rights of com- 
mon of herbage, and pannage, of the cutting of turf and 
gorse, were established. “It remains,” he added, “ for 
the Lord of the Manor to show that he is entitled to 
