SECOND REPORT OF THE 



cord, in order to afeertain with precifion what the Crown had granted. Thoy 

 alfo required the Claimant to produce the laft conveyance, will, or other inurn- 

 ment, by which the right claimed had been acquired, fhutting out from their view 

 or inquiry the deduction of the title from the original grant, and avoiding a 

 difclofure of any difficulties that might poffibly, in many cafes, exift in making 

 out fuch-a deduction. 



Whether the Commiffioners erred in the exercife of the authority given to 

 them by the 3d fection, they muft leave to the decifion of better judgments than 

 their own. They are, however, not confcious that there is any reasonable founda- 

 tion to accufe them of any thing in this refpect, except it be of a too lenient exe- 

 cution of the powers committed to them ; more efpecially when it is confidered 

 that it is the undoubted privilege of the Crown, on a mere fuggeftion of an uftir- 

 pation of its rights, to call on a fubject exercifmg fuch right, whether real or 

 pretended, by an information in the Courts of Law, to fhew by what authority 

 fuch right is exercifed ; in which cafe, it is invariably incumbent on the perfon 

 fo called upon, not only to mew the original grant from the Crown to the right or 

 privilege claimed, but to prove, by ftrict legal evidence, the moft clear and ac- 

 curate deduction of a title tohimfelf, or he muft lofe or difcontiniie the right or 

 privilege entirely. 



Another objection made to what was required by the Commiffioners was, the 

 cxpence of procuring office copies of grants in cafes where the original was not in 

 the pofleffion of the Claimants. This is eafily anfwered, by the comparative 

 amount of fuch an expence (on an average not more than ,. i o. in each cafe) and 

 the expence of a fuit at law, which it is the duty of the Law Officers of the 

 Crown to inflitute, on any even fuppofed infringement of the rights of the 

 Crown. 



The Commiffioners therefore conceive it will be obvious to your Lord/hips, that 

 neither the meafures directed by thefe claufes, or the mode of execution of them 

 adopted by the Commiffioners, furnifhed any ground of complaint. 



The application for the repeal of the Act having been officially communicated 

 to the Commiffioners, and a time appointed for hearing the merits of the Me- 

 morial, the Commiffioners were requefted to attend fuch hearing, in which they 

 hoped to juftify the meafure and execution of it. In the meantime they were de- 

 fired to fufpend the inquiry, until the merits of the Memorial were decided upon. 

 The change in His Alajefty's Government before the time appointed for fuch 

 hearing, prevented its taking place. 



The fubfequent repeal of thofe claufes, has, in the opinion of the Commiffioners, 

 made it more neceflary to enter into this explanation, on two grounds ; firft, to 

 prevent any conclufion being drawn from the mere repeal of thofe claufes, that 

 they were in themfelves improper, or that the manner of executing them adopted 

 by the Commiffioners had rendered them fo ; and, fecondly, to account for the 

 delay in bringing the refult of the inquiry before your Lordfhips, notwithftand- 

 ing the utmoft diligence of the Commiffioners has been ufed (confiftently with 

 their other neceflary duties and occupations) to make it more complete. The 

 neeeffity, however, of fome immediate adoption of meafures to correct the abufes 

 that have fo long exifted, and to afeertain the property of the Crown in Windfor 

 Foreft, are fo flrongly imprefTed on the minds of the Commiffioners, that they feel 

 it their duty to fubmit to your Lordfhips, without further delay, the belt ftate- 

 ment of the Foreft, which, under all circumftances of time and means, they are 

 enabled to make. 



The fufpenfion of their proceedings before alluded to, and Mr. Abercrombie's 

 refignation in May 1 807 of his appointment as a Commiffioner, prevented the Com- 

 miffioners from refuming their inquiries till the month of October 1807, when a 

 new Commiffion iflued, appointing Mr. Mitford a Commiffioner in the place of 

 Mr. Abercrombie. The Commiffioners met immediately after the inning of 

 that Commiflion, and devoted the whole of the month of October to investigations 

 in the Foreft of various kinds ; and appointed feveral public meetings, to proceed 

 on the claims and encroachments for which further time had been given in Janu- 

 ary 1807. 



It was at this period of their inquiry that the Commiffioners felt their difficulties 

 increafed by the repeal of the ad and 3d feclions of the 46th of the King. The 

 perfons who had not before fubftantiated their claims, were not now bound to 

 fupport them by written evidence (by which alone, in many cafes 3 they could 



be 



