440 
The Water Economy of France 
present In force in France and the old Roman law, in whicli 
it mainly originated. In no respect is this connexion more inti- 
mate than in the enactments bearing upon the supply of water, 
both in their letter and in their spirit ; although some dif- 
ference has naturally resulted from the changes which society 
has undergone in its organization. The Roman law, resting on 
a republican basis, paid especial regard to the rights and 
privileges of the individual — the civis Romanus ; and to the 
commonwealth so far, and so far only, as it was compounded of, 
and bound up with, the rights of individuals. It was thus at once 
antagonistic to the spirit of centralisation which pervades modern 
continental policy, sacrificing the wellbeing of the individual 
to the supposed efficiency of the State ; and also at variance with 
the feudal institutions, which subordinated all law to the privi- 
leges of the chief or his delegate, and left to the retainer little of 
rights, immunities, or protection, except in and through his 
immediate superior. 
But if the Roman law of water is found somewhat deficient in 
providing safeguards for the general interest of the community, 
regarded from a central point of view, it must be said to its 
infinite credit that there is no record in history of so minute and 
careful legislation for the protection and the furtherance of the 
interests of agriculture.* 
The principle that regulated the property of water by the old 
Roman law, evidently sprang from that ancient republican spirit 
which so characterised the first era of the existence of the Roman 
people. Flurnina omnia puhlica stmt.'\ The ownership of all 
the rivers, together with their beds and their shores, was vested 
in the people. No restriction, no toll whatever, existed to limit 
or hinder the right every citizen had to the free use of the rivers, 
and each one had a right of action to vindicate that privilege, 
ut in Jlumine pnhlico 7iavigare liceat. The exercise of this right 
had no other limits but those arising out of the necessity and 
justice of respecting the rights of others. No one, for instance, 
could be permitted to hinder the navigation of a river, or to 
alter its course, or raise obstacles to its flow, or to commit any 
nuisance that might prejudice the rights of others, public or 
private.^ As regards those streams which were not constantly 
flowing, such as the beds of torrents, or again ponds and lakes, 
they were absolutely considered as private property, and pro- 
* ' Codices de Servitutibus et Aquft,' lib. iii., tit. 34. ' Dig. de Serv. Praed. 
Rustic' lib. viii., tit. 3. ' De Aqua et Aquae Pluv. Arcendse,' lib. xxxix., tit. 3. 
' De Aqua Quotidiana et CEst.' lib. xliii. tit. 20. ' De Rivls,' tit. 21, &c., &c. 
t ' Inst.; lib. ii., tit. 1, § 2, 4. 
X ' Dig.,' lib. xliii., tit. 12. " Ne quid in flumine publico rip3,ve ejus fiat quo 
pejus navigetur; ne quid in flumine publico fiat quo aliter aqua fluat atque uti 
priore cestate fluxit,'' &c. 
