USEFUL) PROJECTS. 
quire 200 years before the whole 
is accomplithed.. Befides, in many 
cafes the commons are too {mall to 
hear the heavy expence aitending a 
{pecial aé& of parliament; and in 
remote parts of the country, where 
the land is of little value, the ex- 
pence of an aét.is a very material 
confideration. |Your Commitiee 
will therefore proceed briefly to 
ftate the means which have occur- 
red to them for removing fo great 
an obftacle to improvement. 
To pats a law permitting perions 
unanimoufly confenting to an in- 
slofure to divide their common pro- 
perty by agreement among them- 
elves, and to remove all legal dif- 
abilities which may ftand in the way 
of fuch agreement, is a meafure 
which will not probably meet with 
any oppofition ; and yourCommit- 
tee have come to a refolution, re- 
commending that fuch a bill fhould 
be fubmitted to the confideration of 
the Houfe. The greatdifficulty how- 
ever is, to fuggeft the means of bring- 
{ng about a divifion where the par- 
ties differ regarding the inclofure. 
If the parties are not unanimous, 
there are two modes by which the 
inclofure might be effected ; name- 
ly, 1%, By giving authority to the 
courts of law either to appoint com- 
miflioners, or to divide the commons 
by judicial proceedings: or, 2d, To 
enable the parties interefted to ap- 
point commiffioners for the purpofe 
of feparating the portions of thofe 
who affent from thofe who diffent, 
to the inclofure, in order that the 
ais 
fhares: belonging to the affenters 
may be inclofed. 
In regard to the firft idea, that of 
patting a law giving the power of 
nominating the commiflfioners, not 
to the parties interefted, but to the 
Lord Chancellor, the Judge of Af- 
fize, the Grand Jury, or the Quar~ 
ter Seflions of each county; or to 
adopt a plan fimilar to that efta- 
blifhed in Scotland, by which the 
commons are divided by the courts 
of law, without the intervention of 
commiflioners, it would require 
very deliberate confideration. The 
Scotch plan, your Committee un- 
deritand, has in fome cafes been 
found expenfive, and in others im-~ 
practicable *. And in regard tp 
the granting authority to the Chan- 
cellor, the Judge of Affize, the 
Grand Jury, or the Quarter Sef- 
fions, to appoint commiffioners, if 
other means can be thought of to 
an{wer the fame purpofe, it feems 
unneceflary to add to the labour of 
thofe who are, it is fuppofed, al- 
ready fufficiently loaded: with judi- 
cial bufinefs. 
2d. To the adoption of the fe- 
cond plan, however, your Commit- 
tee can fee no material objection. 
It is an eftablifhed principle in the » 
law of England, that no perfou 
holding a property in feveraliy can 
have that property encroached up- 
on without his own confent, or an 
act of the legiflature. .But the cafe 
is different where the property is 
mixed. Itis well known that joint 
tenants, coparceners, and tenants 
* Attempts have been made to divide a common called Milbuie, fituated in the 
counties of Rofs and Cromarty, but in vain. To afcertain the rights of the parties, 
and the extent of their mutual ioterefts, before a court of law, was found imprac- 
ticable. 
But commiffioners appointed for that purpofe, invefted with authority 
fimilar to that granted in an Englith bill of inclofure, would have found no difficul- 
ty in dividing that common, 
im 
