C 139 ] 



ufe. It might be advifeable, perhaps, to appropriate 

 the whole (as near as may be) of ^thefe wafles to the 

 growth of timber only. We can import corn, when 

 we cannot import Englifli oak. 



It may be objected, that inclofmg the wafte lands 

 would be confidered as materially afFefting a parti- 

 cular clafs of people; but before we can agree to a 

 pofition fo indefinite, and not fupported by any proof, 

 let us, for a moment, take a view of the right which 

 thefe people claim to the commonage or herbage, 

 and fee whether the argument will not hold diame- 

 trically and pointedly againfl: them. It will be found, 

 upon a very minute enquiry, that, generally fpeaking, 

 few or no perfons have a right of commonage but 

 thofe who hold the land; and confequently this right, 

 ab origifie, belongs to the landholder. This being 

 admitted, the due quantum of each holder's com- 

 monage would fcarcely be worth having, provided 

 each man aflumed to himfelf no more than he had a 

 right to do: therefore, while it is obferved, that 

 perhaps not more than one in ten takes this right, 

 and that the tenth takes ten times his fliare, it fol- 

 lows, that the many are injured, and that every at- 

 tempt at inclofures will be refifted by him who reaps 

 the greateft: benefit. 



Again, it may be objefted, that fo great an in- 

 creafe as bringing the wafles into a ftate of cultiva- 

 tion, will afFeft the landholder, by reducing the rent 

 of land; but fuppofing it did, is that a confideration 



with 



