1800] A Critique. 169

felt that their ſtubborn injuſtice could be of no avail, they would all inſtantly be eager to join in, the inclofute, and would apply“ accordingly. For this purpoſe the act would appoint a limited time for ſuch conjunÎion in the incloſure, and che coſts of ad- meaſurement, and of the jury. If a great majority(four fifths, for inſtance, in value) agreed on inclofure, the law might coni- pel the reſt to come in on the ſame terms; or, leaving their be- loved hare of a worthleſs common to them, might tnake more careful and unobje¿tionable arrangements for an incloſfure intended by many 1n conjunétion. But as theſe arrangements muſt be the ſame I would propoſe for“ facilitating a general incloſure bill,” and as this communication has run to an unexpeZted length, I ſhall conclude it at another opportunity. I requeſt your readers to conſider it as not intended to enter into every detail, but to give an idea of the general ſpirit of an effectual a for the pur- poſe of incloſure. That ſuch a method is practicable is proved from the ſimilar though ruder pradâice in Scotland, by which the waſtes of that country have been incloied without the ex- pence of incloſure bills and commiſlioners, and the value of that kingdom more than doubled,

On peruſing what I have written, I perceive I have not men- tioned that bold but neceſffary efential,“ thaf from deciſion of the arbitration-jury there be no appeal.” It is much better that, in caſe of maniteſt corruption, the property of ſuch jurymen be anſwerable for their improper condué; and an oath, which might inſure to them the honours and rewards of wilful perjury»

would make them cautious enough in their condudt. RUSTICUS,

A CRITIQUE. To the Editor of the Commercial and Agricultural Magazine,

MR. EDITOR,

EING a friend to your uſeful publication, I ſend to you

notice of certain errata and omiſſions in your two laſt num- bers. Your candour will(no doubt)- admit without reluctance any corredtions for the better information of your readers, In page 47, No. 12, your correfpondent ſays, that“ if a circle be deſcribed reund a farm-houſe, a mile diítant, the area is no leſs than 9gbo acres.’ In truth, fuch a circle wauld contain rather more than 2,000 acres, which: indeed, by the: enſuing context, ſeems to have been intended.

In the firſt article of No.3, concerning the building in Pise, no direions re given about making ſpaces for the windows. and doors— T'heſeare to be cut out with a /aw or hatchet, aſter the bouſe is finiſhèd. Neither have you mentioned that the beams and joiſts are to be laid into balf the thickneſs of the wall while

COM. AND AGR. MAG,

| A 4 Ds /. ES A‘ Â/i/ e—-/ by