78 I N C L O S U R E S. 5. 



the i'enefit cf I be herbage belongs, in proportion 

 to iheir value ; and the right of the rcfpcc- 

 tive paiceh to fnarc in a divifion of the 

 lands ought to be afcortained by their incrin- 

 fic quality, lmkI their affinity to the common 

 (where this operates on their value ui the open 

 (tatej taken jouitly -f. 



2. COMMO.N'-RIGHT LaNDS HELD WITH- 



cuT COMMON-RIGHT HousES. Thc Original 

 light of thefe lands was indifputably the 



fame 



ate rhf Ir.nds cf thc commons to tliis one-tenth of the 

 t'-vvnfliip ? It would be nbuird to fuppofe it. If one- 

 tcRth cannot by ;iny advantu^^e choufe the other nine, 

 why ih.oiild r.iiie parts of a townfliip be fuifeied to 

 lliarc tlie right of the tenth r v^te p. 56, 1. 4. 



t To fct afide the haicls of the tovvnfliip entirely 

 (as in thc cafe of Pickering) is too abfurd to be treat- 

 ed cf fcriaully. Siippofe rine acres of ten, or ninety- 

 nine of one hundred, of a given townfliip, to belongs 

 to one h.oiifc, and thc ether one hundredth part to be 

 liividcd an-iOiij; two hundred and fif y-ninc houfes : or 

 fuppofe the commons of a given townfliip to contairi 

 ma; y thoufand acres, and the appropriated common- 

 ii;;ht lands toconfiftof 2376 acres ; that thc common- 

 ri^'iit houfes of the towniliip were only two, and that 

 3370 acres of the appropriated lands belonged to one 

 hcufc-, thc other fix acres to the other houfe; would 

 h be equitable in either cafe to divide by the houfes ? 

 If not in thcfe cafes, why iu ary cafe where the pcin- 

 c'lp.t of right li prccifc y the fame ? 



