30
have the like infirmity of title as the owners of
enclosures which are still agricultural land, yet
between the destruction of a house standing upon a
small plot of land, perhaps not more than a few
perches in extent, and the throwing open of an
enclosure of 64 acres of land, without a building
upon them belonging to one person (an actual case),
there is a wide difference indeed.
The Commissioners have been so anxious to assist
the enclosers that they have not even laid down a give
and take price. If for any reasons of hardship, the
enclosers were to be considered as entitled to have the
law of the land suspended in their favor, and be al-
lowed to retain their lands against the legal decision
that they should be thrown open, surely one
standard should have been fixed, which they were
to pay, for having their titles quieted, or which the
Corporation should pay to them for the repurchase of
those lands if it wanted to throw them into the
forest; but, the Commissioners' scheme for quieting
the titles and repurchase of the land is one which
gives one price for one operation and another for the
other, full marketable value for the Corporation
wanting to throw the land open and agricultural value
for the encloser wanting to keep it as private property.
It is not a little remarkable that in their zeal for
the interest of the enclosers, and as showing how
greatly they have mistaken the purpose of their