THE COMMITTEE ON COMMONS. 31 



the Common was and is, as compared with a fenced park, 

 however well drained and planted. They did not object 

 to placing the Common under a scheme of regulation, 

 but they claimed a large share in its management and 

 control. They offered to raise funds in the district 

 for any drainage that might be considered necessary ; 

 and they contended that, as their own rights of turn- 

 ing out cattle were in no way detrimental to the 

 Common, but rather a safeguard against its inclosure, 

 there was no necessity for selling any portion of it in 

 order to compensate them. 



It was obviously impossible for the Committee to 

 decide on these disputed questions of law and fact as to 

 the relative position of the Lord and the Commoners; 

 nor did it seem necessary to solve them. They considered, 

 however, that, apart from the question of taste between a 

 free and open Common and an inclosed Park, there was 

 much reason in the objections of the Commoners. If 

 the land were allowed to remain open, there 

 would be no expense in fencing it; there was also no 

 object in compensating the Commoners for rights, 

 which, if properly regulated, would be in no way 

 prejudicial to the Common, or to the interests of the 

 public. 



The Committee, therefore, advised that while there 

 was good reason for putting the Common under proper 

 regulation, for the preservation of order and the pre- 

 vention of nuisances, it was not expedient that it should 

 be fenced or inclosed, or that the Commoners' rights 

 should be extinguished, and that consequently it was 



