THE COMMITTEE ON COMMONS. 3] 
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 solvethem. 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 
