OP EX SPACES AND FOOTPATHS. 25 
proved that it has at some time been enjoyed by the inhabitants 
of the parish. 
That insidious and dangerous form of inclosure— appropria- 
tion of common lands for industrial undertakings, chiefly rail- 
ways — has seen its worst days. Whenever a railway could be 
carried through common land it was always done ; an instance 
near home to those who dwell in London, is Wandsworth 
Common. But the vigilance of the Commons’ Preservation 
Society, in opposing at every step each Railway Bill that spells 
ruin to some tract of heather, fern and gorse, has done much to 
minimize this evil. 
The superiority of the Metropolitan Commons Act (1866), 
over the Commons Act (1876), as a method of securing regula- 
tion over open spaces, is next compared, and it is a matter of 
regret that provincial commons cannot be placed under a regula- 
tion scheme save with the consent of two-thirds of the parties 
legally interested. 
The rights of highroads are little contested, but the obstruction 
of foot paths and bridle ways is almost a household word. It is 
curious to see how much more jealous villagers and townsfolk 
are of foot path right of way than of preservation of open spaces, 
and what a large part the barring up of these thoroughfares 
plays in local animosity. The old maxim “ once a foot path 
always a foot path,” is fully insisted upon by the author, and 
the burden of proof is shown to depend, not on cessation of user, 
but on presumption of dedication on the part of the owner of the 
property through which it passes. The powers of District and 
Parish Councils (if only they will use them) are equally strong 
to hinder and annul these obstructions, as in the case of defend- 
ing wastes from inclosure. 
With regard to roadside wastes, we will but note that 
hitherto the}' have been an easy prey to the incloser of common 
land ; but that henceforth no case of such inclosure need ever 
go unchallenged, under the new authority given to District 
Councils. 
To the inhabitants of seaside towns, whether ports or water- 
ing places, and also to the enormous crowd of summer visitors 
to the latter, the question of foreshore and cliffs as a means 
of recreation is of especial interest. The foreshore, that is, the 
land lying between high and low water mark, generally, though 
not always, belongs to the Crown. The public cannot set up 
any claim to wander over it, or to bathe off it — indeed, the 
latter action has sometimes been resisted, though upheld in 
court of law. Where the foreshore is in the hands of the Crown 
the public will not be hindered in passing over it, and this will 
probably be the case when it is in private hands. One sentence, 
which we quote, calls for comment : — 
“ The enjoyment of the public cannot be set up to prevent 
some other use of the foreshore inconsistent with such enjoy- 
ment ; and such inconsistent use is likely to arise where the 
foreshore is in private hands.” 
