Agricultural Capabilities of the New Forest. 229 
was held by the right of prerogative ; that is, the power of 
making a forest of any land belonging to private owners, and 
keeping deer thereon. In return for the injury thus done, the 
owners of the adjoining property were allowed the privilege of 
turning out cattle and pigs, and cutting turf over the land be- 
longing to the Crown as its private demesne. Such appears to 
have been the origin of very many of the Forest claims. Well, 
in process of time, the Forest was greatly reduced ; that is, for 
certain considerations — probably money payments — the Crown 
relinquished its right of prerogative over the adjoining land, 
and allowed the owner to enclose and cultivate it. It then 
ceased to belong to the Forest, although exposed to injury 
from the deer, which were often less disposed than the Crown 
to recognise their circumscribed bounds. It is ever to be 
regretted that, in yielding its prerogative rights, the Crown did 
not at the same time insist on the extinction or diminution of 
turbary, the exercise of which barbarous privilege has acted like 
the upas-tree, and blasted the means and almost the hopes of 
improvement. For the sake of supplying a little scanty fuel in 
times past, Nature's efforts at restoration were continually frus- 
trated, and succeeding generations deprived of food. Its one 
redeeming quality is that it has supplied the present generation 
with an unanswerable argument in favour of the enclosure and 
cultivation of the Forest. 
It is contended by some that ceasing to keep deer in the 
Forest, and by the acceptation of ten thousand acres in lieu 
thereof, for the purpose of planting, the Crown gave up its 
rights as lords of the soil ; but it appears that whilst it ceased to 
be a Forest as regards the deer, the Forest laws are, as far as 
they can be, still retained — e.g., the very same document which 
establishes the claims of the commoners also recognises the fence 
month. 
It may be urged by the commoners, with some reason, that, if 
the Forest is to be broken up,they have a right to participate in the 
increased value which the land assumes from the very fact of its 
being about to be so treated ; and that, although as compared with 
the owners of the soil they are the weaker party, and will not have 
the power of putting in a veto against an improvement which the 
public good demands, they should be treated as if they had such 
power, and on the same principle that owners of property taken 
by the Crown by Act of Parliament are allowed an extra price 
for a forced sale, in addition to the value of the property settled 
by agreement or by a jury. In the case of two owners equally 
interested in a property which can be sold to great advantage, it 
would be necessary to have the assent of both, and both would 
participate in the advantages of the sale. But if the interest of 
