lasses were the landowners of the
cities, at first grabbling tradesmen and land speculators and finally
rising to the crowning position of multimillionaires. Originally, as we
have seen, the manorial magnate himself made the laws and decreed
justice; but in two centuries great changes had taken place. He now had
to fight for his very existence.

Thus, to give one example, the manorial men in New York were confronted
in 1839 by a portentous movement. Their tenants were in a state of
unrest. On the Van Rensselaer, the Livingston and other of the old
feudal estates they rose in revolt. They objected to the continuing
system which gave the lords of these manors much the same rights over
them as a lord in England exercised over his tenants. Under the leases
that the manorial lords compelled their tenants to sign, there were
oppressive anachronisms. If he desired to entertain a stranger in his
house for twenty-four hours, the tenant was required to get permission
in writing. He was forced to obligate himself not to trade in any
Commodities except the produce of the manor. He could not get his flour
ground anywhere else than at the mill of the manor without violating his
lease and facing ejectment, nor could he buy anything at any place
except at the store of the manorial magnate. These were the rights
reserved to the manorial lords after the Revolution, because theirs were
the rights of private property; and as has often been set forth,
property absolutely dominated the laws and greatly nullified the spirit
of a movement made successful by the blood and lives of the masses in
the Revolutionary Army. Tardily, subsequent legislatures had abolished
all feudal tenures, but these laws were neither effective nor were
enforced by the authorities who reflected and represented the interests
of the proprietors of the manors.

On their part the manorial men believed that self-interest, pride and
adherence to ancient traditions called for the perpetuation of their
arbitrary power of running their domains as they pleased. They refused
to acknowledge that law had any right to interfere in the managing of
what they considered their private affairs. Eager to avail themselves of
the police power of the law in dispossessing any fractious or
impecunious tenant and in suppressing protest meetings, they, at the
same time, denounced law as tyrannical when it sought to inject more
modern and humane conditions in the managing of their estates. They