Indirectlywehavehadtoconsidertheinfluenceoffeudalism，asitwastransmittedthroughtheactionofitslawyers。Butitmaybeviewedinitsdirectconsequences，whichareasmanifestastheyareimportant。InEngland，feudalisminitsdefiniteshapeisboundupwithconquest。(2*)anditiswellknownthat，thoughverymuchhamperedonthepoliticalsidebytheroyalpower，itwasexceptionallycompleteonthesideofprivatelawbyreasonofitssudden，artificial，andenforcedintroduction。Oneofthemostimportantresultsofconquestfromthispointofviewwascertainlythesystematicwayinwhichthesubjectionofthepeasantrywasworkedout。IfwelookforcomparisontoFranceasthenextneighbourofEnglandandacountrywhichhasinfluencedEngland，weshallfindthesameelementsatwork，buttheycombineinavarietyofmodesaccordingtoprovincialandlocalpeculiarities。AlthoughthepoliticalpoweroftheFrenchbaronissomuchgreaterthanthatofanEnglishlord，theroturieroftenkeepshisdistancefromtheserfbetterthanwasthecaseinEngland。InFranceeverythingdependsuponthechangingequilibriumoflocalforcesandcircumstances。InEnglandtheNormanConquestproducedacompactestateofaristocracyinsteadofthemagnatesofthecontinent，eachofwhomwasstrongorweakaccordingtothecircumstancesofhisownparticularcase；itproducedCommonLawandtheKing’scourtsofCommonLaw；anditreducedthepeasantrytosomethinglikeuniformconditionbysurroundingtheliberietlegaleshomineswitheverykindofprivilege。ThenationalcolouringgivenbytheDialogusdeScaccariotothesocialquestionofthetimeisnotwithoutmeaninginthislight：——thepeasantsmayberegardedastheremnantofaconqueredrace，orastheissueofrebelswhohaveforfeitedtheirrights。
ThefeudalsystemonceestablishedproducedcertaineffectsquiteapartfromtheConquest，effectswhichflowedfromitsowninherentproperties。TheConquesthadcastfreeandunfreepeasantrytogetherintotheonemouldofvillainage；feudalismpreventedvillainagefromlapsingintoslavery。Ihaveshownindetailhowthemanorgivesapeculiarturntopersonalsubjection。Itsactionisperceivableinthetreatmentoftheoriginoftheservilestatus。Thevillain，howevernearbeingachattel，cannotbedevisedbywillbecauseheisconsideredasanannextothefreetenementofthelord。Theconnexionwithamanorbecomesthechiefmeansofestablishingandprovingseisinofthevillain。Ontheotherhand，inthetrialofstatus，manorialorganisationledtothesharpdistinctionbetweenpersonsinthepowerofthelordandoutofit。Thisfacttouchestheveryessenceofthecase。Themorepowerfulthemanorbecame，thelesspossiblewasittoworkoutsubjectiononthelinesofpersonalslavery。Withoutenteringintotheeconomicpartofthequestionforthepresent，merelyfromthelegalpointofviewitwasanecessaryconsequenceoftheriseofalocalandterritorialpowerthattheworkingpeopleunder。Itsswayweresubjectedbymeansofitsterritorialorganisationandwithinitslimitedsphereoflocalaction。Ofcourse，theStateupheldsomeofthelord’srightsevenoutsidethelimitsofthemanor，butthesewereonlyapalereflectionofwhattookplacewithinthemanor，andtheyweremoredifficulttoenforceinproportionasthebarriersbetweenthemanorsrosehigher；itbecameverydifficultforonelordtoreclaimrunawayswhowerelyingwithinthemanorofanotherlord。
IfweremovethosestrataofthelawofvillainagewhichowetheirorigintotheactionofthefeudalsystemandtotheactionoftheState，whichrisesontheruinsofthefeudalsystem，wecomeuponremnantsofthepre-feudalcondition。Theyarebynomeansfeworunimportant，anditisratherawonderthatsomuchshouldbepreservednotwithstandingthesystematicworkofconquest，feudalism，andState。WhenIspeakofpre-feudalconditionIdonotmeantosay，ofcourse，thatfeudalismhadnotbeeninthecourseofformationbeforetheNormanConquest。I
merelywishtoopposeasocialordergroundedonfeudalismtoasocialorderwhichwasonlypreparingforitanddevelopingonadifferentbasis。TheConquestbroughttogetherthefreeandunfree。OursurvivalsofthestateofthingsbeforetheConquestgroupthemselvesnaturallyinonedirection，theyaremanifestationsofthefreeelementwhichwentintotheconstitutionofvillainage。Itisnotstrangethatitshouldbeso，becausetheservileelementpredominatedinthosepartsofthelawwhichhadgottheupperhandandtheofficialrecognition。AtraitwhichgoesfurtherthantheacceptedlawinthedirectionofslaveryisthedifficultieswhichareputbyGlanvilleinthewayofmanumission。Hisstatementpracticallyamountstoadenialofthepossibilityofmanumission，andsuchadenialwecannotaccept。Hiswayoftreatingthequestionmaypossiblybeexplainedbyoldnotionsastotheinabilityofamastertoputaslavebyamereactofhiswillonthesamelevelwithfreemen。
Howeverthismaybe，oursurvivalsarrangethemselveswiththissinglepossibleexceptioninthedirectionoffreedom。
Perhapssuchfactsasthevillain’scapacitytotakelegalactionagainstthirdpersons，andhispositioninthecriminalandpolicelaw，oughtnottobecalledsurvivals。Theyarecertainsidesofthesubject。Theyareindissolublyalliedtosuchfeaturesofthecivillawastheoccasionalrecognitionofvillainageasaprotectedtenure，andthevillain’sadmittedstandingagainstthelordwhenthelordhadboundhimselfbycovenant。Inthelightofthesefactsvillainageassumesanentirelydifferentaspectfromthatwhichlegaltheorytriestogiveit。Proceduraldisabilitycomestotheforeinsteadofpersonaldebasement。Avillainistoagreatextentinthepowerofhislord，notbecauseheishischattel，butbecausethecourtsrefusehimanactionagainstthelord。Hemayhaverightsrecognisedbymoralityandbycustom，buthehasnomeanstoenforcethem；andhehasnomeanstoenforcethembecausefeudalismdisablestheStateandpreventsitfrominterfering。
Thepoliticalrootofthewholegrowthbecomesapparent，anditisquiteclear，ontheonehand，thatliberationwilldependtoagreatextentonthestrengtheningoftheState；and，ontheotherhand，thatonemustlookfortheoriginsofenslavementtothepoliticalconditionsbeforeandaftertheConquest。
Oneundoubtedlyencountersdifficultiesintracingandgroupingfactswithregardtothoseelementsoffreedomwhichappearinthelawofvillainage。Sometimesitmaynotbeeasytoascertainwhetheraparticulartraitmustbeconnectedwithlegalprogressmakingtowardsmoderntimes，orwiththeremnantsofarchaicinstitutions。Asamatteroffact，however，itwillbefoundthat，saveinveryfewcases，wepossessindicationstoshowuswhichwayweoughttolook。
AnotherdifficultyarisesfromthefactthatthelawofthisperiodwasfashionedbykingsofFrenchoriginandlawyersofNormantraining。Whatshareistobeassignedtotheirformalinfluence？andwhatsharecomesfromthatoldstockofideasandfactswhichtheycouldnotorwouldnotdestroy？Wemayhesitateastodetailsinthisrespect。Itispossiblethatthefamousparagraphoftheso-calledLawsofWilliamtheConqueror，prescribingingeneraltermsthatpeasantsoughtnottobetakenfromthelandorsubjectedtoexactions，(3*)isaninsertionoftheNormanperiod，althoughthegreatmajorityoftheseLawsareSaxongleanings。ItislikelythatthenotionofwainagewasworkedoutundertheinfluenceofNormanideas；thenameseemstoshowit，andperhapsyetmorethefactthattheploughwasspeciallyprivilegedintheduchy。Itistobeassumedthattheking，notbecausehewasaNormanbutbecausehewasaking，wasinterestedinthewelfareofsubjectsonwhosebackthewholestructureofhisrealmwasresting。Buttheinfluenceofthestrangerswentbroadlyagainstthepeasantry，andithasbeenrepeatedlyshownthatNormanlawyerswerepromptedbyanythingbutamildspirittowardsthem。TheDialogusdeScaccarioisveryinstructiveonthispoint，becauseitwaswrittenbyaroyalofficerwhowaslikelytobemoreimpartialthanthefeudatoriesoranyonewhowroteintheirinterestwouldbe，andyetitmakesoutthatvillainsaremerechattelsoftheirlord，andtreatsthemthroughoutwiththegreatestcontempt。Andso，speakinggenerally，itistothetimesbeforetheConquestthatthestockoflibertyandlegalindependenceinherentinvillainagemustbetraced，evenifwedrawinferencesmerelyonthestrengthofthematerialfoundonthissideoftheConquest。AndwhenwecometoSaxonevidence，weshallseehowintimatelytheconditionoftheceorlconnectsitselfwiththestateofthevillainalongthemainlinesandindetail。
Thecaseofancientdemesneisespeciallyinterestinginthislight。Itpresents，asitwere，anearlierandlessperfectcrystallisationofsocietyonafeudalbasisthanthemanorialsystemofCommonLaw。ItstepsinbetweentheSaxonsocandtunontheonehand，andthemanorontheother。Itowestotheking’sprivilegeitsexistenceasanexception。Theprocedureofitscourtisorganisedentirelyontheoldpatternandquiteoutofkeepingwithfeudalideas，aswillbeshownby-and-by。
Treatingofitonlyinsofarasitillustratesthelawofstatus，itpresentsinseparateexistencethetwoclasseswhichwerefusedinthesystemoftheCommonLaw；villainsocmenarecarefullydistinguishedfromthevillains，andthetwogroupsaretreateddifferentlyineveryway。Amostinterestingfact，andonetobetakenuphereafter，isthewayoftreatingtheprivilegedgroupasthenormalone。Villainsocmenarethemenofancientdemesne；villainsaretheexception，theyappearonlyonthelord’sdemesne，andseemveryfew，sofaraswecanmakeacalculationofnumbers。Villainsocmenenjoyacertaintyofconditionwhichbecomesactualtenant-rightwhenthemanorpassesfromthecrownintoaprivatelord’shand。Astoitsorigintherecanbenodoubt——ancientdemesneistracedbacktoSaxontimesinasmanywordsandbyallourauthorities。
AcarefulanalysisofthelawofancientdemesnemayevengiveusvaluablecluestotheconditionoftheSaxonpeasantry。
Thepointjustnoticed，namely，thatthenumberofvillainsocmenisexceedinglylargeandquiteoutofproportiontothatofothertenants，givesindirecttestimonythatthelegalprotectionofthetenurewasnotduemerelytoaninfluxoffreeownersdeprivedoftheirlandsbyconquest。ThisistheexplanationgivenbyBracton，butitisnotsufficienttoaccountfortheprivilegedpositionofalmostallthetenantswithinthemanor。A
considerablepartofthemsurelyheldbeforetheConquestnotasownersandnotfreely，butastenantsbybaseservices，andtheirfixityoftenureisasimportantintheconstitutionofancientdemesneasistheinfluxoffreeowners。Ifthislattercausecontributedtokeepupthestandardofthisstatus，theformercausesuppliedthattraditionofcertaintytowhichancientdemesnerightconstantlyappeals。
Anotherpointtobekeptfirmlyinviewisthatthecarefuldistinctionkeptupontheancientdemesnebetweenvillainsocmenandvillains，provesthelawonthissubjecttohaveoriginatedinthegeneraldistributionofclassesandrightsduringtheSaxonperiod，andnotintheexceptionalroyalprivilegewhichpreserveditinlaterdays；Imean，thatifcertaintyofconditionhadbeengrantedtothetenantrymerelybecauseitwasroyaltenantry，whichisunlikelyenoughinitself，thecertaintywouldhaveextendedtotenantsofallsortsandkinds。Itdidnot，becauseitwasderivedfromageneralrightofoneclassofpeasantstobeprotectedatlaw，arightwhichdidnotintheleastprecludethelordfromusinghisslavesasmerechattels。
AndsoImayconclude：aninvestigationintothelegalaspectofvillainagedisclosesthreeelementsinitscomplexstructure。
Legaltheoryandpoliticaldisabilitieswouldfainmakeitallbutslavery；themanorialsystemensuresitsomethingofthecharacteroftheRomancolonatus；thereisastockoffreedominitwhichspeaksofSaxontradition。
1。Brunner，EntstehungderSchwurgericht，hasmadeanepochonthediscussionofthisphenomenon。
2。IshalltreatatlengthoftheNormanConquestinmythirdessay。
3。Leg。Will。Conq。i，29(Schmid，p。340)。
