Althoughtheholdingsareundoubtedlymadesubservienttothewantsofthemanor，itwouldbegoingagreatdealtoofartosupposethattheywereformedwiththeprimaryobjectofmeetingthosewants。Ifwelookcloserintothestructurewefindthatitisbasedontherelationbetweentheplough-teamandthearable，arelationwhichismoreorlessconstantandexplainsthegradationsandthemodeofapportionment。Thedivisionofthelandisnoindefiniteorcapriciousone，becausethelandhastobeusedincertainquantities，andsmallerquantitiesorfractionswoulddisarrangethenaturalconnexionbetweenthesoilandtheforcesthatmakeitproductive。Thesocietyofthosedaysappearsasanagriculturalmassconsistingnotofindividualpersonsornaturalfamilies，butofgroupspossessedoftheimplementsfortillingtheland。Itsunitofreckoningisnottheman，buttheplough-beast。Asthemodelplough-teamhappenstobeaverylargeone，thelargeunitofthehideisadopted。Lesserquantitiesmaybeformedalso，butstilltheycorrespondtoaliquotpartsofthefullteamofeightoxen。Thusthepossiblegradationsarenotsomanyorsogentleasinourowntime，butareinthemainthehalfplough-land，thevirgate，andtheoxgang。Whatelsethereiscanbeonlyregardedassubsidiarytothemainarrangement：thecottersandcroftersarenottenantsinthefields，butgardeners，labourers，craftsmen，herdsmen，andthelike。Ifthecountryhadnotbeenmainlycultivatedasploughland，buthadbornevinesorolivesorcropsthatrequirednocumbersomeimplements，butintenseandindividualisticlabour，onemayreadilybelievethattheholdingswouldhavebeenmorecompact，andalsomoreirregular。
TheprinciplesofcoarationgiveaninsightintothenatureoftheseEnglishvillagecommunities。Theydidnotaimatabsoluteequality；theysubordinatedthepersonalelementtotheagriculturalone，ifwemayusethatexpression。Notsomuchanapportionmentofindividualclaimswaseffectedasanapportionmentofthelandtotheforcesatworkuponit。Thisobservationhelpsustogetridoftheanomalieswithwhichwestarted：theholdingwasunitedbecauseanoxcouldnotbedivided；theplotsmightbesmallerorlarger，buteverywheretheywereconnectedwithaschemeofwhichtheplough-teamwastheunit。Anincreasingpopulationhadtotakecareofitself，andtotrytofititselfintotheexistingdivisionsbyfamilyarrangements，marriage，adoption，reclaimingofnewland，employmentforhire，by-professions，andemigration。ThemanorialfactorcomesintomakeeverYthingartificiallyregularandrigid。
Ifweexaminetheopen-fieldsystemanditsrelationtotheholdingsofindividualpeasants，wesee，asitwere，theframeworkofapeasantcommunitythathasswervedfromthepathofitsoriginaldevelopment。Thegatheringofscatteredandintermixedstripsintoholdingspointstopracticesofdivisionorallotment：thesepracticesaretheveryessenceofthewhole，andtheyalonecanexplaintheglaringinconvenienciesofscatteredownershipcoupledwithartificialconcentration。Butredivisionofthearableisnotseeninthedocumentsofourperiod。Thereisnoshiftingofstrips，nochangesinthequantitiesallottedtoeachfamily。Everythinggoesbyheredityandsettledrulesoffamilyproperty，asifthehusbandrywasnotarrangedforcommunalownershipandre-allotment。Ishouldliketocomparethewholetotheiceboundsurfaceofanorthernsea：
itisnotsmooth，althoughhardandimmoveable，andthehillsandhollowsoftheunevenplainremindoneofthebillowsthatrolledwhenitwasyetunfrozen。
Thetreatmentofthearablegivesthecluetoallothersidesofthesubject。Therightsofcommonusageofmeadowandpasturecarryusbacktopracticeswhichmusthavebeenoriginallyappliedtoarablealso。Whenonereadsofameadowbeingcutupintostripsandpartitionedforayearamongthemembersofthecommunitybyregularrotationorbylot，onedoesnotseewhyonlythegrasslandshouldbethustreatedwhilethereisnoreallotmentofthearableplots。Asforthewaste，itdoesnotevenadmitofsetboundaries，andtheonlypossiblemeansofapportioningitsuseistoprescribewhatandhowmanyheadsofcattleeachholdingmaysendoutuponit。Thecloseaffinitybetweenthedifferentpartsofthevillagesoilisespeciallyillustratedbythefact，thattheopen-fieldarableistreatedascommonthroughthegreaterpartoftheyear。Suchfactsaremorethansurvivals，morethanstrayrelicsofabygonetime。ThecommunalelementofEnglishmediaevalhusbandrybecomesconspicuousintheindividualisticelementsthatgrowoutofit。
Thequestionhasbeenaskedwhetherweoughtnottoregardthesecommunalarrangementsasderivedfromtheexclusiverightofownership，andthepowerofcoercionvestedinthelordofthesoil。Ithinkthatmanyfeaturesintheconstitutionofthethirteenthcenturymanorshowitsgradualgrowthandcomparativelyrecentorigin。Theso-calledmanorialsystemconsists，intruth，inthepeculiarconnexionbetweentwoagrarianbodies，thesettlementofvillagerscultivatingtheirownfields，andthehome-estateofthelordtackedontothissettlementanddependentontheworksuppliedbyit。Itakeonlytheagrarianside，ofcourse，anddonotmentionthepoliticalprotectionwhichstandsmoreorlessasanequivalentfortheprofitsreceivedbythelordfromthepeasantry。Andasfortheagrarianarrangement，weoughttokeepitquitedistinctfromformswhicharesometimesconfusedwithitthroughlooseterminology。Acommunitypayingtaxes，farmersleasinglandforrent，labourerswithoutindependenthusbandryoftheirown，maybeallsubjectedtosomelord，buttheirsubjectionisnotmanorial。Twoelementsarenecessarytoconstitutethemanorialarrangement，thepeasantvillageandthehomefarmworkedbyitshelp。
Ifweturnnowtotheevidenceofthefeudalperiod，weshallseethatthelabour-servicerelation，althoughverymarkedandprevalentinmostcases，isbynomeanstheonlyonethatshouldbetakenintoaccount。Inalargenumberofcasestherelationbetweenlordandpeasantsresolvesitselfintomoneypayments，andthisisonlyanotherwayofsayingthatthemanorialgroupdisaggregatesitself。Thepeasantholdinggetsfreefromtheobligationoflabouringunderthesupervisionofthebailiff，andthehomeestatemaybeeitherthrownoverormanagedbythehelpofhiredservantsandlabourers。
Butalongsideofthesefacts，testifyingtoaprogresstowardsmoderntimes，wefindsurvivalsofamoreancientorderofthings，quiteasincompatiblewithmanorialhusbandry。Insteadofperformingworkonthedemesne，thepeasantryaresometimesmadetocollectandfurnishproduceforthelord’stableandhisotherwants。Theysendbread，ale，sheep，chicken，cheese，etc。，sometimestoaneighbouringcastleandsometimesagoodwayoff。
Whenwehearofthefirmauniusnoctis，paidtotheking’shouseholdbyaboroughoravillage，wehavetoimagineacommunitystandingentirelybyitselfandtaxedtoacertaintribute，withoutanysuperiorlandestatenecessarilyengrafted，uponit；ahomefarmmayormaynotbecloseby，butitsmanagementisnotdependentonthecustomaryworkofthevill(consuetudinesvillae)，andtheconnexionbetweenthetwoiscasual。ThefactsofwhichIamspeakingarecertainlyofrareoccurrenceanddyingout，buttheyareveryinterestingfromahistoricalpointofview，theythrowlightonaconditionofthingsprecedingthemanorialsystem，andcharacterisedbyalargeover-lordshipexactingtribute，andnotcultivatinglandbyhelpofthepeasantry。
Wecomepreciselytothesameconclusionbyanotherway。Thefeudallandlordisrepresentedinthevillagebyhisdemeseneland，andbytheservantsactingashishelpersinadministration。Now，thedemesnelandisoftenfoundintermixedwiththestripsofthepeasantry。Thisseemsparticularlyfittedforatimewhenthepeasantrydidnotcollecttoworkonaseparatehomefarm，butsimplydevotedonepartofthelabourontheirowngroundtotheuseofthelord。WhatImeanis，thatifademesneconsistedof，say，everyfifthacreinthevillagefields，theteamsoffourvirgaterscomposingtheploughwouldtraversethisadditionalacreaftergoingoverfouroftheirowninsteadofbeingcalledupunderthesupervisionofthebailiff，todoworkonanindependentestate。Theworkperformedbythepeasantswhenthedemesneisstillinintermixturewiththevillageland，appearsasanintermediatestagebetweenthetributepaidbyapracticallyself-dependentcommunity，andthedoublehusbandryofamanorialestatelinkedtoavillage。
Anotherfeatureoftransitionisperceivableinthehistoryoftheclassofservantsorministerswhocollectandsupervisetheduesandservicesofthepeasants。Thefeudalarrangementisquiteasmuchcharacterisedbytheexistenceofthesemiddlemenasmodernlifebytheagreementsandmoneydealingswhichhaverenderedituseless。Intheperiodprecedingthemanorialageweseefewerofficers，andtheirinterferenceinthelifeofthecommunityisbutoccasional。Thegatheringoftribute，thesupervisionofafewlabourdutiesinaddition，didnotrequirealargestaffofministers。Itwasintheinterestofthelordtodispenseasmuchaspossiblewiththeircostlyhelp，andtothrowwhatobligationsthereweretobeperformedonthecommunityitself。Itseemstomethatthefeudalagehaspreservedseveraltracesofinstitutionsbelongingtothatperiodoftransition。
Theoldersurveys，especiallytheKentishones，showaveryremarkabledevelopmentofcarriagedutieswhichmusthavebeencalledforthbythenecessityofsendingproducetothelord’scentralhallsorcourts，whilethehomefarmswerestillfewandsmall。Theridingbailiffsappearinancientdocumentsinapositionwhichisgraduallymodifiedastimegoeson。Theybeginbyformingaveryconspicuousclassamongthetenants，infacttheforemostrankofthepeasantry。Theseradmen，radulfs，rodknights，riders，areprivilegedpeople，andmostlyrankwiththefreetenants，buttheyareselectedfromamongthevillagers，andverycloselyresemblethehundredors，whosespecialdutieshavekeptuptheirstatusamongthegeneraldecay。Inlatertimes，inthesecondhalfofthethirteenthcenturyandinthefourteenth，itwouldbeimpossibletodistinguishsuchaclassofridingtenants。Theyexisthereandthere，butinmostcasestheirplacehasbeentakenbydirectdependentsofthelord。
Besides，asthehome-farmhasdevelopedoneverymanor，theirofficehaslostsomeoftheimportanceithadatatimewhentherewasagooddealofbusinesstotransactinthewayofcommunicatingbetweenthevillagesandthefewcentralcourtstowhichrentshadtobecarried。And，lastly，Imayremindthereaderoftheimportanceattachedinsomesurveystothesupervisionofthebesttenantsovertherestattheboonworks。
Thesocmen，orfreetenants，orholdersoffulllands，asthecasemaybe，havetorideoutwithrodsintheirhandstoinspectthepeoplecuttingthecornormakinghay。Thesecustomsaremostlytobefoundinmanorswithaparticularlyarchaicconstitution。Theyoccurveryoftenonancientdemesne。AndI
needhardlysaythattheypointtoastillimperfectdevelopmentoftheministerialclass。Thevillageisalreadysettoworkforthelord，butitmanagesthisworkasmuchaspossiblebyitself，withhardlyanyinterferencefromforeignoverseers。
Onepartofthevillagepopulationisaltogetheroutsidethemanoriallabourintercoursebetweenvillageanddemesne。Thefreeholdersmayperformsomelabour-services，butthehome-farmcouldneverdependonthem，andwhensuchservicesarementioned，theyaremerelyconsideredasasupplementtotheregulardutiesoftheservileholders。Atthesametime，thefreetenantsaremembersofthevillagecommunity，engrainedinitbytheirparticipationinalltheeventualitiesofopenfieldlife，bytheirholdingsinthearable，bytheiruseofthecommons。Thisshows，again，thatthemanorialelementissuperimposedonthecommunal，andnotthefoundationofit。Ishallnotreverttomypositiveargumentsinfavouroftheexistenceofancientfreeholdbythesideoftenementsthathavebecomefreeholdbyexemptionfromservileduties。ButImaybeallowedtopointoutinthisplace，thatnegativelytheappearanceoffreeelementsamongthepeasantrypresentsamostpowerfulchecktothetheoryofaservileoriginofthecommunity：itthrowstheburdenofproofonthosewhocontendforsuchanoriginasagainstthetheoryofafreevillagefeudalizedinprocessoftime。
Inasensethepartizansoftheservilecommunityareinthesameawkwardpositioninrespecttothemanorialcourt。Itsbodyofsuitorsmayhaveconsistedtoagreatextentofserfs，butsurelyitmusthavecontainedapowerfulfreeadmixturealso，becauseoutofserfdomcouldhardlyhavearisenalltheprivilegesandrightswhichmakeitaconstitutionalestablishmentbythesideofthelord。Thesuitorsarethejudgesinlitigation，theconveyancingpracticeproceedsfromtheprincipleofcommunaltestimony，andinmattersofhusbandry，customandself-governmentprevailagainstanycapriciouschangeorunprecedentedexaction。Andithastobenoticedthatthewillandinfluenceofthelordismuchmoredistinctandoverbearinginthedocumentsofthelaterthirteenthandofthefourteenthcentury，thanintheearlierrecords；onemorehint，thatthefeudalconceptionofsocietytooksometimetopushbackoldernotions，whichimpliedagreaterlibertyofthefolkinregardtotheirrulers。
Whicheverwaywemaylook，oneandthesameobservationisforceduponus：thecommunalorganisationofthepeasantryismoreancientandmoredeeplylaidthanthemanorialorder。Eventhefeudalperiodthathasformedtheimmediatesubjectofourstudyshowseverywheretracesofapeasantclasslivingandworkingineconomicallyself-dependentcommunitiesunderthelooseauthorityofalord，whoseclaimsmayproceedfrompoliticalsourcesandaffectthesemblanceofownership，butdonotgiverisetothemanorialconnexionbetweenestateandvillage。
