hethinksthateconomicruinismeant，andadds，’Shouldthelordgosofarastotakeawaythevillain’sverywaynage，i。e。ploughandplough-team，thevillainhasanaction，’ItistruethatBracton’stext，asprintedinexistingeditions，containsaqualificationofthisremark；itissaidthatonlyserfsonancientdemesnelandarepossessedofsucharight。Butthequalificationismeaningless；therightofancientdemesnetenantswasquitedifferent，asweshallseeby-and-by。ThequalifyingclauseturnsouttobeinsertedonlyinlaterMSS。ofthetreatise，iswantinginthebetterMSS。，andaltogetherpresentsallthecharactersofabadgloss。*Whentheglossisremoved，wecomeinsightofthefactthatBractoninthebeginningofhistreatiseadmitsadistinctcaseofcivilactiononthepartofavillainagainsthislord。TheremarkisincontradictionwiththeRomanaswellaswiththeestablishedEnglishdoctrine，itisnotsupportedbylegalpracticeinthethirteenthcentury，itisomittedbyBractonwhenhecomestospeakagainofthe’personastandiinjudiciocontradominum。’*
Butthereitis，anditcannotbeexplainedotherwisethanasasurvivalofatimewhensomepartofthepeasantryatleasthadnotbeensurrenderedtothelord’sdiscretion，butwaspossessedofcivilrightsandofthepowertovindicatethem。Thenotionthatthepeasantoughttobespeciallyprotectedinthepossessionofinstrumentsofagriculturallabourcomesout，singularlyenough，inthepassagecommentedupon，butitisnotasingularnotioninitself。Itoccurs，aseveryoneknows，intheclauseoftheGreatCharter，whichsaysthatthevillainwhofallsintotheking’smercyistobeamerced’savinghiswaynage。’WecomeacrossitoftenenoughinPleaRollsincasesagainstguardiansaccusedofhavingwastedtheirward’sproperty。
Oneofthespecialpointsinsuchcasesoftenis，thataguardianorhisstewardhasbeenruiningthevillainsintheward’smanorsbydestroyingtheirwaynage。*Ofcourse，theprotectionofthepeasant’sprosperity，guaranteedbythecourtsinsuchtrials，iswhollyduetoaconsiderationoftheinterestsoftheward；andthecaretakenofvillainsisexactlyparalleltotheattentionbestoweduponoaksandelms。Still，thenotionofwaynageisinitselfapeculiarandanimportantone，andwhateveritsultimateoriginmaybe，itpointstoacivilconditionwhichdoesnotquitefallwithinthelinesoffeudallaw。
AnotheranomalyissuppliedbyBritton。Afterputtingthecaseasstronglyaspossibleagainstserfs，aftertreatingthemasmerechattelstobegivenandsold，headds，’Butasbondmenareannexedtothefreeholdofthelord，theyarenotdevisablebytestament，andthereforeHolyChurchcantakenocognisanceoftheminCourtChristian，althoughdevisedintestament。’I。197
Theexclusionofvillainsisnotpeculiartothem；theyshareitwiththegreaterpartoflandedpossessions。’Asallthecourtsofciviljurisdictionhadbeenprohibitedfromholdingjurisdictionastotestamentarymatters，andtheEcclesiasticalCourtswerenotpermittedtoexercisejurisdictionastoanyquestionrelatingtofreehold，therewasnocourtwhichcouldproperlytakecognisanceofatestamentarygiftoflandassuch。’*Thepointtobenotedis，thatvillainsareheldtobeannexedtothefreehold，althoughintheorytheyoughttobetreatedaschattels。Thecontradictiongivesusanotherinstanceofthepeculiarmodificationofpersonalservitudebytheterritorialelement。Theserfisnotacolonus，heisnotboundupwithanyparticularhomesteadorplotofland，butheisconsideredprimarilyasacultivatorundermanorialorganisation，andforthisreasonthereisalimitationonthelord’spowerofalienatinghim。Letitbeunderstood，however，thatthelimitationinthiscasedoesnotcomebeforeusasaremnantofindependentrightsofthepeasant。Itisimposedbythoseinterestsofthefeudalsuzerainandofthekinwhichprecludedthepossibilityofalienatinglandbydevise。*