Postbag - Perfectly clear

TED Bocking's letter (December 8) is sadly limited in fact and comprehension. If my letter of November 23 answered its own question, can he explain by what authority the revamped charity collects an income from grazing rights? Only Huntingdon Freemen were granted this right by Royal Charter, and no less an authority than Lord Denning confirms a Charter can be removed only by an Act of Parliament.Could anything be clearer? The High Court decision failed to address the problem. In short, the charity is acting illegally by claiming an income to which it has no entitlement. In the High Court, Lord Morritt argued that: "There will come a time when the class of Freemen will cease to exist" and, saying that it was "not necessary to decide if this time had already arrived", confiscated all our assets. He did not, indeed could not, remove our grazing rights.According to Mr Bocking, the charity has now reached a critical point in its history as regards the representation of the Freemen. He goes on to ask your readers if they can help trace anybody who is a Freeman or Freeman's widow. How shameful that the present charity is unable to identify the present Freemen and widows. Without the legacy of our ancestors, Mr Bocking would have no charity to administer!What an insult to their memory to invite our membership to identify themselves to the charity that acts in our name through a public notice in The Hunts Post (November 30).Huntingdon Freemen were content to receive a small income from grazing rights and, when the amounts of money from land sales increased, were planning to establish a charitable fund for the benefit of Huntingdon residents.My husband was instrumental in proposing a scheme. So it was not just a case of the benefit of a select few.ANNE BRADSHAW(Freeman's Widow)Coxons CloseHuntingdon