STATUTE OF MERTON. 349 
tenure. Under these circumstances the Law Courts did 
what they have so often done; they invented a theory 
to justify arrangements, which were considered to be 
convenient. They upheld the custom on the ground 
that the whole waste, of which portions were from time 
to time granted, must be deemed to have been demisable 
by copy of Court Roll time out of mind,and might, there- 
fore, be actually so demised or granted in portions from 
time to time. This decision was given in 1803.* Under 
its authority grants of waste multiplied, and the practice 
was probably introduced in many Manors where it had 
not previously obtained. 
The custom was carried in the case of Rowley 
Green, as has been shown, to the point of allowing the 
Lord of the Manor to select himself three or four copy- 
holders to form the Homage, and with their consent to 
inclose not only as against other copyholders not present 
and not summoned, but against other persons with rights 
over the Common, quite independent of the copy- 
holders.t 
This creation of new copyholds did little harm, 
while the practice was confined to its original object, 
that of legalizing small encroachments, made in the 
interests of the labouring class, or of effecting some 
trifling inclosure for a public purpose. But as land in- 
creased in value in the neighbourhood of London and 
large towns, advantage was taken of the custom to 
make money for the Lord. Hither valuable inclosures 
* Lord Northwick v. Hanway: B. and P., 346. 
t+ Supra pp. 225-7. 
