Sir H. Maine quotes, from a document submitted to parliament, an example of rural organization, which exactly reproducesthe characteristics of the ancient village communities of primitive periods. The borough of Lauder in Scotland possessescommon land of about 1,700 acres. There are also within its limits 105 portions of land, called burgess acres . Whoeverowns one of these portions is entitled to the enjoyment of a one-hundred-and-fifth part; of the common land. A seventh partof the cultivable area is submitted each year to the plough, and for this purpose divided among the owners of the 105burgess acres. The portion of land to be tilled is first decided on: it is then divided into parcels which are assigned by lotamong the persons entitled. The common council, having improved the upper lands by means of roads and draining, imposea special tax on them and direct their cultivation. The portion of common land which is not in cultivation becomes pasture,on which each burgess has the right of sending two cows and fifteen sheep. As Sir H. Maine remarks, we have here anarchaic type of a village community, in which cultivation is transferred from one portion of the land to another, and theshares are decided by lot. Before the Scotch villages sold their common property this rural organization was frequently metwith. To make a portion of the soil, their collective property, pass successively into the hands of each family, must have beena very general custom in England as late as the sixteenth century: for the Puritan emigrants on the other side of the Atlanticcarried it there with them. Permanent grants were made of the land intended for arable: but the meadows remained commonproperty, and were divided again each year, like the lot meadows and lammas land of the mother country. (22)Sir Walter Scott, visiting the Orkney and Shetland isles with the light-house commissioners, was struck with the form ofproperty called udal tenure , which he observed there. He speaks of it in his notes and in his novel of The Pirate . All thedomain of the townships was the common property of the inhabitants: the arable was divided among them: the heath andmoor were left as common pasture for the cattle. In The Monastery , the great Scotch novelist describes the ruralorganization of the small communes of his country as they existed anciently, resembling, he tells us, those of the Shetlandisles. The inhabitants always rendered one another mutual aid and protection. They possessed the soil in common; but tocultivate it they divided it into lots, which were occupied temporarily as private property. The whole corporation took partequally in agricultural labours, and the produce was divided, after the harvest, according to the respective rights of each. Themore distant lands were cultivated in succession, and then left until vegetation grew again. The flocks of the inhabitants weredriven to the common pasture by a shepherd, who was an officer of the commune at the service of all its members.
In the eyes of the Germans, as of all primitive nations, property in land, or rather the right to occupy a portion of it, was anindispensable attribute of freedom. Several economists have propounded the same idea. Without property there is no realfreedom, says M. Michel Chevalier. The free man should be able to subsist on the fruits of his labour; and, as the only labourwhich can procure him the means of living is the cultivation of the land, a portion of land should be assigned to him. Toallow him to lose this portion, or to refuse it to a newly-formed family, would be to take away their means of existence, andto condemn them to sell themselves into slavery. The only plan, then, of ensuring a constant means of existence andindependence to all the families of the tribe, was to effect a new division of land among them from time to time; and, as allhad an equal right, the only mode of assigning to each his portion was by lot.
Freedom, and, as a consequence, the ownership of an undivided share of the common property, to which the head of everyfamily in the clan was equally entitled, were, then, in the German village originally essential rights, inherent, so to say, inone's personality. This system of absolute equality impressed a remarkable character on the individual, which explains howsmall bands of barbarians made themselves masters of the Roman empire, in spite of its skilful administration, its perfectcentralization, and its civil law, which has received the name of written reason. How great is the difference between amember of one of these village communities and the German peasant, who occupies his place to-day! The former lived onanimal food, venison, mutton, beef milk and cheese; while the latter lives on rye-bread and potatoes; meat being too dear, heonly eats it very rarely, on great holidays. The former made his body hardy and his limbs supple by continual exercise; heswam rivers, chased the wild ox the whole day through in the vast forests, and trained himself in the management of arms.
