hethinksthateconomicruinismeant，andadds，’Shouldthelordgosofarastotakeawaythevillain’sverywaynage，i。e。ploughandplough-team，thevillainhasanaction，’ItistruethatBracton’stext，asprintedinexistingeditions，containsaqualificationofthisremark；itissaidthatonlyserfsonancientdemesnelandarepossessedofsucharight。Butthequalificationismeaningless；therightofancientdemesnetenantswasquitedifferent，asweshallseeby-and-by。ThequalifyingclauseturnsouttobeinsertedonlyinlaterMSS。ofthetreatise，iswantinginthebetterMSS。，andaltogetherpresentsallthecharactersofabadgloss。*Whentheglossisremoved，wecomeinsightofthefactthatBractoninthebeginningofhistreatiseadmitsadistinctcaseofcivilactiononthepartofavillainagainsthislord。TheremarkisincontradictionwiththeRomanaswellaswiththeestablishedEnglishdoctrine，itisnotsupportedbylegalpracticeinthethirteenthcentury，itisomittedbyBractonwhenhecomestospeakagainofthe’personastandiinjudiciocontradominum。’*
Butthereitis，anditcannotbeexplainedotherwisethanasasurvivalofatimewhensomepartofthepeasantryatleasthadnotbeensurrenderedtothelord’sdiscretion，butwaspossessedofcivilrightsandofthepowertovindicatethem。Thenotionthatthepeasantoughttobespeciallyprotectedinthepossessionofinstrumentsofagriculturallabourcomesout，singularlyenough，inthepassagecommentedupon，butitisnotasingularnotioninitself。Itoccurs，aseveryoneknows，intheclauseoftheGreatCharter，whichsaysthatthevillainwhofallsintotheking’smercyistobeamerced’savinghiswaynage。’WecomeacrossitoftenenoughinPleaRollsincasesagainstguardiansaccusedofhavingwastedtheirward’sproperty。
Oneofthespecialpointsinsuchcasesoftenis，thataguardianorhisstewardhasbeenruiningthevillainsintheward’smanorsbydestroyingtheirwaynage。*Ofcourse，theprotectionofthepeasant’sprosperity，guaranteedbythecourtsinsuchtrials，iswhollyduetoaconsiderationoftheinterestsoftheward；andthecaretakenofvillainsisexactlyparalleltotheattentionbestoweduponoaksandelms。Still，thenotionofwaynageisinitselfapeculiarandanimportantone，andwhateveritsultimateoriginmaybe，itpointstoacivilconditionwhichdoesnotquitefallwithinthelinesoffeudallaw。
AnotheranomalyissuppliedbyBritton。Afterputtingthecaseasstronglyaspossibleagainstserfs，aftertreatingthemasmerechattelstobegivenandsold，headds，’Butasbondmenareannexedtothefreeholdofthelord，theyarenotdevisablebytestament，andthereforeHolyChurchcantakenocognisanceoftheminCourtChristian，althoughdevisedintestament。’(I。197)
Theexclusionofvillainsisnotpeculiartothem；theyshareitwiththegreaterpartoflandedpossessions。’Asallthecourtsofciviljurisdictionhadbeenprohibitedfromholdingjurisdictionastotestamentarymatters，andtheEcclesiasticalCourtswerenotpermittedtoexercisejurisdictionastoanyquestionrelatingtofreehold，therewasnocourtwhichcouldproperlytakecognisanceofatestamentarygiftoflandassuch。’*Thepointtobenotedis，thatvillainsareheldtobeannexedtothefreehold，althoughintheorytheyoughttobetreatedaschattels。Thecontradictiongivesusanotherinstanceofthepeculiarmodificationofpersonalservitudebytheterritorialelement。Theserfisnotacolonus，heisnotboundupwithanyparticularhomesteadorplotofland，butheisconsideredprimarilyasacultivatorundermanorialorganisation，andforthisreasonthereisalimitationonthelord’spowerofalienatinghim。Letitbeunderstood，however，thatthelimitationinthiscasedoesnotcomebeforeusasaremnantofindependentrightsofthepeasant。Itisimposedbythoseinterestsofthefeudalsuzerainandofthekinwhichprecludedthepossibilityofalienatinglandbydevise。*
Aninquiryintotheconditionofvillainswouldbealtogetherincomplete，ifitdidnottouchonthequestionsofvillaintenureandvillainservices。Bothareintimatelyconnectedwithpersonalstatus，asmaybeseenfromtheverynames，andbothhavetobeverycarefullydistinguishedfromit。Ihavehadtospeakofprescriptionasasourceofvillainage。Opinionswereveryuncertaininthisrespect，andyet，fromthemerelegalpointofview，thereoughtnottohavebeenanydifficultyaboutthematter。Bractontakeshisstandfirmlyonthefundamentaldifferencebetweenstatusandtenureinordertodistinguishclearlybetweenserfsandfreemeninaservileposition。*Thevillainisamanbelongingtohislordpersonally；avillainholding(villenagium)islandheldatthewillofthelord，withoutanycertaintyastotitleortermofenjoyment，astokindoramountofservices。Serfsaremostly，thoughnotnecessarily，foundonvillainland；itdoesnotfollowthatallthoseseatedonvillainlandareserfs。Freemenareconstantlyseentakingupavillenagium；theydonotlosebyitinpersonalcondition；theyhavenoprotectionagainstthelord，ifhechoosetoaltertheirservicesoroustthemfromtheholding，but，ontheotherhand，theyarefreetogowhentheyplease。Thereisstilllessreasontotreatasserfssuchfreepeasantsasaresubjectedtobaseservices，i。e。tothesamekindofservicesandpaymentsasthevillains，butoncertainconditions，notmoreandnotless。Whateverthecustomsmaybe，iftheyarecertain，notonlythepersonholdingbythembuttheplotheisusingarefree，andthetenuremaybedefendedatlaw。*
SucharethefundamentalpositionsinBracton’streatise，andtherecanbenodoubtthattheyareborneoutinageneralwaybylegalpractice。Butiffromthegeneralweturntotheparticular，ifweanalysethethirteenth-centurydecisionswhichareatthebottomofBracton’steaching，weshallfindinmanycasesnotionscroppingup，whichdonotatallcoincidewiththereceivedviewsonthesubject。Infactwecomeacrossmanyapparentcontradictionswhichcanbeattributedonlytoastateoffermentationandtransitioninthelawofthethirteenthcentury。
MartinofBestenover’scaseisusedbyBractoninhistreatiseasillustratingtheviewthattenurehasnoinfluenceonstatus。*Itwasalonglitigation，orratheraseriesoflitigations。AlreadyinthefirstyearofKingJohn’sreignwehearofafinalconcordbetweenJohnofMontacuteandMartinofBestenoverastoahundredacresheldbythelatter。*Thetenantisejectedhowever，andbringsanassizeofmortd’ancestoragainstBeatriceofMontacute，who，asholdingindower，voucheshersonJohntowarranty。ThelatterexceptsagainstMartinasavillain。Ajurybyconsentofthepartiesiscalledin，andwehavetheirverdictreportedthreetimesindifferentrecords。*
TheysaythatMartin’sfatherAilfricheldofJohnMontacute’sfatherahundredacresoflandandfiftysheepbesides，forwhichhehadtopay20s。ayear，tobetallagedreasonably，whenthelordtallagedhissubjects，andthathewasnotallowedtogivehisdaughterawayinmarriagebeforemakingafinetothelordaccordingtoagreement。WedonotknowthedecisionofthejudgesinJohn’stime，butbothfromthetenoroftheverdictandfromwhatfollowed，wemayconcludethatMartinsucceededinvindicatinghisrighttotheland。ProceedingsbreakoutagainatthebeginningofHenryIII’sreign。
In1219JohnofMontacuteisagainmaintainingthatMartinishisvillain，inanswerasitseemstoanactiondelibertateprobandawhichMartinhasbroughtagainsthim。ThecourtgoesbacktotheverdictofthejuryinJohn’stime，andfindsthatbythisverdictthelandisprovedtobeofbasetenure，andthepersontobefree。Thewholeisrepeatedagainonarollof1220；
whetherwehavetwodecisions，oneof1219andtheotherof1220，ormerelytworecordsofthesamedecision，isnotveryclear，norisitveryimportant。Butthereareseveralinterestingpointsaboutthiscase。Thedecisionin1220isundoubtedlyverystrongonthedistinctionbetweenstatusandtenure：’nullumeratplacitumincuriadominiRegisdevillenagiocorporisipsiusMartininisitantumdevillenagioetconsuetudinibusterre，’etc。
Astotenure，thecourtdeliversanopinionwhichisentitledtospecialconsideration，andhasbeenspeciallynoticedbyBractonbothinhisNotebookandinhistreatise。’IfMartin，’saythejudgesontherollof1219，’wishestoholdtheland，lethimperformtheserviceswhichhisfatherhasbeenperforming；ifnot，thelordmaytakethelandintohishands。’*Thesamethingisrepeatedalmostliterallyontherollof1220。Bractondrawstwoinferencesfromthesedecisions。Oneissuggestedbythebeginningofthesentence；’IfMartinwishestoholdtheland。’
BothintheNote-bookandinthetreatiseBractondeducesfromit，thatholdingandremainingonthelanddependedonthewishofMartin，whoasafreemanwasentitledtogoawaywhenhepleased。*Thejudgmentdoesnotexactlysaythis，butastotherightofafreepersontoleavethelandtherecanbenodoubt。
Thesecondconclusionis，thatifafreemanholdinvillainagebyvillainserviceshecannotbeejectedbythelordagainsthiswill，providedheisperformingtheservicesduefromtheholding。WhatBractonsayshereisdistinctlyimpliedbythedecisionsof1219and1220，whichsubjectthelord’spowerofdealingwiththelandtoacondition——non-performanceofservices。*Therecanbenoquestionastotheimportanceofsuchaview；itcontains，asitwere，thegermofcopyholdtenure。*Itplacesvillainagesubstantiallyonthesamefootingasfreehold，whichmayalsobeforfeitedbydiscontinuanceoftheservices，althoughtheprocedureforestablishingaforfeitureinthatcasewouldbeafarmoreelaborateone。AnditmustbeunderstoodthatBracton’sdeductionbynomeansrestsonthesinglecasebeforeus。HeappealsalsotoadecisionofWilliamRaleigh，whograntedanassizeofmortd’ancestortoafreemanholdinginvillainage。*Unfortunatelytheoriginalrecordofthiscasehasbeenlost。Thedecisioninacaseof1225goesevenfurther。ItisanassizeofnoveldisseisinbroughtbyacertainWilliamthesonofHenryagainsthislordBartholomewthesonofEustace。Thedefendantexceptsagainsttheplaintiffashisvillain；thecourtfinds，onthestrengthofaverdict，thatheisavillain，andstilltheydecidethatWilliammayholdthelandindispute，ifheconsentstoperformtheservices；ifnot，heforfeitshisland。*Undoubtedlythedecisionbeforeusisquiteisolated，anditgoesagainsttherulesofprocedureinsuchcases。Oncetheexceptionproved，nothingoughttohavebeensaidastotheconditionsofthetenure。Stillthemistakeischaracteristicofastateofthingswhichhadnotquitebeenbroughtunderthewell-knownhardandfastrule。Andthebestwaytoexplainitistosupposethatthejudgeshadintheirmindthemorefamiliarcaseoffreemenholdinginvillainage，andgavedecisioninaccordancewithMartinofBestenoverv。Montacute，andthecasedecidedbyRaleigh。*Alltheseinstancesgocleanagainsttheusuallyaccepteddoctrine，thatholdinginvillainageisthesameasholdingatthewillofthelord：thecelebratedaddition’accordingtothecustomofthemanor’wouldquitefitthem。Theybringhomeforciblyonemainconsideration，thatalthoughinthethirteenthcenturythefeudaldoctrineofnon-interferenceofthestatebetweenlordandserviletenantrywaspossessedofthefield，itsvictorywasbynomeanscomplete。Everywherewecomeacrossremnantsofastateofthingsinwhichoneportionatleastoftheservileclasshadcivilrightsaswellasdutiesinregardtothelord。
Matterswereevenmoreunsettledastocustomsandservicesintheirrelationtostatusandtenure。Whatservices，whatcustomsareincompatiblewithfreestatus，withfreetenure？Isthetesttobethekindofservicesormerelytheircertainty？
Bractonremarksthatthepaymentofmerchet，i。e。ofafineforgivingawayone’sdaughtertobemarried，isnotinkeepingwithpersonalfreedom。Butheimmediatelyputsinakindofretractation，*andindeedinthecaseofMartinofBestenoveritwasheldthatthepeasantwasfreealthoughpayingmerchet。Totenure，merchet，beingapersonalpayment，shouldhavenorelationwhatever。Incaseofdoubtastothecharacterofthetenure，theinquiryoughttohavebeenentirelylimitedtothequestionwhetherrentsandserviceswerecertainornot，*becauseitwasestablishedthatevenafreetenementcouldbeencumberedwithbaseservices。Inrealitytheearlierpracticeofthecourtswastoinquireofwhatspecialkindtheservicesandcustomswere，whethermerchetandfineforsellinghorsesandoxenhadbeenpaid，whetheramanwasliabletobetallagedatwillorboundtoserveasreeve，whetherhesucceededtohistenancyby’juniorright’(theso-calledBoroughEnglishrule)，andthelike。
Allthiswasheldtobeservileandcharacteristicofvillainage。*Ishallhavetodiscussthequestionofservicesandcustomsagain，whenIcometotheinformationsuppliedbymanorialdocuments。Itissufficientformypresentpurposetopointoutthattwocontradictoryviewsweretakenofitduringthethirteenthcentury；’certainoruncertain？’wasthecatchwordinonecase；’ofwhatkind？’intheother。AgoodillustrationoftheunsettledconditionofthelawisaffordedbythecasePriorofRipleyv。ThomasFitz-Adam。AccordingtothePrior，thejurorscalledtotestifyastoservicesandtenureshad，whileadmittingthepaymentoftallageandmerchet，askedleavetotaketheadviceofRobertLexington，agreatauthorityonthebench，whetheraholdingencumberedbysuchcustomscouldbefree。
Thesubjectisimportant，notonlybecauseitstreatmentshowstowhatextentthewholelawofsocialdistinctionswasstillinastateoffermentation，butalsobecausetheclassificationoftenuresaccordingtothenatureofcustomsmayaffordvaluablecluestotheoriginoflegaldisabilitiesineconomicandpoliticalfacts。Theplainandformalruleoflaterlaw，whichisundoubtedlyquitefittedtotestthemainissueastothepowerofthelord，isrepresentedinearliertimesbyacongeriesofopinions，eachofwhichhaditsfoundationinsomematteroffact。Weseehereastateofthingswhichontheonehandisverylikelytoinviteanartificialsimplification，byanapplicationofsomeone-sidedlegalconceptionofserfdom，whileontheotherhanditseemstohaveoriginatedinamixtureandconfusionofdiversclassesofserfsandfreemen，whichshadedoffintoeachotherbyinsensibledegrees。
