Hisdoctrine，onceestablished，isslowtofollowthefluctuationsofhusbandryandpolitics：whileinbothdepartmentsnewfactsareevercroppingupandgatheringstrength，whichhavetofighttheirwayagainsttherigidityofjurisprudencebeforetheyareacceptedbyit。Ontheotherhand，notionsofoldstandingandtenacioustraditioncannotbeputawayatonce，sosoonassomenewdeparturehasbeentakenbyjurists；andevenwhentheydieoutatcommonlawsuchnotionspersistinlocalhabitsandpracticallife。Forthesereasons，whichholdgoodmoreorlesseverywhere，andareespeciallyconspicuousinmediaevalhistory，thegeneralrelationbetweenlegalandmanorialdocumentsbecomesespeciallyimportant。Itwillwidenandstrengthenconclusionsdrawnfromtheanalysisoflegaltheory。Wemaybesuretofindinthirteenth-centurydocumentsofpracticaladministrationthefoundationsofasystemwhichprevailedatlawinthefifteenth。Andwhatismuchmoreinteresting，wemaybesuretofindinlocalcustomariesthetracesofasystemwhichhaditsdaylongbeforethethirteenthcentury，butwasstilllingeringinbrokenremains。
Bractondefinesvillainageasaconditionofmenwhodonotknowintheeveningwhatworkandhowmuchtheywillhavetoperformnextmorning。Thecorrespondingtenureisentirelyprecariousanduncertainatlaw。Butthesefundamentalpositionsoflegaldoctrinewefindopposedindailylifetotheall-controllingruleofcustom。Thepeasantknowsexactlyonwhatdayshebastoappearpersonallyorbyrepresentativeatploughingsandreapings，howmanyloadsheisboundtocarry，andhowmanyeggsheisexpectedtobringatEaster；(1*)inmostcasesheknowsalsowhatwillberequiredfromhimwhenheinheritsfromhisfatherormarrieshisdaughter。Thiscustomaryarrangementofdutiesdoesnotfindanyexpressionincommonlaw，andviceversatheruleofcommonlawdwindlesdownindailylifetoadefinitionofpowerwhichmaybeexercisedinexceptionalcases。Theoppositionbetweenourtwosetsofrecordsisevidentlyconnectedinthiscasewiththeirdifferentwayoftreatingfacts。
Manorialextentsandinquestsgiveinthemselvesonlyaone-sidedpictureofmediaevalvillagelife，becausetheydescribeitonlyfromthepointofviewoftheholding；peoplewhodonotownlandareveryseldomnoticed，andamongthepopulationsettledonthelandonlythosepersonsarenamedwho’defend’thetenementinregardtothelord。Onlythechiefofthehouseholdappears；thisisamatterofcourse。Hemayhavemanyorfewchildren，manyorfewwomenengagedonhisplot：theextentwillnotmakeanydifferenceinthedescriptionofthetenementandofitsservices。Butalthoughveryincompleteinthisimportantrespect，manorialrecordsallowusmanyaglimpseattheprocesswhichwaspreparingagreatchangeinthelawHiredlabourersarefrequentlymentionedinstewards’accounts，andthe’undersette’and’levingmen’and’anelipemen’(2*)oftheextentscorrespondevidentlytothisfluctuatingpopulationofruralworkmenandsquattersgatheringbehindthescreenofrecognisedpeasantholders。
Theveryfoundationofthemediaevalsystem，itsorganisationofworkaccordingtoequalisedholdingsandaroundamanorialcentre，isincourseoftimeunderminedbytheprocessofcommutation。Villainsarereleasedfromploughingsandreapings，fromcarriage-dutiesandboonworkbypayingcertainrents；theybargainwiththelordforasurrenderofhisrightofarbitrarytaxationandarbitraryamercement；theytakeleasesofhouses，arableandmeadows。Thisimportantmovementisdirectlynoticedbythelawinsofarasittakestheshapeofanincreaseinthenumberoffreeholdersandoffreeholdtenements；chartersandinstrumentsofconveyancemaybeconcernedwithit。Buttheprocessischieflyapparentinastandingcontradictionwiththelaw。Legallyanarrangementwithavillaineitheroughtnottobindthelordorelseoughttodestroyhispower。Eveninlawbooks，however，theintermediateformofabindingcovenantwiththevillainemerges，aswehaveseen，inoppositiontotheconsistenttheory。Inpracticethevillainsareconstantlyfoundpossessedof’soclands，’’forlands，’andfreeholds。Thepassagefromobligatorylabourtoproprietaryrightsiseffectedinthiswaywithoutanysuddenemancipation，bythegradualaccumulationoffactswhicharenotstrictlylegalandatthesametimetendtobecomelegal。
Again，theRoyalcourtsdonotknowanythingabout’molmen，’
’gavelmen，’or’censuarii，’Theykeeptotheplaindistinctionbetweenfreeandbond。Nevertheless，allthesegroupsexistinpractice，andareconstantlygrowinginconsequenceofcommutation。Thewholelawofstatusgetstransformedbytheirgrowthasthelawoftenuregetstransformedbythegrowthofleases。Molmen，thoughtreatedasvillainsbyRoyalcourts，arealreadyrecognisedasmore’free’thanthevillainsbymanorialjuries。Theexistenceofsuchgroupstestifiestosomethingmorethanaprecariouspassagefromservicetorent，namelytoachangefromservilesubjectiontoastatuscloselyresemblingthatofpeasantfreeholders，andactuallyleadinguptoit。Inoneword，ourmanorialrecordsgiveamplenoticeofthegrowthofasystembasedonfreecontractandnotoncustomarylabour。Buttheoldformsoftenureandservicearestillexistentinlaw，andthecontradictioninvolvedinthisfactisnotmerelyatechnicalone：itliesattherootoftherevolutionarymovementatthecloseofthefourteenthcentury。Inthismannerfactswereslowlypavingthewaytowardsamodificationofthelaw。Butnow，turningfromwhatisinthefuture，towhatisinthepast，letustrytocollectthoseindicationswhichthrowlightontheconditionofthingsprecedingfeudallawandorganisation。
Theone-sidedconceptionoffeudallawbuildsuptheentirestructureofsocialdivisionsontheprincipleofthelord’swill。Custom，howeversacred，isnotequivalenttoactionableright，andapersonwhohasnothingbutcustomtoleanuponissupposedtobeatthewillandmercyofhislordandofbaseorservilecondition，Butwefindeveninthedomainoflegaldoctrineothernotionslessconvenientforthepurposeofclassification，andmoreadaptedtothepracticeofdailylife。
Servilepersonsandservilelandareknownfromthenatureoftheservicestowhichtheyaresubject。Thistestisappliedintwodirections：(1)regularruralwork，’withpitch-forkandflail，’
isconsideredservile；andthiswouldexcludethepaymentofrentsandoccasionalhelpintheperformanceofagriculturallabour；(2)certaindutiesaresingledoutasmarkingservitudebecausetheyimplytheideaofonepersonbeingownedbyanother，andthiswouldexcludesubjectionderivedfromthepossessionofland，howeverburdensomeandarbitrarysuchsubjectionmightbe。
Turningnexttomanorialrecords，wefindtheseabortivefeaturesoffeudallawrestingonaverybroadbasis。Onlythatlandisconsideredservilewhichoweslabour，ifitrendersnothingbutrentitistermedfree。Wehaveherenomerecommutation：thenotionisanoldone，andratherdrivenbackbylaterlawthanemergingfromit。Itisnaturalenoughthattheholderofaplotisconsideredfreeifhisrelationswiththelordarerestrictedtooccasionalappearancesatcourt，occasionalfines，andthepaymentofcertainrentstwoorthreetimesayear。Itisnaturalenoughthattheholderofanotherplotshouldbetreatedasaserfbecauseheisboundtoperformworkwhichisfittedasapartintothearrangementofhislord’shusbandry，andconstantlybroughtunderthecontrolandthecoercivepowerofthesteward。Thismatter-of-factcontrastcomesnaturallytotheforeindocumentswhicharedrawnupasdescriptionsofdailytransactionsandnotasevidenceforalawsuit。Buttheterms’free’and’servile’arenotusedlightlyeveninsuchdocuments。Wemaybesurethatmanorialjuriesandbailiffswouldnothavebeenallowedtodisplaceattheirpleasureterminologicaldistinctionswhichmightleadpeopletoaltertheirlegalposition。Thedoublesenseofthesetermscannotbetakenasarrangingsocietyunderthesametwocategoriesandyetintwoentirelydifferentways：itmustbeconstruedasimplyingthetwosidesofoneandthesamething，thesubstanceinmanorialrecordsandtheformaldistinctioninlegalrecords。Thatistosay，whenthetestoflegalprotectionwasapplied，thepeoplewhohadtoperformlabourweredeprivedofitanddesignatedasholdinginvillainage，andtothepeoplewhopaidrentprotectionwasgrantedandtheywereconsideredasholdingfreely。Forthisveryreasontheprocessofcommutationcreatingmol-landactuallyledtoanincreaseinthenumberoffreetenancies。(3*)
Thecourtsmadesomeattemptstoutilisepersonalsubjectionasadistinctivefeatureofbornvillains。Ifithadbeenpossibletofollowouttheprinciple，weshouldhavebeenabletodistinguishbetweenvillainsproperandmenoffreebloodholdinginvillainage。Theattemptmiscarriedinpractice，althoughtheKing’scourtswereactinginthiscaseinconjunctionwithlocalcustomandlocaljuries。Thereasonofthefailureisdisclosedbymanorialdocuments。Merchet，themostdebasingincidentofpersonalvillainage，appearssowidelyspreadintheHundredRollsthattherecanbenoquestion，atleastatthecloseofthethirteenthcentury，oftreatingitasasuretestofpersonalsubjection。Wecannotadmitevenforonemomentthatthewholepeasantpopulationofentirecountieswasdescendedfrompersonalslaves，asthediffusionofmerchetwouldleadustosuppose。Theappearanceofthedistinctionisquiteascharacteristicasitsgradualcollapse。Theoriginalideaunderlyingitwastoconnectvillainstatuswithpersonalslavery，anditfailedbecausetheincidentsofpersonalslaverywereconfusedwithotherfactswhichwerequiteindependentofitandwhichwereexpandedoveraverylargeareainsteadofaveryrestrictedone。
Andnowwehavereadytheseverallinksofonechain。Thethreetestsofserfdomappliedbyourdocumentsareconnectedwitheachotherbytheverytermsinwhichtheyarestated，andatthesametimetheypresentthreeconsecutivestagesofdevelopment。Thenotionofserfdomisoriginallyconfinedtoformsofpersonalsubjectionandtothepossessionoflandunderthebaneofpersonalsubjection：inthissenseservitudeisanarrowterm，andtheconditiondenotedbyitisexceptional。Initssecondmeaningitconnectsitselfwithrurallabourandspreadsoverthewholeclassofpeasantsengaged。init。InitslastandbroadestsenseitincludesallthepeopleandallthelandnotprotectedbytheCommonLaw。Wehavenoevidenceastothechronologicallandmarksbetweentheseseveralepochs，anditisclearthatthepassagefromonetoanotherwasverygradual，andbynomeansimpliedtheabsolutedisappearanceofancientterms。Butitseemshardlydoubtfulthatthemovementwaseffectedinthedirectiondescribed；boththe，intrinsicevidenceofthenotionsunderdiscussionandtheirappearanceinourdocumentspointthisway。
Thisbeingso，wemayexpecttofindsometracesofthegradualspreadofserfdominthesubdivisionsofthatcomprehensiveclasscalledvillainage。And，indeed，thereareunmistakablesignsofthefactthatthefloodwasrisingslowlyandswampingtheseveralgroupsofthepeasantrywhichhithertohadbeenofveryvariousconditions。TheDomesdayclassificationwillhavetobediscussedbyitself，butitmaybenoticedevennowthatitsfundamentalfeaturesarethedistinctionbetweenserfsandvillains，andtheverylimitednumberofthesefirst。
Judgingbythis，thebulkofthepeasantrywasnotconsideredunfree。TheinferenceiscorroboratedfortheepochoftheearlyNormankingsbythelawsofHenryI，inwhichthevillainisstilltreatedonthesamefootingastheceorlofSaxontimes，isdeemed’worthyofhiswereandofhiswite，’andiscalledasafreemantothehundredcourt，althoughnotalandlord，’teirrarumdominus。’Thehundredorsoflatertimeskeptupthetradition：degradedinmanyways，theywerestillconsideredasrepresentativesofafreepopulation。Ancientdemesnetenureisanotherproofofthesamefreedominvillainage；itisprotectedthoughbase，andsupposesindependentrightsonthepartofthepeasantry。Thepositionofthegroupofsocmenoutsidetheancientdemesnepointsthesameway：theirtenureisoriginallynothingmoreandnothinglessthanacustomaryfreeholdorafreecopyhold，ifonemaysayso。ThelawofKentisconstructedonthisverybasis：itisthelawoffreeceorlssubjectedtoacertainmanorialauthoritywhichhasnotbeenabletostrikeverydeeprootsinthissoil。
ButthegeneralcurrentwentSteadilyagainstthepeasantry。
