158 COMPARISON BETWEEN ENGLAND VIII 



at the Revolution, but transferred to the Department or 

 Commune, who continued to impose them with that love 

 for order and public control which is an essential charac- 

 teristic of Frenchmen. 



The Napoleonic legislation indeed allowed the strips in 

 the open field to be sold, exchanged, or enclosed. But if 

 that were not done, the owner still remained subject to the 

 f usages locaux/ which are published every year by the 

 Department or the Commune, and are perpetuated by 

 the sanction of immemorial custom. To this day, there- 

 fore, in many places, the open field remains with commun- 

 able rights after the harvest, known by the name of 

 1 le droit de vaine pature ', and ' le droit de parcours V 



The political conditions of the two countries should also 

 be taken into account. In England, as we have shown, 

 the local government was in the hands of the landowners 

 of the county. But in France the administration was in 

 the hands of the intendant and his delegate representatives 

 of the central authority, and generally strangers. These 

 had no interest which bade them become landowners, while 

 the French noble, who wished to make a name, knew that 

 this could only be done in the capital itself. A. Young, 

 in his Travels in France, is constantly reminding us that 

 the French noble, with rare exceptions, did little for the 

 improvement of his land, and contrasts him most un- 

 favourably in this respect with the landowner in England. 

 Either he neglected it altogether and used it merely for 

 purposes of sport, while he lived on the dues owed him by 

 his tenants, or he sold and spent his time in the pleasures 

 of the capital, or, if he were ambitious, in attempting to 

 gain political influence at the centre. 



Thus, while in England it was the rich man who bought 



1 Seebohm, Econ. Journal, i. 68; Prothero, Pioneers; 



