[ 58 J 
tion, no meafure would be more conducive both to 
private and publick profperity. Why then fhould 
not an attempt of a different kind be made, by 
which good, though lefs in degree, may be fecured? 
What prevents many parifhes from applying to 
Parliament for permiflion to inclofe their commons 
and waftes? The expence of foliciting a bill is too 
great. ‘This expence is fo heavy, that to inclofe a 
parifh, unlefs it be very large, is but to buy land 
rather cheaply; and to inclofe a fmall parifh, is to 
confume the fee-fimple of the uninclofed lands. Let 
a motion be made in the Houfe of Commons for’a 
reduction of the fees of office; and let it be pro- 
pofed that two-thirds of them, or any other propor- 
tion which may be thought more proper, {hall be 
abated in all cafes: where the property to be inclofed 
fhall, by a valuation figned by an able and refpeGa- 
ble judge of land, fuch as Mr. Brttrnesiey or Mr. 
Davis, appear to the Committee of the Houfe ap- 
pointed to frame the bill, to be worth no more than 
» Ileaveablank for the fum, becaufe it re- 
quires more time to fix it than I can, at prefent, 
beftow. The fee to a profeflional man for fuch a 
valuation no parifh would be reluétant to pay, be- 
caufe it might probably procure an exemption from 
a confiderable part of that load of fees, ufually paid 
to the publick officers belonging to both Houfes of 
Parliament. Another regulation might come in aid, 
of the former, to render inclofure bills lefs expenfive. 
Let 
