362 CONCLUSION. 
supported and vindicated through the medium of the 
Commoners’ rights. The success of this work was 
largely due to the progress of public opinion on the 
subject. It would be a mistake to suppose that the 
Judges are not within certain limits amenable to public 
opinion. It would be very unfortunate if it were other- 
wise. Public opinion is an environment or atmosphere in 
which all functionaries, equally with legislators, perform 
their duties. Even the highest Judges in the land have 
many opportunities of almost unconsciously deferring to 
it. If public opinion had been in the opposite direction 
on the subject of Commons, it would have been quite 
possible, and indeed easy, for the Courts to have opposed 
obstacles to the use which was made of the Commoners’ 
rights on behalf of the public. The insistence on what 
were really technical, rather than substantial, rights of 
common, for the purpose of preventing inclosures, os- 
tensibly in the interests of Commoners, but really for a 
wholly different object, namely to secure the land for 
use and enjoyment by the public, might at one time be 
considered as scarcely worthy of the aid of the Courts of 
Law ; whereas at another time, and with an universal 
desire to save such open spaces for the public, they might 
be welcomed as perfectly justifiable and efficient weapons 
for the purpose. In this view it was essentially neces- 
sary to proceed cautiously, and in no way ahead of 
public opinion, while at the same time discussions in 
Parliament and elsewhere gradually educated that 
opinion. This change made itself felt in the Law 
Courts, and doubtless lent its aid to the suits which were 
