Nosigitursuperpremissispleniuscertiorariuolentesassignavimusvosunacumhis，quosvobisassociaveritis，adinquirendumquisokemannihuiusmoditerrasettenementaibidemalienauerunthuiusmodiforinsecisautextrinsecisetquibus，’
etc。CftheStatuteofIRichardII，Stat。I。cap。6。Itwasaltogetheradangeroustransactionforthesocmen，becausetheywereriskingtheirprivilegesthereby。Itmusthavebeenlucrative。
100。PlacitorumAbbrev。，p。270(CoramRege，Mich。7/8Edw。I)：
’EteciamcompertoinlibrodeDomesdayquodnonfitaliquamenciodesokemannissettantummododevillanisetserviseteciamcompertoperinquisicionemquodmultieorumsuntadventiciiquibustenementasuatraditafueruntadvoluntatemdominorumsuorum。consideraveruntquodpredictusGalfriduseatindesinedieetquodpredictihominesteneanttenementapredictainpredictomanerioperserviliaserviciasivoluerint，salvostatucorporumsuorum，etquoddeceterononpossuntclamarealiquodcertumstatumetsintinmisericordiaprofalsoclameo。’
103。DialogusdeScaccario，i。10：’Postregniconquisitionem，postjustamrebelliumsubversionem，cumrexipseregisqueprocereslocanovaperlustrarent，factaestinquisitiodiligens，quifuerintquicontraregeminbellodimicantesperfugamSesalvaverint。Hisomnibusetitemhaeredibuseorumquiinbellooccubuerunt，spesomnisterrarumetfundorumatqueredituum，quosantepossederant，praeclusaest；magnumnamquereputabantfruivitaebeneficiosubinimicis。Verumquivocatiadbellumnecdumconvenerant，velfamiliaribusvelquibuslibetnecessariisoccupatinegotiisnoninterfuerant，cumtractutemporisdevotisobsequiisgratiamdominorumpossedissent，sinespesuccessionis，sibitantumprovoluptate(voluntate？)tamendominorumpossiderecoeperunt。Succedenteverotemporecumdominissuisodiosipassimapossessionibuspellerentur，necessetquiablatarestitueret，communisindigenarumadregempervenitquerimonia，quasisicomnibusexosietrebusspoliatiadalienigenastransirecogerentur。Communicatotandemsuperhisconsilio，decretumest，utquodadominissuisexigentibusmeritisintervenientepactionelegitimapoterantobtinere，illisinviolabilijureconcederentur；
ceterumautemnominesuccessionisatemporibussubactaegentisnihilsibivendicarent。’
104。StoneleighReg。，4a：’QuequidemmaneriaexistenciainpossessioneetmanudominiregisEdwardiperuniversumregnumvocanturantiquumndominicumcoroneregisAnglieproutinlibrodeDomesdavcontinetur。’
105。’LoquebanturdetemporeStiEdwardiRegiscoramW。deWilton。’
106。ThemenofKing’sRipton。
107。IdonotthinkthereisanygroundforthesuggestionthrownoutbyM。KovalevskyintheLawQuarterly，iv。p。271，namely，thatthelawofancientdemesnewasimportedfromNormandy。
WhateverthepositionofthevillainswasintheDuchy，NormaninfluenceinEnglandmadeforsubjection，becauseitwastheinfluenceofconquest。ItmustberememberedthatinasensethefeudallawofEnglandwasthehardestofallinWesternEurope，andthisonaccountoftheinvasion。
108。Stubbs，Const。Hist。I。454：’Inthoseestates，which，whentheyhadbeenheldbythecrownsincethereignofEdwardtheConfessor，borethetitleofmanorsinancientdemesne，verymuchoftheancientpopularprocesshadbeenpreservedwithoutanychange，andtothepresentdaysomecustomsaremaintainedinthemwhichrecallthemostprimitiveinstitutions。’Ishallhavetospeakaboutthemodeofholdingthecourtsinanotherchapter。
LegalAspectofVillainage。ConclusionsIhavebeentryingtomakeoutwhatthetheoriesofthelawyerswerewithregardtovillainageinitsdiversramifications。Werewetoconsiderthislegalpartofthesubjectmerelyasasortofcrustsuperposedartificiallyovertherealityofsocialfacts，weshouldhavetobreakthroughthecrustinordertogetatthereality。But，ofcourse，thelawregulatingsocialconditionsisnotmerelyanexternalsuperstructure，butastosocialfactsisbothaninfluenceandaconsequence。Inonesenseitisamostvaluableproductoftheforcesatplayinthehistoryofsociety，mostvaluablejustbyreasonoftherequirementsofitsformalismandofthosetheoreticaltendencieswhichgiveaverydefiniteevenifasomewhatdistortedshapetothesocialprocesseswhichcomewithinitssphereofaction。
Theformalcharacteroflegaltheoryisnotonlyimportantbecauseitputsthingsintoorderandshape；itsuggestsapeculiarandefficientmethodoftreatingthehistoricalquestionsconnectedwithlaw。Thelegalintellectisbyitscallingandnaturealwaysengagedinanalysingcomplexcasesintoconstitutiveelements，andbringingtheseelementsunderthedirectionofprinciples。Itisconstantlystrugglingwiththeconfusingvarietyoflife，andfromthehistorian’spointofviewitismostinterestingwhenitsuccumbsinthestruggle。Thereisnolaw，howeversubtleandcomprehensive，whichdoesnotexhibitonitslogicalsurfaceseamsandscars，testifyingtotheincompletefusingtogetherofdoctrinesthatcannotbebroughtunderthecoverofoneprinciple。Andsoadialecticexaminationoflegalformswhichmakesmanifestthecontradictionsandconfusednotionstheycontainactuallyhelpsustoaninsightintothehistoricalstratificationofideasandfacts，astratificationwhichcannotbeabolishedhowevermuchlawyersmaycraveforunityandlogic。
Intheparticularcaseunderdiscussionmedievallawisespeciallyrichinsuchhistoricalclues。ThelawwritersaretryinghardtogiveaconstructionofvillainageonthebasisoftheRomandoctrineofslavery，buttheirfabricgiveswayateverypoint。Itwouldbehardlyafairdescriptiontosaythatwefindmanysurvivalsofanolderstateofthingsandmanyindicationsofanewdevelopment。Everythingseemsinastateofvacillationandfermentationduringthethirteenthcentury。Astotheoriginoftheservilestatusthelawofbastardsgetsinverted；inthecaseofmatrimonythefather-ruleisdrivingthemother-rulefromtheground；theinfluenceofprescriptionisadmittedbysomelawyersandrejectedbyothers。Astothemeanswherebypersonsmayissueoutofthatcondition，theviewsofGlanvilleandBractonarediametricallyopposed，andtherearestilltracesinpracticeofthenotionthatavillaincannotbuyhisfreedomandthathecannotbemanumittedbythelordhimselfinregardtothirdpersons。Intheirtreatmentofservicesintheirreferencetostatusthecourtsapplythetwodifferenttestsofcertaintyandofkind。Intheirtreatmentoftenuretheystillhesitatebetweenacompletedenialofprotectiontovillainageandtherecognitionofitasamodeofholdingwhichisprotectedbylegalremedies。Andevenwhenthechieflinesaredefinitelydrawntheyonlydisclosefundamentalcontradictionsinalltheircrudeness。
Incivillaw，villainsaredisabledagainsttheirlordsbutevenlywatchedagainststrangers；evenagainstalordlegalprotectionislingeringintheformofanactionuponcovenantandinthenotionthatthevillain’swainageshouldbesecure。Incriminalandinpolicelawvillainsaretreatedsubstantiallyasfreepersons：theyhaveevenashare，althoughasubordinateone，intheorganisationofjustice。Theprocedureinquestionsofstatusischaracterisedbyoutrageousprivilegesgiventothelordagainstamanin’avillainnest，’andbydistinctfavourshowntothoseoutoftheimmediaterangeofactionofthelord。
Thelawisquiteasmuchagainstgivingfacilitiestoproveaman’sservitudeasitisagainstgrantingthatmananyrightswhenoncehisservitudehasbeenestablished。Thereconciliationofallthesecontradictionsandanomaliescannotbeattemptedondogmaticgrounds。Thelawofvillainagemustnotbeconstructedeitherontheassumptionofslavery，Oronthatofliberty，oronthatofcolonatusorascription。Itcontainselementsfromeachofthesethreeconditions，anditmustbeexplainedhistorically。
Thematerialhithertocollectedanddiscussedenablesustodistinguishdifferentlayersinitsformation。Tobeginwith，theinfluenceoflawyersmustbetakenintoaccount。Thisisatoncetobeseeninthetreatmentofdistinctionsanddivisions。TheCommonLaw，asitwasformingitselfintheKing’sCourt，certainlywentfartosmoothedownthepeculiaritiesoflocalcustom。Evenwhensuchpeculiaritieswerelegallyrecognised，asinthecaseofancientdemesne，thecontrolandstillmoretheexampleoftheCommonLawCourtswasmakingforsimplificationandreducingthemworeorlesstoagenerallyacceptedstandard。
Theinfluenceofthelawyerswasexactlysimilarinregardtosubdivisionsontheverticalplane(ifImayusetheexpression)：
forthesevarietiesofdependencegetfusedintogeneralservitude，andinthiswayclasseswidelydifferentintheirhistoricaldevelopmentarebroughttogetherunderthesamename。
Theothersideofthisprocessofsimplificationisshownwherelegaltheoryhardensanddeepensthedivisionsitacknowledges。
Inthiswaythechasmbetweenlibertyandservitudeincreasesasthenotionofservitudegetsbroader。Inordertogetsharpboundariesandcleardefinitionstogoby，thelawyersareactuallydriventodropsuchtraitsoflegalrelationsasaredifficulttomanagewithprecision，howevergreattheirmaterialimportance，andtogivetheirwholeattentiontofactscapableofbeingtreatedclearly。Thistendencymayaccountfortheultimatevictoryofthequantitativetestofservitudeoverthequalitativeone，ortoputitmoreplainly，ofthetestofcertaintyofservicesoverthediscussionofkindofservices。
Altogetherthetendencytowardsanartificialcrystallisationofthelawcannotbeoverlooked。
Intheworkofsimplifyingconditionsartificiallythelawyershadseveralstrongreagentsattheirdisposal。ThemightyinfluenceofRomanlawhasbeenoftennoticed，andtherecanbenodoubtthatitwasbroughttobearonoursubjecttotheprejudiceofthepeasantryandtotheextinctionoftheirindependentrights。Itwouldnothavebeensostrongifmanyfeaturesofthevernacularlawhadnotbeenbroughthalfwaytomeetit。Normanrules，itiswellknown，exercisedaverypotentactionontheformsofprocedure；(1*)butthesubstantivelawofstatuswastreatedverydifferentlyinNormandyandinEngland，anditisnottheinfluxofNormannotionswhichisimportantinourcase，buttheimpetusgivenbythemtothedevelopmentoftheKing’sCourts。Thisdevelopment，thoughconnectedwiththepracticeoftheDuchy，cannotbedescribedsimplyorprimarilyasNorman。Oncetheleavenhadbeencommunicated，Englishlawyersdidtheirownworkwithgreatindependenceaswellasingenuityofthought，andthedecisionoftheKing’sCourtwascertainlyagreatforce。Ineednotpointoutagaintowhatextentthelawwasfashionedbythewritprocedure，butIwouldhererecalltoattentionthemainfact，thattheoppositionbetween’free’and’unfree’restedchieflyonthepointofbeingprotectedornotbeingprotectedbythejurisdictionoftheKing’sCourt。
Ifweexaminetheactionoflawyersasawhole，inordertotraceout，asitwere，itssocialbias，wemustcometotheconclusionthatitwasexercisedfirstinonedirectionandthenintheoppositeone。Therefusalofjurisdictionmaystandasthecentralfactinthemovementinfavourofservitude，althoughthatmovementmaybeillustratedalmostineverydepartment，evenifoneomitstotakeintoaccountwhatmaybemereinstancesofbadtemperorgrosspartiality。Butthewavebeginstorisehighinfavouroflibertyeveninthethirteenthcentury。Itdoesnotneedgreatperspicuitytonoticethat，apartfromanyprogressinmoralsorideas，apartfromanygrowthofhumanitariannotions，thelawwascarriedinthisdirectionbythatdevelopmentoftheStatewhichlaysaclaimtoanduponitscitizens，andbythatdevelopmentofsocialintercoursewhichsubstitutesagreementforbondage。Isitstrangethatthesocialevolution，asobservedinthisparticularcurve，doesnotappearasacontinuouscrescendo，butasawavymotion？Idonotthinkitcanbestrange，ifonereflectsthattheperiodunderdiscussionembracesboththegrowthandthedecayoffeudalism，embraces，thatis，thegrowthoftheprincipleofterritorialpowerontheruinsofthetribalsystemandalsothedisappearanceofthatprinciplebeforethegrowinginfluenceoftheState。
