CONCLUSION. 359 



after prolonged and costly litigation, and after frequent 

 discussions in Parliament and the Press. 



It may be interesting to point out that what has in 

 England taken thirty years to effect, through a com- 

 bination of efforts in the Courts of Law, in Parliament, 

 and in the Press, was accomplished more completely in 

 Prance, at the time of the great Revolution, by a few 

 speedy enactments. The position of common lands 

 in that country, under the feudal system, was strictly 

 analogous to that in England. There was the same 

 conflict through many centuries between the Seigneurs 

 and the Communes. Successive Sovereigns of France 

 endeavoured, from time to time, to restrain the rights of 

 the Feudal Lords within reasonable bounds in favour of 

 the Communes, but with little success, for arbitrary in- 

 cisures of communal lands were the subject of frequent 

 complaint. At the time of the Revolution, the National 

 Assembly abolished all the feudal rights of the Seigneurs 

 over such lands, and vested them in the Communes of 

 their districts, without reservation of any kind. 



In England there is no evidence that the Sove- 

 reigns in olden time ever sided with the people against 

 the landowners. The landowners on their part were all- 

 powerful in Parliament till within very recent years. 

 The Judges also assisted them by pedantic fictions and 

 devices under which the rights of the public of the district 

 were set aside. As a result, the function of a Lord of a 

 Manor, originally rather in the nature of a trust for the 

 benefit of the people of the petty lordship committed 

 to his charge, came to be regarded as a property, subject 



