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 
