168 Sketch of a general Incleſure Bill.[Sept.

obtained a jury for aſligning them a juſt ſhare of a common of 1000 acres. The admeaſurement of the common being aſcer- tained, the jury make an eftimate of its average worth per acre at 51. They then ſhall conſider what proportions of the appli- cant’s fare of 5,0001.(that is 5001.) is to be curtailed for ſub- ordinate claimants. The ſtatute ſhould ordain limits(admitting conſiderable latitude) for their dire@ion. For inſtance, that the ſhare of the lord of the manor, and re@or, ſhould not exceed one fourth each, or be Teſs than one ſixth each, according to circumſtances. That ſome diminution of the applicant’s ſhare be deduQed for an extra allowance to cottagers(when in future time they ſhall apply), that is, when the incloſure ſhall become general over the common 5 and ſomething for encroachers, if the encroachments have been reckoned into the admeaſuremment. In the example adduced of the 5001. value in land, we may imagine one fifth(1001.) aſſigned to the lord of the manor, the ſame to the reQor; and 501. left for cottagers? and encroachers’ future claims: thus one half will remain free of all manorial ſervice, and all claim of tythe, aud the land-owner and other parties may immediately procéed to improvement. The a& would ordain a general regiſter of all titles formed under it, and thus the moſt ſimple, indiſputable landed property would reſult from the uſeleſs chaos of an unſtinted common., Certain obje&ions may be made to this plan, but none which can alarm by their intrinſic importance. It will be ſaid, that men limited in the time of their deciſion may err from many cauſes; from hafte, from ignorance, or from partiality. But if from theſe cauſes, or any others, they err, the country 1s Cer- tainly benefited, and nobody injured. If their error be againſt the incloſer, fill he gains much, ſince uſually all his acquiſition is clear gain. If the error be in favour of the incloſer, thoſe who have right of common can ſuffer in a very inferior degree, eſpecially as the incloſer would uſually chuſe a ſmall quantity of the deft land; therefore the range of common would not be ſo much diminiſhed, as the ſtock would be leſſened, by his ſeceſſion. Nor can any one think there is ſo much difference between the produdtions of the beſt and worſt länd in a ſtate of common, as not to leave the commoners their full priftine ſhare of benefit. If we conſider this propoſed fatute with a reference to con- ſequences, we ſhall ſee its benefits in a much higher point of view. The conſtant obje&tion againſt any propoſitions of ami-' cable incloſure is, not that the objetor will not be ¿enefited, but that he thinks ſome of the parties will be zore benefited than himſelf, A litile man alſo is too apt to ſhow his conſequence by 2 ſtubborn and fatal refuſal of the faireſt propoſitions. But if a ſingle or joint individuals(to the amount of a tenth of the ren- tal) had an independent right to incloſe their ſhare, and the reſt