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 
France, 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- 
closures 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. Asa 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, cume to be regarded as a property, subject 
