★ Find a new page to transcribe in our list of Untranscribed Manuscripts
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE --> | <!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE --> | ||
<head>16<lb/> | |||
Case relative to the Tothill Fields Bill. —</head> | |||
<p>are contingencies by which the value of rights of property<lb/> | |||
is liable to be affected in every situation; and if these were<lb/> | |||
admitted as conclusive arguments against forced mutations of<lb/> | |||
property applied for on the ground of a greater mass of benefit<lb/> | |||
to be reaped by the public at large, no Act for the widening<lb/> | |||
of Streets, and improvement of Towns, no Road Act no Canal<lb/> | |||
Act, would ever be passed. These are cases which, as often as<lb/> | |||
they occur, afford matter of regret; but are never regarded<lb/> | |||
as affording matter of peremptory objection. Compensation<lb/> | |||
is applied as far as it can be applied: and where it can<hi rend="underline">not</hi>,<lb/> | |||
the damage (which in the present instance, cannot<lb/> | |||
surely amount to much if any thing) is regretted, without<lb/> | |||
being compensated. —</p> | |||
<p>It will hardly (it should seem) be contended that the<lb/> | |||
creation of a perpetuity, and that too in favor of waste and<lb/> | |||
desolation, would in this instance, any more than in any other,<lb/> | |||
be a fit object for Parliament to propose to itself : yet such would<lb/> | |||
<add>be</add> the judgment virtually involved in any Determination which should<lb/> | |||
regard the objection grounded on the supposed extraordinary value<lb/> | |||
of the Common Right to the very small proportion of the Commoners,<lb/> | |||
as opposing a peremptory Bar to the Improvement<lb/> | |||
of the Waste on the plan here proposed. If even with the support<lb/> | |||
of the Plea of Public exigency the Private Plea grounded on<lb/> | |||
the Interests of the vast majority of the Commoners is not<lb/> | |||
strong enough to outweigh the objection, much less will it be<lb/> | |||
when standing alone as it would do in the instance of any<lb/> | |||
Plan of Improvement originating with, and confined in its<lb/> | |||
Object to the sole Benefit of the Commoners. If the two Pleas<lb/> | |||
together are not strong enough, much less can the weaker ever <add>be</add></p> | |||
<note>or 6 Acres behind Rochester Row would afford ample space<lb/> | |||
to greater numbers than have ever yet been turned in upon the<lb/> | |||
whole waste; and in point of food, the herbage of the whole<lb/> | |||
waste can be no object to the Cattle holder at present. —</note> | |||
<!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE --> | <!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE --> | ||
{{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}{{ | {{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}{{In_Progress}} |
16
Case relative to the Tothill Fields Bill. —
are contingencies by which the value of rights of property
is liable to be affected in every situation; and if these were
admitted as conclusive arguments against forced mutations of
property applied for on the ground of a greater mass of benefit
to be reaped by the public at large, no Act for the widening
of Streets, and improvement of Towns, no Road Act no Canal
Act, would ever be passed. These are cases which, as often as
they occur, afford matter of regret; but are never regarded
as affording matter of peremptory objection. Compensation
is applied as far as it can be applied: and where it cannot,
the damage (which in the present instance, cannot
surely amount to much if any thing) is regretted, without
being compensated. —
It will hardly (it should seem) be contended that the
creation of a perpetuity, and that too in favor of waste and
desolation, would in this instance, any more than in any other,
be a fit object for Parliament to propose to itself : yet such would
be the judgment virtually involved in any Determination which should
regard the objection grounded on the supposed extraordinary value
of the Common Right to the very small proportion of the Commoners,
as opposing a peremptory Bar to the Improvement
of the Waste on the plan here proposed. If even with the support
of the Plea of Public exigency the Private Plea grounded on
the Interests of the vast majority of the Commoners is not
strong enough to outweigh the objection, much less will it be
when standing alone as it would do in the instance of any
Plan of Improvement originating with, and confined in its
Object to the sole Benefit of the Commoners. If the two Pleas
together are not strong enough, much less can the weaker ever be
or 6 Acres behind Rochester Row would afford ample space
to greater numbers than have ever yet been turned in upon the
whole waste; and in point of food, the herbage of the whole
waste can be no object to the Cattle holder at present. —
Identifier: | JB/123/225/002"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 123. |
|||
---|---|---|---|
123 |
panopticon |
||
225 |
case relative to the tothill fields bill |
||
002 |
|||
copy/fair copy sheet |
2 |
||
recto |
f15 / f16 |
||
fr3 |
|||
1794 |
|||
see note 3 to letter 1392, vol. 6 |
41651 |
||