Wehaveseenthattherewasonlyonehalimotinthethirteenthandtheprecedingcenturies，andthatthedivisionintocustomarycourtandcourtbarondevelopedatalatertime。
Wehaveseen，secondly，thatthishalimotwasameetingofthecommunityunderthepresidencyofthesteward，andthattherelativefunctionsofcommunityandstewardbecameverydistinctonlyinlaterdays。Itremainstobeseenhowfarthefundamentalclassdivisionbetweenfreetenantsandvillainsaffectedthemanagementofthecourt。Astherewasbutonehalimotandnottwo，bothclasseshadtomeetandtoactconcurrentlyinit。Thefreepeoplenowandthenassertseparateclaims：achaplainwageshislawonthemanorofBrightwalthamthathedidnotdefamethelord’sbutler，butwhenhegetsconvictedbyagoodinquestofjurorsofhavingbrokenthelord’shedgesandcarriedawaythelord’sfowls，hewillnotjustifyhimselfofthesetrespassesanddepartsincontempt，doubtlessbecausehewillnotsubmittothejudgmentofpeoplewhoarenotonaparwithhim。(70*)
Freeholdersobjecttobeingplacedonordinaryjuriesofthemanor，(71*)althoughtheywillserveasjurorsonspecialoccasions，andasasortofcontrollingbodyoverthecommonpresentersAmercementsaresometimestaxedbyfreesuitors。Butalthoughsomedivisionisapparentinthisway，andtheelementsforaseparationintotwodistinctcourtsaregathering，thenormalconditionisonewhichdoesnotadmitofanydistinctionbetweenthetwoclasses。Wecomehereacrossthesamepeculiaritythatwehaveseeninpoliceandcriminallaw，namely，thatthefundamentallineofcivilconditionseemsdisregarded。Evenwhenacourtismainlycomposedofvillains，andinfactcalledcuriavillanorum，someofitssuitorsmaybefreeholders。(74*)Eveninacourtcomposedoffreepeople，likethatofBroughton，theremaybevillainsamongthem。Theparson，undoubtedlyafreeman，mayappearasavillaininsomerolls。Altogether，thefacthastobenoticedasaveryimportantone，thatwhateverbusinessthefreeholdersmayhavehadinconnexionwiththemanorialsystem，thisbusinesswastransactedbycourtswhichconsistedchieflyofserviletenants。Infactthepresentinginquests，onwhichthefreetenantsrefusedtoserve，wouldnotbepreventedbytheircompositionfromattaintingthesefreetenants。
Thisseemsstrangeandindeedanomalous。Onepointremainstobeobservedwhichcompletesthepicture：althoughthegreatmajorityofthethirteenthcenturypeasantryaremerevillains，althoughonsomemanorswehardlydistinguishfreeholders，thereisalegalrequirementthatthereshouldbeatleastafewfreeholdersoneverymanor。Latertheorydoesnotrecogniseasamanoranestatecomposedonlyofdemesnelandandcopyhold。
Freeholdsaredeclaredtobeanecessaryelement，andshouldtheyallescheat，themanorwouldbeonlyareputedone。(78*)Wehavenorighttotreatthisnotionasamereinventionoflatertimes。
itcomesforwardagainandagainintheshapeofarule，thattherecanbenocourtunlesstherearesomefreetenantstoformit。Thenumberrequiredvaries。InHenryVIII’sreignroyaljudgeswerecontentedwithtwo。InJohn’stimeasmanyastwelveweredemanded，ifafreeoutsiderwastobejudged。Thenormalnumberseemstohavebeenfour，andwhentherecordoftheproceedingswassentuptotheKing’stribunalfoursuitorshadtocarryit。ThedifferencebetweenthestatementofCokeandtheearlierdoctrineliesinthesubstitutionofthemanorforthecourt。Cokeandhisauthorities，thejudgesofHenryVIII’sreign，speakofthemanorwheretheolderjurisprudencespokeofthecourt。Theirruleinvolvesthemoreancientoneandsomethinginaddition，namely，theinferencethatiftherebenocourtbaronthereisnomanor。Nowthispartofthedoctrine，thoughinterestingbyitself，muststandoverforthepresent。Letussimplytaketheassertionthatfreesuitorsarenecessarytoconstituteacourt，andapplyittoastateofthingswhentherewasbutonestrictlymanorialcourt，thehalimot。In1294itisnotedinthereportofatrialthat，’inorderthatonemayhaveacourthemusthaveatleastfourfreetenants，withoutborrowingthefourthtenant。’(79*)Nowanumberofeasyexplanationsseemathand：fourfreetenantsatleastwerenecessary，becausefoursuchtenantswererequiredtotaketherecorduptotheking’scourtandtoanswerforanyfalsejudgment；afreetenantcouldprotestagainstbeingimpleadedbeforeunfreepeople；someofthefranchisescouldnotbeexercisedunlesstherewerefreesuitorstoformatribunal。Butalltheseexplanationsdonotgodeepenough：theywoulddoverywellforthelatercourtbaron，butnotforthehalimot。Itisnotassertedthatfreesuitorsarenecessaryonlyinthosecaseswherefreetenantsareconcerned——itisthecourtassuchwhichdependsontheexistenceofsuchfreesuitors，thecourtwhichhaslargely，ifnotmostly，todealwithcustomarybusiness，andconsiststoagreatextentofcustomarytenants。And，curiouslyenough，whenthecourtbarondisengagesitselffromthehalimot，theruleastosuitors，insteadofapplyinginaspecialwaytothiscourtbaron，forwhichitseemsparticularlyfitted，extendstothenotionofthemanoritself，sothatwearedriventoaskwhythemanorisassumedtocontainacertainnumberoffreetenantsandacourtforthem。Whyisitsexistencedeniedwheretheseelementsarewanting？Revertingtothethirteenthcentury，wehavetostatesimilarpuzzlingquestions：thusifoneturnstothemanorialsurveysofthetime，thefreeholdelementseemstoberelativelyinsignificantandmoreorlessseveredfromthecommunity；ifonetakesupthemanorialrolls，thehalimotistherewiththeemphaticallyexpressedfeaturesandeventhenameofacourtofvillains；butwhenthecommonlawisconcerned，thissametribunalappearsasacourtoffreeholders。ThemanorsoftheAbbeyofBeconEnglishsoilcontainedhardlyanyfreeholdersatall。HadtheAbbeynocourts？HaditnomanorsfromthestandpointofCoke’stheory？Whatwerethehalimotswhoseproceedingsarerecordedintheusualwayonitsmanorialrolls？InpresenceoftheseflagrantcontradictionsIcannothelpthinkingthatweherecomeacrossoneofthoseinterestingpointswherethetwolinesoffeudaldoctrinedonotmeet，andwheredifferentlayersoftheorymaybedistinguished。
Withoutdenyingintheleastthepracticalimportanceofsuchnotionsasthatwhichrequiredthatone’sjudgesshouldbeone’speers，orofsuchinstitutionsasthebringingupofthemanorialrecordtotheKing’sCourt，Isubmitthattheymusthaveexercisedtheirinfluencechieflybycallingforthoccasionswhenthemainprinciplehadtobeasserted。Ofcoursetheycouldnotcreatethisprinciple：theideathatthehalimotwasacommunalcourtconstitutedbyfreesuitorsmeetingunderthepresidencyofthesteward，musthaveexistedtosupportthem。Thatideaisfullyembodiedintheconstitutionoftheancientdemesnetribunal，wherethesuitorswereadmittedtobethejudges，althoughtheywerevillains，privilegedvillainsandnothingelse。Mightwenotstartfromtheoriginalsimilaritybetweenancientdemesneandordinarymanors，andthusexplainhowtheruleastothenecessaryconstitutionofthemanorialcourtwasformed？Itseemstomeamereapplicationofthehigherrulethatacourtoverfreepeoplemustcontainfreepeople，toastateofthingswherethedistinctionbetweenfreeandunfreewasnotdrawnatthesamelevelasinthefeudalepoch，butwasdrawnatalowerpoint。Wehaveseenthatavillainwasinmanyrespectsafreeman；thathewasacceptedassuchincriminalandpolicebusiness；thathewasfreeagainsteverybodybuthislordincivildealings；thatthefrank-pledgesystemtowhichhebelongedwasactuallytakentoimplypersonalfreedom，althoughthefreeholdersultimatelyescapedfromit。Icannothelpthinkingthataliketransformationofmeaningasinthecaseoffrank-pledgedidtakeplaceinregardtothefreesuitorsofthemanorialcourt。Theoriginalrequirementcannothaveconcernedfreeholdersintheusuallegalsense，butfreeandlawfulmen，’worthyofwereandwite’——adescriptionwhichwouldcoverthegreatbulkofthevillainsandexcludeslavesandtheirprogeny。
Whenthedefinitionsoffreeholdingandvillainagegottobeverystringentandmarked，theliberetenentesassumedamoreandmoreoverbearingattitudeandgotaseparatetribunal，whilethecommonpeoplefellintothesameconditionastheprogenyofslaves。Inaword，IthinkthatthegeneralmovementofsocialdevelopmentwhichobliteratedthemiddleclassofSaxonceorlsorcustomaryfreetenants(leavingonlyafewscatteredindicationsofitsexistence)madeitselffeltinthehistoryofthemanorialcourtbythesubstitutionofexceptionalfreeholdersforthefreesuitorsofthehalimot。Suchasubstitutionhadseveralresults：
thediverginghistoryoftheancientdemesnefromthatoftheordinarymanorialcourts，theelevationofthecourtbaron，thegrowthofthenotionthatinthecustomarycourttheonlyjudgewasthesteward。Onesignificantlittletraitremainstobeobservedinthiscontext。ithasbeennoticed(80*)thatcareseemstobetakenthatthereshouldbecertainFreemenorFranklainsineverymanor。Thefeaturehasbeenmentionedinconnexionwiththedoctrineoffreesuitorsnecessarytoacourt。
Butthesepeoplearebynomeansfreetenants；intheusuallegalsensetheyaremostlyholdinginvillainage，andtheirfreedommustbetracednottothedualdivisionoffeudaltimes，buttosurvivalsofthethreefolddivisionwhichprecededfeudalism，andcontrastedslave，freeceorl，andmilitarylandowner。
BeforeconcludingthischapterIhavetosayafewwordsuponthoseformsofthemanorialcourtwhichappearasamodificationofthenormalinstitution。OftheancientdemesnetribunalIhavealreadyspoken，butthereareseveralotherpeculiarformationswhichhelptobringoutthemainideasofmanorialorganisation，justbecausetheyswervefromitinonesenseoranother。MrMaitlandhasspokensowellofoneofthesevariations，thatI
neednotdoanythingmorethanreferthereadertohispagesabouttheHonouranditsCourt。(81*)Hehasprovedthatitisnomereaggregateofmanors，butahighercourt，constructedonthefeudalprinciple，thateverylordwhohadfreetenantsunderhimcouldsummonthemtoformacourtfortheircommondealings。Itoughttobeobserved，however，thattheinstanceofBroughton，thoughitsmainbasisisundoubtedlythisfeudaldoctrine，stillappearscomplicatedbymanorialbusiness，whichisbroughtinbywayofappealandevocation，aswellasbyamixturebetweenthecourtofthegreatfiefandthehalimotofBroughton。
Asecondphenomenonwellworthconsiderationistheexistenceinsomepartsofthecountryofaunitofjurisdictionandmanagementwhichdoesnotfallinwiththemanor，——itiscalledthesoke，andcomprisesfreetenantrydispersedsometimesoveraverywidearea。AgoodexampleofthisinstitutionisgivenbyMrClark’spublicationontheSokeofRothleyinLincolnshire。(82*)
Weneednotgointothedetailsofthepersonalstatusofthetenants，theyclearlycomeunderthedescriptionoffreesokemen。
OurpresentconcernisthattheyarenotsimplyarrangedintothemanorofRothleyasusual，butaredistinguishedasformingthe。
sokeofthismanor。Theyarerathernumerous——twenty-three——
andcometothelord’scourt，buttheirservicesaretriflingascomparedwiththoseofthecustomers，andtheirpossessionsaresoscattered，thattherecouldbenotalkoftheirjoiningtheagrarianunitofthecentralestate。Whatunitesthemtothemanorisevidentlymerelyjurisdiction，althoughinfeudaltheorytheyareassumedtoholdofthelordofRothley。Buttheyaresetapartasformingthesoke，andthisshowsthemclearlytobesubjectedtojurisdictionratherthananythingelse。Itisinterestingtonotesuchsurvivalsinthethirteenthcentury，andwithintherealmoffeudallawthecaseofRothleyisofcoursebynomeanstheonlyone。(83*)Ifwecontrastthisexceptionalappearanceofthesokeoutsidethemanorwiththenormalarrangementbywhichallthefreetenantsarefittedintothemanor，weshallcometotheconclusionthatoriginallytheelementofjurisdictionoverfreeholdersmightexistseparatelyfromthemanagementoftheestate，butthatinthegeneralcourseofeventsitwasmergedintotheestateandformedoneofthecomponentelementsofthemanorialcourt。ThecaseofRothleyisespeciallyinterestingbecausethemenofthesokeorunderthesokedonotgotoacourtoftheirown，butsimplyjointhemanorialmeetings。Iftheyarestillkeptapart，itisevidentthattheirrelationtothecourt，andindeedtothemanor，waswhatmadethemdistinctfromeverybodyelse。Inshort，tostatethedifferenceinapointedform，theotherpeopleweretenantsandtheyweresubjects。
