English commons and forests : the story of the battle during the last thirty years for public rights over the commons and forests of England and Wales

Preface

I HAD some time ago collected the materials for, and had written, the greater part of this work, with the object of giving an account of the battle, since 1864, for the preservation of the Common lands and Forests of England and Wales. I delayed, however, completing and publishing it in the hope that a more favourable occasion might arise for claiming that the main object of the movement had been accomplished, either b}^ the completion of the long series of lawsuits, which had for so many years been running- their course in the law courts for the prevention of inclosures under the Statute of Merton, or by the adoption of legislation, which would render such litigation unnecessary in the future.

That occasion has now offered itself. During the past year, 1893, two most important results have been achieved. In the first place. Parliament has passed a measure for the virtual repeal of the Statute of Merton, under the assumed sanction of which, all the attempted inclosures of Commons, during the period referred to, were made. In the second place, after a struggle in the law courts of thirteen years, for the saving of Banstead Commons, in what it is hoped will be the last of the great Commons suits, Parliament, in spite of most

197841

Ti PREFACE.

determined opposition before Select Committees of both Houses, has sanctioned a scheme for the regulation of these Commons, under which they will be placed under the control and management of a body of Conservators elected by the ratepayers of the district. It has therefore decided that a Common may be practically taken out of the control and management of the Lord of the Manor and placed under that of an elective body in the interest of the district.

These two important measures may be considered as having virtually effected a legal revolution in the relation of Lords of Manors and their Commoners to the public with respect to Commons. The fitting occasion, therefore, has arisen for putting on record the history of the movement, and for describing in detail the course of litigation which has had so large a part in forming public opinion and in rendering possible this legislation.

I should have preferred that some other person than myself should have undertaken this task. But, in fact, of those who were concerned in the initiation of the movement, I find that I am the only survivor, who has continuously taken an active part in directing the policy of the Society for the Preservation of Commons, and who is conversant with all its proceedings. I must claim excuse, therefore, if I have occasionally lapsed into a narrative in the first person, and have referred to my own action.

I have to render special thanks to Sir Eobert Hunter and Mr. Percival Birkett, who were professionally

PREFACE. vii

engaged in so many of the great law suits referred to, for the aid the}^ have rendered in supplying me with information, and in assisting me in revising and completing this work. The account of the Banstead Commons litigation is mainly derived from a pamphlet by Sir Robert Hunter, Avhose able pen and wise counsel have contributed so largely to the success of the cause.

I am also indebted to Mr. P. H. Lawrence, who took so large a part in the initiation of the movement ; and I desire to acknowledge the kind assistance of Mr. James Hole and Mr. Fithian, who almost from the commencement of the Commons Society have been its Honorary and Acting Secretary.

Some of the paragraphs in the opening chapter on the origin and historj' of Commons are taken from an account I published a few years ago of the then position of the movement for their preservation. The stories of some of the Commons cases, and especially of Epping Porest, may be partially known to the public, or may be found to some extent in the law reports, but they have not, I think, before been fully told, or collected together, w^ith the object of giving a succinct history of the movement, and of explaining the process by which the Courts of Law, Parliament and the public have been gradually and fully convinced of the necessity of l^reserving our Commons and Forests, and have been instructed how to accomplish this object.

CHAPTER I. Origin axd Histohy of Commons

PAGE

Description of Commoiis — London Commons — Rural Commons— Origin of Commons — Village Communities — Folk-Lands — Rise of the Feudal System— Manors— The Statute of Merton— Copyholders — Customs of Villagers — Gateward's case— Agitation against inclosures in sixteenth century— Origin of Inclosure Acts— Extent of Commons inclosed under Acts— Effect on Rural Labourers — General Inclosure Act of 1845 — Origin of new movement against inclosures • 1 — 26

CHAPTER II. The Committee of 1865 ox Metropolitan Commons

Proposals in 1864 for Wimbledon Common — Complaints of inclosure of London Commons — Committee of 1845 — Enquiry into inclosures — Proposal for purchase by the Metropolitan Board of Works — Report of Select Committee -7 — 38

CHAPTER III. The Commons Preservation Society

Renewed inclosures of London Commons — Epping Forest inclosures — Founding of Commons Society to resist inclosures — Commencement of suits — Proceedings in Courts of Law— Sir H. Peek's prizes for Essays on Commons • "^^ ^^

CHAPTER IV. Hampstead Heath

Description of Hampstead— History of Manor— Lord of the Manor's proposals to grant building leases — Resistance in Parliament —

COXTEN'TS.

FACE

Attempted inclosure in 1866 — Resistance of Commoners — Commencement of suit — Comi^romise effected — Purchase of Lord's rights by Metropolitan Board— Purchase of Parliament Hill as an addition to Heath 47— 57

Chapter V. Bekkhamsted Common

Description of Common — History of Manor — Inclosure by Lord Brownlow — Removal of Fences by jMr. Augustus Smith — Commencement of suit— Inclosui-e in 1638 by Duchy of Cornwall — Removal of Fences by Edlyn — Action of House of Lords — The Common during the Commonwealth — Story of the suit — Lord Romilly's judgment 58 — 76

CHAPTER yi.

Plumstead akd Tooting Commons.

Description of Plumstead Commons — History of Manor —Inclosures by Queen's College, Oxford — Resistance by Commoners — Commencement of suit — Decision of Lord Romilly — Appeal — Lord Hatherley's judgment against inclosure — Scheme of regulation — Addition to Common — Description of Tooting Common — History of Manor — Inclosure by Mr. Thompson — Commencement of suit — Decisions of Lord Romillv and Lord Hatherlev . . . 77—88

Chapter VII

History of Wimbledon Conamon— Manor Rolls — Dispute between Lord of the Manor and Commoners — Commencement of suit — Investigation into rights of common — Compromise — Scheme for purchase of Lord's rights — Regulation of Common — History of Wandsworth Common — Injury to Common by Railway Companies — Disputes between Lord of the Mauor and Commoners — Litigation —Compromise — Scheme for Regulation 89 — 102

CHAPTER VIII. El'PING FOREST

Description of Forest— History of Waltham Forest— Forest Laws- History of Forest Manors — Early perambulations — Queen Eliza-

CONTENTS. xl

PAGE

beth — Exactions of Charles I. — Attempts to disafforest — Proceedings of Commonwealth — lie-constitution of Forest Courts by Charles II. — Decay of Forest Courts — Disafforesting of Hainault Forest — Inclosures of Epping Forest — Sale of Forestal rights of Crown — -Inquiries by House of Commons — Renewed inclosures after the Committee of 1865 — The Loughton inclosure — Story of Lopping rights of Loughton^ Willingale's assertion of right — His imprisonment — Commencement of Willingale's suit — Preliminary judgment by Lord Romilly — Investigations of Forest Records — Corporation of London — Commencement of suit by Corporation — Proceedings in Parliament — Fawcett's Motion — SIi-. Ayrton's Bill — Mr. Cowper Temple's motion — Epping Forest Commission — Sir George Jessel's judgment in the Corporation suit — Scheme for management of the Forest — Lord Ilobhouse's Arbitration — The midnight meeting at Loughton — The decision in the Lopping case — The erection of the Loppers' Hall — The final settlement of Epping Forest — Cost of proceedings 103 — 160

CHAPTER IX. AsHDOwx Forest and Malverx Hills

History of Ashdown Forest — Proceedings in Commonwealth — Disafforesting by Charles IT. — Inclosures by Duchy of Lancaster — Duke of Dorset's aggressions — Lord De la Warr's suit against the Commoners — ^Decision of Appeal Court in favour of Commoners — History of Malvern Chase — Disafforesting by Charles I. — Recent inclosures — Litigation — Successful issue ..... 161 — 173

CHAPTER X. CovLSDox, Dartiokd, axd Wigley Commons

Description of Coulsdon Common — History of Manor — Inclosure by Lord of Manor — Excessive gravel-digging — Suit on behalf of Messrs. Hall — Vice-Chancellor Hall's judgment — Purchase of Common by Corporation — History of Dartford Heath — Destruction of Common by excessive gravel-digging — Suit by Mr. Minet — • Injunctions to restrain inclosure and excessive gravel-digging — History of Wigley and Cadnam Manors — Mr. Sloane Stanley's inclosure. of Wigley Common — Mr. Briscoe Ej're's suit — Discovery of decree of Lord Chancellor Hatton — Mr. Justice Field's judgment — Conditions of landownershij) in Manors . . . 174- xii CONTENTS.

CHAPTER XI. Banstead Commons

PAGE

Description of Commons — History of Manor — Mr. Alcock's proposal to dedicate Commons to public — Sir John Hartopp's purchase — His efforts to extinguish Common rights — His attempted inclosures — Formation of Banstead Common Preservation Society — Commencement of suit — History of suit — Insolvency and flight of Sir John Hartopp's Solicitors — His bankruptcy — Proceedings of Mortgagees of Manor — Further litigation — Judgment of Court of Appeal — Scheme for Regulating the Commons — Opposition of Mortgagees — Decision of Parliament— Commons taken out of hands of Lord of Manor 188—211

CHAPTER XII. ToLL.\BD Farnham Commox axd Rowley Green

Two reverses-^History of Cranbourne Chase and ToUard Farnham Common — Lord Rivers incloses the Common — Custom of inhabitants to cut firewood on Common — Action by Lord Rivers — Case before Coiu-t of Exchequer — Chief Baron Kelly's judgment against inhabitants — Comparison with Lord Hobhouse's decision in the Loughton case — Description of Rowley Green — Inclosure of small part with consent of Homage — Litigation — Adverse decision — Comparison with Lord Hobhouse's judgment in Loughton case 212—227

CHAPTER XIII. The New Forest and the Fokest of Dean

Origin of Forests — Creation of New Forest by William the Conqueror — Legend as to devastations — The cruel enforcement of Forest Laws — Description of Forest — Legislation of 1698 — The Deer Removal Act of 1851 — Commoners' rights — Effect on small owners and tenants — Results of Act of 1851 — Comj)laints by Commoners and the public — Fawcett's motion in 1871 — Committee of House of Commons— Act of 1877 — The Ranges Act of 1891— Public interest in the Forest — Description of the Forest of Dean — History of Forest — Instructions to Spanish Armada — Sale of Forest by Charles I. — The Forest during the Commonwealth — Act of 16G8 — The Rights of Free Miners — Attempted inclosure in 1878 — Action of Commons Society— The Forest saved ..... 228 — 26S

CONTENTS. xiii

CHAPTER XI Y.

BniNHAM Beeches.

PAGE

Description of Burnham Common — History of Manor — Purch:ise by Lord Grenville — Mrs. Grote's account of Manor — Lady Grenville's aggressions — Sale of Manor in 1876 — Action of Commons Society — Purchase by Corporation of London ...... 264 — 272

CHAPTER XV. Rural Commons

Movement in 1869 as to Rural Commons — Fawcett's action in House of Commons— Resistance to Inclosure Schemes — Select Committee — Bill for amendment of Inclosure Acts in 1871 — Rejection by House of Lords in 1872 — Sir R. Cross's Bill of 1876 — Action of Commons Society — Amendments in House of Commons — Standing Committee on Commons — ^Nlaltby Common — Thurstaston Common — Result of Commons Act of 1876 — Effect of Fawcett's action on public opinion .......... 273 — 287

Chapter XVI

Description of Road-side wastes — Law as to rights of public — Baron Martin's judgment in the Telegraph case — The Hatfield inclosures of Road-side wastes in 1867 — Lord Cowper's removal of fences — Success of action — Inclosures of Road-side wastes at Ascot — Committee formed to abate them — Legal proceedings — Success of action — Recent legislation for protection of Road-side wastes . 288 — 298

CHAPTER XVII. Village Greens

Law as to Village Greens — Early decisions as to right of villagers to play games on Greens — Distinction between villagers and general public — The Woodford Green Case — Stockwell Green — Sir George Jessel's judgment — Walton Hill case — Successful ^•indications of rights of villagers — Right of Recreation in public .... 299 — 311

CHAPTER XVIII. Regulation of Commons

Regulation Schemes under Metropolitan Commons Act of 1866, and under Commons Act of 1876 — Distinction between them — Action

COXTEXTS.

of Metropolitan Board— Regulation of Hayes Common-The HackAey Commons-Litigation-Scliemefor regulation-Purchase of Lord's rights— Barnes Common— Clapham Common— Mitcham Common— Litigation— Scheme for regulation of Epsom Common— Regulation of Rural Commons— Number of Schemes— Defects of Act of 1876

312—330

CHAPTER XIX. Attacks ky Railway Companies

Danger to Commons from Railway Companies-Motives to Companies to engineer their lines through Commons— Opposition to Schemes in House of Commons-Amendment of Standing Orders— Attack on IMitcham Common-Successful resistance— Attacks on Eppmg Forest and New Forest— Defeat of Schemes— The Corporation of Manchester and the Thirlmere Commons-The Corporation of Birmingham and the ISIountain Commons in South Wales-Parliament insists on a "J>,s spatiandi "-The Torrington Commons- Change in public opinion on question-Effect of discussions m Parliament . . • •

331—342

CHAPTER XX. The Repeal of the Statute of Mertox

Effect of failure of Parliament to adopt recommendations of Committee of 1866 for repeal of Statute of jNIerton- Consequent litigation- Result of suits— Failure of Lords of Manors to maintain right to inclose-Attempts to obtain repeal of Statu te-Inclosures under customs of Manors with consent of Copyholders-The Copyhold Act of 1887— Action of House of Lords in restricting such inclosures in future-Consent of Agricultural Department— Description of Clause— Results of Clause— Proposal in 1893 to extend principle to inclosures under Statute of JNIerton -Lord Thring's BiU in the House of Lords— Lord Salisbury's opposition— Passing of measure —Virtual repeal of Statute of Merton— Necessity for proof of public interest in inclosures— Review of movement during thirty years— Efforts to secure Commons for public— What remains to be effected— Withdi-awal of trust from Lords of Manors— Transfer to Local Authorities of Control and Jlanagement of Commons- Breaches in ranks of those engaged in movement- Conclusion . 343—365

CONTENTS.

APPENDIX I.

Commons -within the Metropolittm Police District which have been subjected to Regulation Schemes, under the Metropolitan Commons Act, confirmed by Parliament ......

APPENDIX II.

Commons within the Metropolitan Police District which have been secured to the public and regulated under Special Acts or which have been bought by Local Authorities .....

APPENDIX III.

Commons of over twenty acres each, within the Metropolitan Police District, not yet protected by Regulation Schemes under the Metropolitan Commons Act, 1S66

APPENDIX lY.

Royal and Public Parks within the Metropolitan Police District .

APPENDIX V.

Commons regulated or enclosed under the Commons Act, 1876

APPENDIX VI.

Acreage of Commons and Common Field Lands in each county in England and Wales, compiled from the Tithe Commutation Maps of 1834, so far as they exist, with estimate based on same average for parishes where Maps do not exist ......

373—374

Hasu'stead Heath Bertvhamsted Common Wandsworth CoiiMox Epping Fore.st (two maps Banstead Commons .

MAPS

FACE PAGE 54

62 100 124

EXGLISH

COMMONS AND FORESTS.

CHAPTER I. Origin and History of Commons

In most parts of England and Wales there are to be found ranges of open land, wliicli have never been subject to cultiv'ation or agricultural improvement, and which have consequently remained in their original state of nature from the earliest times. Their permanence in this state has been due to the fact that the ownership of them is not absolute. They are burdened with the rights of numerous adjoining owners and occupiers to turn out cattle or sheep on them, and to dig turf or cut gorse, bracken, or heather thereon for fuel, litter, or thatching. The existence of such rights has prevented the nominal owners of the soil from exercising the full rights of inclosing and cultivating the land, and has indirect!}'' been the means of securing to the public the unrestricted use and enjoyment of walking or riding over it in all directions, whatever may be their strict legal right. Such common lands are technically the wastes of the Manors in which they are situate, and must be distinguished from other lands, which, though open and uuinclosed, are yet private property in the lull sense of the term, and wliich the owners could at any time inclose with fences.

These Commons are not to be found only in purely rural districts ; many of them are near to London and other large towns. In such cases they form, as it were, oases of nature, in striking contrast to their surroundhigs. They have ceased, however, to be of any substantial profit to those who have rights of common over them. The growth of a large population in their neighbourhood has made it dangerous to turn out valuable cattle on them. Cheap coal has superseded the necessity of cutting turf or gorse for fuel. Bracken and heather are not wanted for litter or thatching. People have taken the place of cattle and sheep, and use the wastes for recreation, though it will be seen that the law has not recognised the change, or given full sanction to the new user. The common rights still subsist in law, though no longer of any practical value for the purposes which gave rise to them. They are v^alued by the adjoining owners of land only because they afford the means of preventing the owner of the soil, the Lord of the Manor, inclosing and appropriating the Common for building, and thus excluding the public.

Where such urban or suburban Commons exist it is difficult to exaggerate their value to the public. They are natural parks, over which every one may roam freely ; for though the public may be trespassers in strict law, there are no practical means of preventing their going upon these Avaste lands for exercise and recreation. They are reservoirs of fresh air and health, whence fresh breezes blow into the adjoining town. They bring home to the poorest something of the sense and beauty of nature.

London has been exceptionally fortunate in this respect. Within fifteen miles of its centre there are no fewer than seventy-four such Commons, averaging 160 acres, and 120 smaller spaces, averaging 10 acres — making, with Epping Forest, a total of about 19,000 acres. Some of these, such as Hampstead Heath, Blackheath, Clapham Common, and the Hackney Commons, are bordered by a dense population. Others at a greater distance form almost a zone of open spaces, to which the suburban population is quickly tending. Thus to the West of London we find Wimbledon, Wandsworth, Barnes, Tooting, and Ham Commons, which, together with the Royal parks of Richmond, Bushey, Hampton, and Kew Gardens, make an almost continuous range of open land, which can never be built on. On the South are Mitcham, Streatham, Chislehurst, Hayes, Plumstead, and Bostall Commons, and the wide ranges of open land on the Surrey Downs, such as Epsom, Banstead, and Coulsdon Commons. To the East of London there is the great area of Epping Forest, of 6,000 acres, of which one-half has been rescued in recent years from those who had already inclosed and fenced it. The North of London is not so adequately provided with open spaces, and beyond Hampstead there is little but Stanmore and Tottenham Commons till we come to the Hertfordshire Commons, such as Berkhamisted, B 2

4 OBIGIN OF COMMONS.

beyond the fifteen mile limit. ISTo other populous district is so much favoured as London in this respect. But there are not a few towns which owe a great part of their popularity as health resorts to the breezy Commons which adjoin them. What, for instance, would Tunbridge Wells be without its Common, or Harrogate without its " Stra}^," or Malvern without its wide range of open hills or chase, or Eastbourne without its downs on Beachy Head ?

In rural England, though the Commons are not so essential for health and recreation, 3'et there are many districts which owe their residential charm and value to these wild and picturesque open spaces. This is specially the case with Surre}^ Sussex, and Hampshire, which are greatly favoured by the number of their Commons still remaining uninclosed, by reason, probably, of the land being unprofitable for cultivation, and offering no temptation in past times to inclose them. In the more mountainous parts of England and Wales the common rights over wide ranges of land have been the means of securing to the public the unrestricted access to and enjoyment of the mountain tops, and have prevented the owners of the land from excluding the public, in the same manner as the Scottish landowners have done in the case of their forests and moors.

There is no accurate information as to the number and area of Commons which still remain uninclosed. So late as in 1871, the Inclosure Commissioners reported to Parliament that the Commons extended over an area of 8,000,000 acres, of which they said 3,000,000 were

OEIGIN OF COMMONS. 5

in the cultivated parts of England and Wales, and the residue in the mountain districts. Of this great extent they considered that one million acres might be cultivated with profit and advantage to the countr}^ and that when this was effected there would still remain about one-sixth part of England and Wales open and uninclosed, and subject to common rights — an extent so great as to show how erroneous had been the apprehensions of the speedy inclosure of Commons.

Two years later, however, the same Commission presented a report to Parliament with a very different tale. They had, in the interval, made a detailed examination of the tithe commutation awards, which covered the whole country, and showed distinctly how much in 1834 was Common land. By this it appeared that there were at that time no more than 2,630,000 acres of Common or Commonable land, or five and a half millions less than their previous estimate. From this a deduction has to be made of land inclosed under private Acts between 1834 and 1845, and under the Commons Act of 1876, and also of land which has been filched from Commons under the Statute of Merton.* Making a rough estimate of these inclosures, it is probable that there remain from 2,000,000 to 2,250,000 acres of Commons still open. Of this, a very small proportion is believed to be suitable for cultivation as arable land. The remainder is either mountain land, which it would not be worth while to inclose with fences, or inferior land in cultivated districts or near to towns, which * Deduction was made of inclosures under the Act of 1845.

G OBIGIN OF COMMONS.

might be of value for residential purposes, or for adding to parks and game preserves, but whicli is of far greater value to the public in its wild and uninclosed state, contributing so much to the amenities of the districts, and affording unrestricted enjoyment to the public.

Such Commons are confined to England and Wales ; they do not exist in Ireland or Scotland. All the land in those countries, even where uncultivated and incapable of agricultural improvement, belongs to individual private owners, except so far as the recent Irish and Scotch Lands Acts have conceded rights of pasturage over adjoining mountain lands. There are no rights of common vested in adjoining owners, such as to forbid the inclosure and fencing of the land, and to prevent the owners of the soil excluding the public from it. Hence it arises that the Scotch landowners have been able to turn their moors into deer forests, and to prohibit the public from traversing them, or ascending the hills in search of the beauties of nature and fresh air. The reason is that Ireland and Scotland were not subjected to the Saxon and Norman Manorial systems, under which Manors, with their Lords and free and copyhold tenants, were created. The change from collective, tribal, or clan ownership of land to individual proprietorship was made without any transition, such as occurred in England under the feudal system. Had these countries passed through the same experience, it is almost certain that the occupiers would, at an early period, have been treated as the copyhold tenants were in England, and have had conceded to them fixity of tenure, with rights of pasturage and turbary ov^er the adjoining mountains and moors ; and the owners of such uncultivated hinds would have had their ownership qualified by the rights of their neighbours, as was the case with Lords of Manors in England.

There has been much discussion of late years as to the origin of English Commons. Till lately, the views of the feudal law^'^ers of mediaeval times were generally accepted, equally by antiquarians and historians, as by the Courts of Law. It was held that these open and uninclosed tracts were the uncultivated parts of areas of land, or Manors, granted originally by the Sovereign to individual owners, and that the rights of common over such wastes, enjoyed by the freehold and copyhold tenants of such Manors, had arisen from grants by their superior lords, or by custom, later recognised by law, in derogation of the lord's rights.

Owing, however, to the investigations of Professor Nasse, Von Maurer, Sir Henry Maine, and others, another theory is now more generally accepted : namely, that the common ri^-lits now existing: are in most cases survivals of a system of collective ownership of land by the inhabitants of their several districts, the prevalence of which in the early stages of communities has been traced over the greater part of Europe. Under this system there was originally no individual ownership of land. It was owned in common by village communities. That portion of it only which was suitable and necessary for the production of corn

8 ORiaiN OF COMMONS.

and other crops was inclosed and cultivated ; the remainder was open to the cattle of all ; and all the members of the community were entitled to cut turf and bracken therefor their fuel and litter. The inclosed part was generally divided into three great fields for a three-course system of husbandry, of which one field was in turn left in fallow. Each of these fields was divided into a certain number of equal parts, which were distributed annually by lot among the heads of families constituting the village community.

Very frequently the cultivated land was thrown open to the cattle of all, after the completion of the harvest, and until it was necessary to shut it off again, in the following year, for the next crop. Small portions of land were attached as gardens to the houses and homesteads of individual members, and acquired the status of private property. Other portions were inclosed from the open or common land, only as it became necessary to add to the cultivated part, in consequence of the increase of population.

By degrees the individual ownership of land was extended. The system of distributing the plots of the common fields by lot was given up ; ownership in these parts became fixed in individuals, subject to the land being thrown open to the whole village after harvest. But the waste and uncultivated land still remained the common property of the community, and was called the " Folk-Land " — the People's Land.

It is certain that a very large portion of the inclosed part of England was in early times cultivated on this

ORIGIN OF C0M3I0XS. 9

common field system, with its three great fields in each villag-e or parish, and with its waste lands open to all. A large part of the inclosures complained of in Tudor times consisted not of inclosures of the waste lands, but in doing away with the system of common fields, and in converting them into individual property, freed from the obligation of throwing them open during a portion of the year. Such inclosures continued to be frequent, under the authority of private Acts, down to modern times, and not a few cases still exist of land called Common Fields, or Lammas Land, held on this system of tenure, and thrown open during a part of each year. Interesting examples of it will be referred to later in the cases of Tollard Farnham and the Hackney Commons.

The introduction of the feudal system gradually effected a great change in the relations of individuals to one another and to the waste lands. The new system had its origin in military necessity. The country was by degrees parcelled out into commands among military chiefs, who were at first appointed only for life, but who later acquired the right of inheritance for their eldest sons or heirs. The Chief assumed command, and later exercised the rights of property over the district assigned to him, which generally corresponded to the ancient village, and which became the " Manor." The Chief, thus appointed, had the right of summoning to arms the inferior landowners within his district or Manor, who thus became in a military sense his dependants, bound to render him military service. They held their land, however, on certain tenure, and not at the mere will of the lord, and they had the right of turning out their cattle on the waste land of the Manor. An inferior class of persons, cultivating small plots of land, fell into a much lower status, and by a process of commendation or subjection, lost their rights of property enjoyed under the Saxon system. They were considered as having no rights independently of the will of the lord. They held their land and houses at his caprice. These people became the villeins of the Manor. A yet inferior class of persons with no holdings of land became the serfs or bondsmen of the lord, without any rights whatever. The feudal Chief thus became lord of the district or Manor. He came to be regarded as owner of the Manor, subject to the admitted rights of the larger landowners or free tenants ; and the Common or "Folk-land" was held by the lawyers to be vested in him subject to the rights of pasture of the free tenants.