Now in no country of the world has freedom of commerce been considered as interfering with the rights of property. The proprietor of the soil alone has the right to dispose of the products of the land which belongs to him. Do people in England think that freedom of commerce is violated because the first passer-by of a rich and extensive manorial domain cannot take the fruits and vegetables, kill the bucks and the hinds, and lay the axe to the trees? Why should it be otherwise on the Congo? The whole question is, whether the State, which in the French Congo (as in the Independent State) has proclaimed itself the proprietor of vacant and unowned lands, has this right legitimately. If it has, it can in one form or another alienate the lands belonging to it. That this exercise of the law of property may inconvenience those who formerly enjoyed the products of the soil, I do not deny. _There are countries where hunting is not forbidden, and the game belongs to the killer. A day arrives when the proprietor reserves his rights. He forbids hunting, he institutes suits. It is very disagreeable for those who used to traverse his land freely. But it does not follow that they have the right to an indemnity. Still that is the strange suit that England wishes to bring before the European Areopagus. The Congo has protected its hunting grounds; the poachers exclaim against the injustice and claim damages!_[42] [Illustration: Missionary Necropolis, Luluabourg.] [Sidenote: British Concessions in Canada.] [Sidenote: Crown Lands in British Colonies.]