Theexpression’regardant’neveroccursinthepleadingsatall，but’regardanttoamanor’isusedoften。FromEdwardIII’stimeitisusedquiteasamatterofcourseintheformulaofthe’exceptio’orspecialpleaofvillainage。*Thatis，ifthedefendantpleadedinbarofanactionthattheplaintiffwashisbondmanhegenerallysaid，IamnotboundtoanswerA，becauseheismyvillainandIamseisedofhimasofmyvillainasregardanttomymanorofC。Ofcoursethereareothercaseswhenthetermisemployed，butthepleainbarisbyfarthemostcommononeandmaystandforatest。Thismannerofpleadingisonlycominggraduallyintouseinthefourteenthcentury，andweactuallyseehowitistakingshapeandspreading。AsaruletheYearBooksofEdwardI’stimehavenotgotit。Thedefendantputsinhispleaunqualified。’Heoughtnottobeansweredbecauseheisourvillain’(Y。B。21/22EdwardI，p。166，ed。Horwood)。Thereisacasein1313whenapreliminaryskirmishbetweenthecounseloneithersidetookplaceastothesufficiencyofthedefendant’spleainbar，theplaintiffcontendingthatitwasnotpreciseenough。Here，ifanywhere，weshouldexpecttheterm’regardant，’butitisnotforthcoming1。Whatismore，andwhatoughttohavepreventedanymistake，theofficialrecordsoftrialsonthePleaRollsuptoEdwardIIalwaysusetheplainassertion，’villanus。ettenetinvillenagio。’*ThepracticeofnamingthemanortowhichavillainbelongedbeginshowevertocomeinduringthereignofEdwardII，andtheterminologyisbynomeanssettledattheoutset；expressionsareoftenusedasequivalentto’regardant’whichcouldhardlyhavemisledlaterantiquariesastothemeaningofthequalification。*Inacaseof1322，forinstance，wehave’withinthemanor’whereweshouldexpecttofind’regardanttothemanor。’*ThiswouldbeverynearlyequivalenttotheLatinformulaadoptedbythePleaRolls，whichissimplyutdemanerio。*Everynowandthencasesoccurwhichgraduallysettletheterminology，becausetheweightoflegalargumentationinthemismadetoturnonthefactthataparticularpersonwasconnectedwithaparticularmanorandnotwithanother。Acasefrom1317iswellinpoint。B。P。thedefendantexceptsagainsttheplaintiffT。A。onthegroundofvillainage(qilestnostrevileyn，andnothingelse)。Theplaintiffrepliesthathewasenfranchisedbybeingsufferedtopleadinanassizeofmortd’ancestoragainstB。P。’sgrandmother。
Bythisthedefendant’scounselisdriventomaintainthathisclient’srightagainstT。A。descendednotfromhisgrandmotherbutfromhisgrandfather，whowasseisedofthemanorofH。towhichT。A。belongedasavillain。*Theconnexionwiththemanorisadducedtoshowfromwhatquartertherighttothevillainhaddescended，and，ofcourse，impliesnothingastoanypeculiarityofthisvillain’sstatus，orastothekindoftitle，themodeofacquiringrights，uponwhichthelordrelies——itwasgroundcommontobothpartiesthatifthelordhadanyrightsatallheacquiredthembyinheritance。
Anothercaseseemsevenmoreinteresting。Itdatesfrom1355，thatisfromatimewhentheusualterminologyhadalreadybecomefixed。ItaroseunderthatcelebratedStatuteofLabourerswhichplayedsuchaprominentpartinthesocialhistoryofthefourteenthcentury。Oneofthedifficultiesinworkingthestatutecamefromthefactthatithadtorecognisetwodifferentsetsofrelationsbetweentheemployerandtheworkman。Thestatutedealtwiththecontractbetweenmasterandservant，butitdidnotdoawaywiththedependenceofthevillainonthelord，andincaseofconflictitgaveprecedencetothislatterclaim；alordhadtherighttowithdrawhisvillainfromastranger’sservice。Suchcrossinfluencescouldnotbutoccasionagreatdealofconfusion，andourcasegivesagoodinstanceofit。ThomasBarentynhasreclaimedRalphCripsfromtheserviceofthePrioroftheHospitalers，andtheemployersuesinconsequencebothhisformerservantandBarentyn。Thislastanswers，thattheservantinquestionishisvillainregardanttothemanorofC。Theplaintiffscounselmaintainsthathecouldnothavebeenregardanttothemanor，ashewasgoingaboutatlargeathisfreewillandasafreeman；forthisreasonA。theformerownerofthemanorwasneverseisedofhim，andnotbeingseisedcouldnottransfertheseisintothepresentowner，althoughhetransferredthemanor。Forthedefendantitispleaded，thatgoingaboutfreelyisnoenfranchisement，thatbythegiftofthemanoreveryrightconnectedwiththemanorwasalsoconferredandthatconsequentlythenewlordcouldatanymomentlayhandsonhisman，astheformerlordcouldhavedoneinhistime。Ultimatelytheplaintiffofferstojoinissueonthequestion，whethertheservanthadbeenavillainregardanttothemanorofC。ornot。Thedefendantasserts，ratherlateintheday，thatevenifthepersoninquestionwasnotavillainregardanttothemanorofC。themerefactofhisbeingavillainingrosswouldentitlehislordtocallhimaway。ThisattempttostartonanewlineisnotallowedbytheCourtbecausetheclaimhadoriginallybeentraversedonthegroundoftheconnexionwiththemanor。
Thepeculiarityofthecaseisthatathirdpersonhasaninteresttoprovethatthemanclaimedasvillainhadbeenasafreeman。Usuallytherewerebuttwopartiesinthecontestaboutstatus；thelordpullingonewayandthepersonclaimedpullingtheotherway，but，throughtheinfluenceoftheStatuteofLabourers，inourcaselordandlabourerwereatoneagainstathirdparty，thelabourer’semployer。Theacknowledgmentofvillainagebytheservantdidnotsettlethequestion，because，thoughbindingforthefuture，itwasnotsufficienttoshowthatvillainagehadexistedinthepast，thatisatthetimewhenthecontractofhireandservicewasbrokenthroughtheinterferenceofthelord。Everythingdependedonthesettlementofonequestionwasthelordseisedatthetime，ornot？Bothpartiesagreethatthelordwasnotactuallyseisedoftheperson，bothagreethathewasseisedofthemanor，andbothsupposethatifthepersonhadasamatteroffactbeenattachedtothemanoritwouldhaveamountedtoaseisinoftheperson。Andsothecontentionisshiftedtothispoint：canamanbeclaimedthroughthemediumofamanor，ifhehasnotbeenactuallyliving，workingandservinginit？Thecourtassumesthepossibility，andsothepartiesappealtothecountrytodecidewhetherinpointoffactRalphCripstheshepherdhadbeeninlegalifnotinactualconnexionwiththemanor，i。e。couldbetracedtoitpersonallyorthroughhisrelatives。
Thecaseisinterestinginmanyways。Itshowsthatthesamemancouldbeaccordingtothepointofviewconsideredbothasavillaininregardtoamanor，andasavillainingross。Therelativecharacteroftheclassificationisthusillustratedaswellasitsimportanceforpracticalpurposes。Thetransmissionofamanoristakentoincludethepersonsengagedinthecultivationofitssoil，andeventhosewhoseancestorshavebeenengagedinsuchcultivation，andwhohavenospecialpleaforseveringtheconnexion。
Astotheoutcomeofthewholeinquiry，wemay，itseemstome，safelyestablishthefollowingpoints：1。Theterms’regardant’and’ingross’havenothingtodowithalegaldistinctionofstatus。2。Theycomeupinconnexionwiththemodesofproofandpleadingduringthefourteenthcentury。3。
Theymayapplytothesamepersonfromdifferentpointsofview。
4。’Villainingross’meansavillainwithoutfurtherqualification；’villainregardanttoamanor’meansvillainbyreferencetoamanor。5。Theconnexionwithamanor，thoughonlyamatteroffactandnotbindingthelordinanyway，mightyetbelegallyserviceabletohim，asameansofestablishingandprovinghisrightsoverthepersonheclaimed。
Ineedhardlymention，afterwhathasbeensaid，thatthereisnosuchthingasthisdistinctioninthethirteenthcenturylawbooks。Imustnotomit，however，torefertooneexpressionwhichmaybetakentostandintheplaceofthelater’villainregardanttoamanor。’Britton(ii，55)givestheformulaofthespecialpleaofvillaingetotheassizeofmortd’ancestorinthefollowingwords。’Ouilpoiedireqeilestsoenvileynetsoenastrieretdemourrantensonvillenage。’Therecanbenodoubtthatresidenceonthelord’slandismeant，andthetermastrierleadsevenfurther，itimpliesresidenceataparticularhearthorinaparticularhouse。Fletagivestheassizeofnoveldisseisintothosewhohavebeenalongtimeawayfromtheirvillainhearth*(’extraastrumsuumvillanum，’p，217)。Iftheterm’astrier’wererestrictedtovillainsitwouldhaveprovedagreatdealmorethanthe’villainregardant’usuallyreliedupon。
Butitisofverywideapplication。Brittonusesitoffreemenentitledtorightsofcommonbyreasonoftenementstheyholdinatownship(i，392)。Bractonspeaksofthecaseofanephewcomingintoaninheritanceinpreferencetotheunclebecausehehadbeenlivingatthesamehearthorinthesamehall(inatrioorastro)withtheformerowner，*andinsuchorasimilarsensethewordappearstohavebeenusuallyemployedbylawyers。*Ontheotherhand，ifwelookinBracton’streatiseforparallelpassagestothosequotedfromtheFletaandBrittonaboutthevillainastrier，wefindonlyareferencetothefactthatthepersoninquestionwasaserfandholdinginvillainageandundertheswayofalord，*andsothereisnothingtodenotespecialconditionintheastrer。Whenthetermoccursinconnexionwithvillainageitservestoshowthatapersonwasnotonlyabondmanborn，butactuallylivinginthepowerofhislord，andnotinastateofliberty。Theallusiontothehearthcannotpossiblymeanthatthemansitsinhisownhomestead，becauseonlyafewofthevillainscouldhavebeenholdersofseparatehomesteads，andsoitmustmeanthathewassittinginahomesteadbelongingtohislord，whichisquiteinkeepingwiththeapplicationoftheterminthecaseofinheritance。
Thefactswehavebeenexaminingcertainlysupposethatinthevillainswehavechieflytodowithpeasantstillingtheearthanddependentonmanorialorganisation。Theydisclosetheworkingofoneelementwhichisnottobesimplydeducedfromtheideaofpersonaldependence。
Itmaybecalledsubjectiontoterritorialpower。Thepossessionofamanorcarriesthepossessionofcultivatorswithit。Itisalwaysimportanttodecidewhetherabondmanisintheseisinofhislordornot，andthechiefmeanstoshowitistotracehisconnexionwiththeterritoriallordship。Theinterpositionofthemanorintherelationbetweenmasterandmanis，ofcourse，astrikingfeatureanditgivesaverycharacteristicturntomedievalservitude。Butifitisnotconsistentwiththegeneraltheorylaiddowninthethirteenthcenturylawbooks，itdoesnotleadtoanythingliketheRomancolonatus。TheserfisnotplacedonaparticularplotoflandtododefiniteservicesundertheprotectionoftheState。Hemaybeshiftedfromoneplotwithinthejurisdictionofhislordtoanother，fromoneareaofjurisdictiontoanother，fromrurallabourtoindustrialworkorhousework，fromonesetofcustomsandservicestoanother。Heisnotprotectedbyhispredialconnexionagainsthislord，andinfactsuchpredialconnexionisutilisedtoholdandbindhimtohislord。Wemaysay，thattheunfreepeasantofEnglishfeudalismwaslegallyapersonaldependant，butthathispersonaldependencewasenforcedthroughterritoriallordship。
Bracton，5；Britton，i。197。Pollock，Land-laws，App。C，isquiterightastothefundamentaldistinctionbetweenstatusandtenure，buthegoestoofar，Ithink，intryingtotracethestepsbywhichnamesoriginallyapplyingtodifferentthingsgotconfusedintheterminologyoftheCommonLaw。Annotatorssometimesindulgedindistinctionswhichcontradicteachotherandgiveusnohelpastothelaw。ThesameCambridgeMS。fromwhichNicholsgivesanexplanationofservus，nativus，andvillanus(i。195)hasadifferentetymologyinamarginalnotetoBracton。’Nativusdicituranativitate-quasiinservitutenatus，villanusdicituravilla，quasifaciensvillanasconsuetudinesracionetenementi，velsicutillequiserecognoscitadvillanumincuriaquaerecordumhabet，servusverodicituraservandoquasipercaptivitatem，pervimetinjustamdetentionemvillanuscaptusetdetentuscontramoresetconsuetudinesjurisnaturalis，(Cambr。Univers。MSS。Dd。vii。6。IhavethereferencefrommyfriendF。W。Maitland)。
2。PlacitaCoramRege，Easter，14Edw。I，m。9：“WillelmusBarantynetRadulfusattachiatifueruntadrespondendumAguetideChalgrauedeplacitoquareinipsamAgnetemapudChalgraueinsultumfeceruntetipsamverberaverunt，vulneraveruntetmaletractaverunt，etbonaetcatallasuaindomibusipsiusAgnetisapudChalgrauescilicetordeumetavenam，argentum，archasetaliabonaadvalenciamquadragintasolidorumceperuntetasportaverunt；etipsamAgnetemeffugaveruntdeunomesuagioetdimidiavirgataterredequibusfuitinseysinaprrpredictumWillelmumquefueruntdeantiquodominicoperlongumtempus；necpermiseruntipsamAgnetemmorariinpredictavilladeChalgraue；
eteciamquandamsororemipsiusAgnetiseoquodipsasororeamhospitavitperduasnoctesdedomibussuiseiecit，terraetcatallasuaabstulit。EtpredictiWillelmusetRadulfusveniunt。
Etquoadinsultacionemetverberacionemdicuntquodnonsuntindeculpabiles。EtquoadhocquodipsaAgnesdicitquodipsameieceruntdedomibusetterrissuis，dicuntquodpredictaAgnesestnatiuaipsiusWillelmiettenuitpredictatenementainvillenagioadvoluntatemipsiusWillelmipropterquodbenelicebateidemWillelmoipsamdepredictotenementoammouere——
Juratoresdicunt……quodpredictatenementasuntvillenagiumpredictiWillelmideBarentynetquodpredictaAgnestenuiteademtenementaadvoluntatemipsius###第9章
(ed。Pike)，p。233sqq。，’orvoussavezbienqeparleydeterretoutceoqelevileynadsiestasounseignour；’229sqq。，’qarcestsaterredemene，etillespuetousterasavoluntedemene。’
1。CoramRege，Mich。，3/4Edw。I，m。I：’RicardusdeAssheburnhamsummonitusfuitadrespondendumPetrodeAttebuckholeetJohannideeademdeplacitoquare，cumipsiteneantquasdamterrasettenementadepredictoRicardoinHasseburnhamacipsiparatisuntadfaciendumeiconsuetudinesetserviciaqueantecessoressuiterrasettenementaillatenentesfacereconsueverint，predictusRicardusdiversascommoditatesquamipsitaminboscisipsiusRicardiquaminaliislocishabereconsueverinteisdemsubtrahensipsosadintollerabilesservitutesetconsuetudinesfaciendastalitercompellitquodexsuaduriciamendicarecoguntur。Etundequerunturquod，cumteneanttenementaSuapercertasconsuetudinesetcertaservicia，etcumpercipereconsueveruntboscumadfocumetmateriamdeboscocrescenteinpropriisterrissuis，predictusRicardusipsosnonpermittitaliquidinboscissuiscapereeteciamcapitaueriasuaetnonpermittiteosterramsuamcolere——Ricardusdicit，quodnondebeteisadaliquamaccionenresponderenisiquestiessentdevitavelmembrisveldeiniuriafactacorporisuo。Diciteciamquodnativisuisunt，etquodomnesantecessoressuinativifueruntantecessorumsuorumetinvillenagiosuomanentes。’
2。Note-bookofBracton，pl。1237：’dominusRexnonvultsedeeisintromittere。’
3。ItoccursintheoldestextantPleaRoll，6Ric。I；Rot。Cur。
Regis，ed。Palgrave，p。84：’ThomasvenitetdicitquodipsafuituxoratacuidamTurkillo，quihabuitduosfiliosquiclamabantlibertatemtenementisuiincuriadominiRegis。etquodibidirationaviteosessevillanossuos，etnondefenditdisseisinam。EtipsiElildaetRicardusdefenduntvilenagiumetponuntsesuperjuratam，’etc。
1。Maitland，SelectPleasoftheCrown(SeldenSoc。I)，pl。3：
’Quendamnativumsuumquemhabuitinvinculiseoquodvoluitfugere。’Bract。Notebook，pl。1041：’PetrusdeHerefordiaattachiatusfuitadrespondendumR。fil。Th。quareipsecepitRicardumeteumimprisonauitetcoegitadredempcionemImarce。
EtPetrusvenitaliasetdefenditcapcionemetimprisonacionemsetdicitquodvillanusfuit，’etc。
Itmustbenoted，however，thatinsuchcasesitwasdifficulttodrawthelineastotheamountofbodilyinjuryallowedbythelaw，andthereforetheKing’scourtsweremuchmorefreetointerfere。Inthetrialquotedonp。45，note2，thedefendantsdistinguishcarefullybetweentheaccusationandthecivilsuit。Theyplead’notguilty’astotheformer。AndsoBishopStubbs’conjectureastothe’rusticusverberatus’inPipeRoll，31HenryI，p。55(Constit。Hist。I。487)，seemsquiteappropriate。Thecaseisaveryearlyone，andmaytestifytothebetterconditionofthepeasantryinthefirsthalfofthetwelfthcentury。
2。Astotheactualtreatmentexperiencedbythepeasantsatthehandsoftheirfeudalmasters，seeapicturesquecaseinMaitland’sSelectPleasoftheCrown(SeldenSoc。)，203。
1。Stubbs，ConstitutionalHistory，ii。652，654；Freeman，NormanConquest，v。477；Digby，IntroductiontotheLawofRealProperty，244。
1。SirThomasSmith，TheCommonwealthofEngland，ed。1609，p。
123，showsthatthenotionoftwoclassescorrespondingtotheRomanservusandtheRomanadscriptusglebaehadtakenrootfirmlyaboutthemiddleofthesixteenthcentury。’Villeinsingross，asyewouldsayimmediatelybondtothepersonandhisheirs。(Theadscripti)werenotbondtothepersonbuttothemannororplace，anddidfollowhimwhohadthemannors，andinourlawarecalledvillainsregardants(sic)，forbecausetheybeasmembersorbelongingtothemannororplace。NeitheroftheonesortnoroftheotherhaveweanynumberinEngland。AndofthefirstIneverknewanyintheRealmeinmytime。Ofthesecondsofewetherebee，thatitisnotalmostworththespeaking，butourlawdothacknowledgetheminboththesesorts。’
1。Section182isnotquiteconsistentwithsuchanexposition，butIdonotthinktherecanbeanydoubtastothegeneraldoctrine。
2。IneednotsaythattheworkdonebyMrHorwood，andespeciallybyMrPike，fortheRolls’Seriesquitefulfiltherequirementsofstudents。ButincomparisonwithittheoldyearBooksinRastall’s，andevenmoresoinMaynard’sedition，appearonlythemorewretchedlymisprinted。
1。Forinstance，LiberAssisarum，ann。44，pl。4(f283)：’QuilfuitsonvilleinetilseisideluycomedesonvilleincomeregardantasonmaneirdeB。enlaCountedeDorset。’
1。Y。B。Hil。5Edw。II：’IohandeRoseportson[ne]vexesversLabbedeSeintBennetdeHolme，etilcountaqilluytravaille，etc。，eluydemande。’Migg。：’defenttortetforce，ouetquantildeveraetditqilfuistlevileinLabbe，perqiilnedeveroitestreresceve。’Devom。：’ilcovientqevousdisezplusqevousestesseisi，utsupra，’etc。Migg。：’ilestnostrevileyn，etnousseisideluycomedenostrevileyn。’Ber。；’Comentseisicome，’etc。？Migg。：’deluyetdecesauncestrescomedenosvileynes，enfesantdeluynostreprovostenprenantdeluyrechatedecharetdesaunketredemptionpurfilleetfitzmarierdeluyetdecesauncestresetataillerhautetbasanostrevolente，prest，’etc。(LesreportsdescasesdelRoyEdwardleII，London，1678；f157。)
2。Idonotthinkitevercameintoanyone’smindtolookatthePleaRollsinthismatter。EvenHargrave，whenpreparinghisfamousargumentinSomersett’scase，carriedhissearchnofurtherthantheYearBookstheninprint。Andinconsequencehejustmissedthetruesolution。Hesays(Howell’sStateTrials，xx。42，43)，’Astothevilleinsingrossthecasesrelativetothemareveryfew；andIaminclinedtothinkthatthereneverwasanygreatnumberoftheminEngland……However，afteralongsearch，IdofindplacesintheYearBookswheretheformofalledgingvillenageingrossisexpressed，notinfullterms，butinageneralway；andinallthecasesIhaveyetseen，thevillenageisalledgedintheancestorsofthepersonagainstwhomitwaspleaded。’Andhequotes1Edw。II，4；5Edw。II，157
(corr。for15)；7Edw。II，242，and11Edw。II，344。ButallthesecasesareofEdwardII’stime，andinsteadofbeingexceptionalgivethenormalformofpleadingasitwasuseduptothesecondquarterofthefourteenthcentury。TheylookedexceptionaltoHargraveonlybecauseherestrictedhissearchtothelaterYearBooks，anddidnottakeupthePleaRolls。Byadmittingthecasesquotedtoindicatevillainageingross，heinfactadmittedthattherewereonlyvillainsingrossbefore1350
orthereabouts，orratherthatallvillainswerealikebeforethistime，andnosuchthingasthedifferencebetweeningrossandregardantexisted。IgiveinApp。IthereportoftheinterestingcasequotedfromIEdw。II。
3。Y。B。32/33Edw。I(Horwood)，p。57：’Quantunhomeestseisidesonvilein，issl。qilestreseantdanssonvilenage。’
Fitzherbert，Abr。Vill。3(39Edw。III)：’。villeinssuntappendantasmanersqesountaunciendemesne。’Ontheotherhand，’regardant’isusedquiteindependentlyofvillainage。Y。B。
12/13Edw。III(Pike)，p。133：’comeservicesregardauntsalmanoirdeH。’
1。Y。B。Hil。14Edw。II，f417：’R。estbailli。delmanoirdeClifton。deinsquelmanoircestiJ。estvillein。’
2。SeeApp。IandII。
3。Y。B。Trin。9Edw。II，f294：’LemanoirdeH。fuitenascuntempsenlaseisineHubertnostreael，aquelmanoircestvileynestregardant。’
1。Y。B。Trin。29Edw。III，f。41。ForthereportofthiscaseandthecorrespondingentryintheCommonPleasRoll，seeAppendixII。
1。Cf。AnnalsofDunstaple，Ann。Mon。Iii。371：’Quiaastrariuseiusfuit，’inthesenseofapersonlivingonone’sland。
2。Bracton，f。267，b。
3。Bract。Note-book，pl。230，951，988。Cf。Spelman，Gloss。v。
astrariusKentishCustumal，StatutesoftheRealm，i。224。FletahasitonceinthesenseoftheAnglo-Saxonheord-faest，i。cap。
RightsandDisabilitiesoftheVillainLegaltheoryaswehaveseenendeavouredtobringthegeneralconceptionofvillainageundertheprinciplesoftheRomanlawofslavery，andimportantfeaturesinthepracticeofthecommonlawwentfartosupportitinsodoing。Ontheotherhand，eventhegenerallegaltheorydisclosesthepresenceofanelementquiteforeigntotheRomanconception。Ifweproceedfromprinciplestotheirapplicationindetail，weatoncefind，thatinmostcasesthebroadruleslaiddownonthesubjectdonotfitalltheparticularaspectsofvillainage。Theserequirequitedifferentassumptionsfortheirexplanation，andthewholedoctrineturnsouttobeverycomplex，andtohavebeenputtogetheroutofelementswhichdonotworkwelltogether。
Wemeetdiscrepanciesandconfusionattheverythresholdinthetreatmentofthemodesinwhichthevillainstatushasitsorigin。Themostcommonwayofbecomingavillainwastobeborntothisestate，anditseemsthatweoughttofindverydefiniterulesastothiscase。Intruth，thedoctrinewaschanging。
Glanville(v。6)triedinawaytoconformtotheRomanruleofthechildfollowingtheconditionofthemother，butitcouldnotbemadetoworkinEngland，andeversinceBracton，bothcommonlawandjurisprudencerejectit。AtthecloseoftheMiddleAgesitwasheldthatifborninwedlockthechildtookafterhisfather，*andthatabastardwastobeacceptedasfiliusnulliusandpresumedfree。*Bractonismoreintricate；thebastardfollowsthemother，thelegitimatechildfollowsthefather；andthereisoneexception，inthisway，thatthelegitimatechildofafreemanandaniefborninvillainagetakesafterthemother。*
ItisnotdifficulttoseewhytheRomanruledidnotfit；itwastooplainforastateofthingswhichhadtobeconsideredfromthreedifferentsides。*TheRomanlawyermerelylookedtothequestionofstatusanddecideditonthegroundofmaterialdemonstrabilityoforigin，*ifsuchanexpressionmaybeused。
TheMedievallawyerhadtheChristiansanctificationofmarriagetoreckonwith，andsotheoneoldrulehadtobebrokenupintotworules-oneapplicabletolegitimatechildren，theothertobastards。IncaseofbastardythetendencywasdecidedlyinfavourofretainingtheRomanrule，equallysuitinganimalsandslaves，andthelatertheoryembodiedinLittletonbelongsalreadytothedevelopmentofmodernideasinfavourofliberty。*
Incaseoflegitimacytherecognitionofmarriageledtotherecognitionofthefamilyandindirectlytothecloserconnexionwiththefatherastheheadofthefamily。Inadditiontothisathirdelementcomesin，whichmaybecalledproperlyfeudal。Theactionofthefather-ruleismodifiedbytheinfluenceofterritorialsubjection。Themarriageofafreemanwithaniefmaybeconsideredfromaspecialpointofview，if，asthefeudalphraseologygoes，heenterstoherintohervillainage。*Bythisfactthefreemanputshischildundertheswayofthelord，towhosevillainagethemotherbelongs。Itisnotthecharacterofthetenementitselfwhichisimportantinthiscase，butthefactofsubjectiontoaterritoriallord，whoseinterestitistoretainadependant’sprogenyinastateofdependency。Thewholesystemishistoricallyimportant，becauseitillustratestheworkingofoneofthechiefingredientsofvillainage，aningrediententirelyabsentfromancientslavery；whereasmedievalvillainagedependsprimarilyonsubjectiontotheterritorialpowerofthelord。Oncemoreweareshownthepracticalimportanceofthemanorialsysteminfashioningthestateofthepeasantry。Generallyavillainmustbeclaimedwithreferencetoamanor，inconnexionwithanunfreehearth；heisborninanest，*whichmakeshimabondman。Thestrictlegalnotionhastobemodifiedtomeettheemergency，andvillainage，insteadofindicatingcompletepersonalsubjection，comestomeansubjectiontoaterritoriallord。
Thissameterritorialelementnotonlyinfluencesthestatusoftheissueofamarriage，italsoaffectsthestatusofthepartiestoamarriage，whenthosepartiesareofunequalcondition。Mostnotableisthecaseofthefreewifeofavillainhusbandlapsingintoservitude，whensheentersthevillaintenementofherconsort；herservitudeenduresaslongasherhusbandisinthelord’spower，aslongasheisaliveandnotenfranchised。Thejudicialpracticeofthethirteenthcenturygivesagreatnumberofcaseswherethetribunalsrefusetovindicatetherightsofwomenentangledinvillainagebyamesalliance。*Suchsubjectionisnotabsolute，however。Thecourtsmakeadistinctionbetweenacquiringpossessionandretainingit。Thesamewomanwhowillberefusedaportionofherfather’sinheritancebecauseshehasmarriedaserf，hastheassizeofnoveldisseisinagainstanypersontryingtooustherfromatenementofwhichshehadbeenseisedbeforehermarriage。*Theconditionaldisabilitiesofthefreewomanarenotdirectlydeterminedbytheholdingwhichshehasentered，butbyhermaritalsubordinationtoanunfreehusband(’subvirga，’
Bract。Note-book，pl。1685)，Forthisreasonthepositionofafreehusbandtowardsthevillainageofhiswifeaniefisnotexactlyparallel。Heisonlysubjecttothegeneralrulesastofreemenholdinginvillainage。*Inanycase，however，theinstanceswhichwehavebeendiscussingaffordgoodillustrationsofthefact，thatvillainagebynomeansflowsfromthesimplesourceofpersonalsubjection；itislargelyinfluencedbytheChristianorganisationofthefamilyandbythefeudalmixtureofrightsofpropertyandsovereigntyembodiedinthemanorialsystem。
Therearetwootherwaysofbecomingavillainbesidesbeingborntothecondition；theacknowledgmentofunfreestatusinacourtofrecord，andprescription。Weneednotspeakofthefirst，asitdoesnotpresentanyparticularsofinterestfromahistoricalpointofview。Astoprescription，thereisaverycharacteristicvacillationinoursources。InpleadingsofEdwardIII’stimeitspossibilityisadmitted，anditispointedout，thatitisagoodpleaifthepersonclaimedbyprescriptionshowsthathisfatherandgrandfather*werestrangers。
