6. See Ancient Laws of Ireland ; and the excellent analysis of Sir Henry Maine in his Lectures on the Early History ofInstitutions .
7. See Revue de Deux Mondes , 15 May, 1873, and also Stubbs' Constitutional History .
8. The right of the best " catel " was the right in virtue of which the lords, -after the death of a vassal, chose the bestmoveable belonging to the deceased. it was originally the right to the best head ( caput ) of cattle. Catel was also an old formof cheptel . The word " cheptel " signifies alike the agreement of the lord with the tenant, to whom he gives cattle for hissupport, reserving a share of the profits, and the beasts themselves that form the subject of the contract. In England, theright to the heriot or best chattel, in copyhold tenure, gives the lord the power of taking the best beast; and this has beenregarded as a proof of the lord's right cf ownership over the flocks with which he had furnished his vassals.
9. M Schweinfurth, in his Travels in Central Africa , says that the usefulness of the ox prevents certain tribes from killing it.
we can here seize the transition between the moment when the life of the ox is respected in consequence of his great utility,and that when he becomes a sacred object, and the eating of his flesh is forbidden.
10. De Bello Gallico III. 17; vi. 11, 13, 19, 34; vii. 4.
11. "De Ditmarschen leven sunder heren und hovedt, unde doen wadt se willen." In France, likewise, especially in Dauphinéand Franche-Comté, there existed peasant communities which had preserved their allodial franchise and their entireindependence. M. Bonnemère quotes a curious example in his Histoire des Paysans . The inhabitants of a small district ofArtois, called Allen, in 1706 refused to pay the contribution laid upon them, and wished to present themselves at Versaillesto shew Louis XIV the titles of their franchise and immunity.
CHAPTER XVIII.
HISTORY OF LANDED PROPERTY IN ENGLAND AND CHINA.
The history of property in England is an exact repetition of the history of property at Rome. In both cases small holdingswere invaded by the latifundia . In England, the progress of inequality and the feudalization of the soil were effected in themost regular and complete method. There can be no doubt that originally Great Britain was occupied by agrariancommunities similar to those of Germany. Caesar tells us that the Britons lived on flesh and milk: so that the pastoral systemmust have prevailed, as well as common pasturage, which is the ordinary condition of it. As we have already seen, numeroustraces of the ancient community still subsist; but by the Anglo-Saxon period, which is the earliest point to which ancientcharters allow us to go back, the social organization was already much modified. Inequality and class distinction wereintroduced. The manor was constituted, and took the place of the old association of equal, independent cultivators. At anearly period, a few illustrious families had more serfs, and more cattle, and obtained a larger share in the re-partition. Thewar-leaders, developed into hereditary kings, succeeded in gradually appropriating the right of disposing of waste lands asgrants. The common land of the different clans ( ager publicus ) or folcland , was regarded as royal domain, cyningesfolcland , and the king disposed of it, either alone, or with the consent of the national assembly or witan . (1) Thus registeredprivate property, or bocland , was developed. In the tenth centuryeven before the Norman conquestthe mark had beenalready transformed into the manor, although the term was not yet in use. The country was covered with a great number ofdomains ( maneria ), of very different extent, from the maneriolum of one plough to the latifundium of fifty ploughs. Thelands dependent on the manor were in some cases still mixed up with those of the cultivators, or else lay side by side withthem.
Although, since the Roman invasion, the soil was never common property subject to periodic repartition, private propertywas still submitted to many restrictions. Only the village, with the orchard and garden attached to each house' was enclosed.
Hence the name of town , zaun , or "fence," given to the cluster of dwellings. (2) All the inhabitants had to assist in keeping upthe fences (3) intended for the protection of the village and of the flax-gardens against domestic animals grazing at large. TheGerman villages in Transylvania are to this day surrounded by a fence, and the entries closed by a barrier.
The cultivated portion of the communal territory was divided into three parts, successively devoted (1) to rye, (2) to oats,and (3) to lying fallow. In each of these portions, every proprietor had one or more lots, and all these lots were subject tothe general compulsory rotation of crops, the Flurzwang. They had to be all sown in the same way, because they were givenup to common pasture at the same time. These scattered lots originated in the old periodic partition, but they had by degreesbecome private property. The two portions occupied by rye and oats were temporarily surrounded by a wooden fence, (4) which was thrown down on Lammas day. These barriers were thrown down by the assembled crowd, amidst songs andshouts of joy. This momentary return to the primitive community was one of the chief festivals in the country. The herdsthen took possession of the whole land of the village.
As the arable land produced no fodder for the cattle, a wide extent of pasture land was necessary to provide grass for thesummer and hay for the winter; and this pasture land was occupied in common. Each family had a share in the portion laidfor hay; and the cattle of the whole commune were pastured indiscriminately on the remainder. The laws of Edgar speak ofcommon pasturage, as the ordinary property of every village or tunship . There is also frequent mention, in documents of thetime, of the common forest. (5)
