Thereisacuriousexplanatorygloss，inaCambridgeMS。ofBracton，whichseemstogobackatleasttothebeginningofthefourteenthcentury，anditmaintainsthatfreestockdoingvillainservicelapsesintovillainageinthefifthgenerationonly。*Ontheotherhand，Brittonflatlydeniesthepossibilityofsuchathing；accordingtohimnolengthoftimecanrenderfreemenvillainsormakevillainsfreemen。Moreoverhegivesasupposedcasepossiblybasedonanactualtrial，inwhichapersonclaimedasavillainismadetogobacktothesixthgenerationtoestablishhisfreedom，*Itdoesnotseemlikelythatpeoplecouldoftenvindicatetheirfreedombysuchelaborateargument，butthelegalassumptionexpoundedinBrittondeservesfullattention。Itisonlyaconsequenceofthegeneralview，thatneithertheholdingnortheservicesoughttohaveanyinfluenceonthestatusofaman，andinsofaritseemslegallycorrect。Butitiseasytoseehowdifficultitmusthavebeentokeepupthesenicedistinctionsinpractice，howdifficultforthosewhoforgenerationshadbeenplacedinthesamematerialpositionwithserfstomaintainpersonalfreedom。*Forbothviews，thoughabsolutelyopposedtoeachother，areinasenseequallytrue：theonegivingthelogicaldevelopmentofafundamentalruleofthelaw，theothertestifyingtothefacts。
Andsowehaveonemoregeneralobservationtomakeastothelegalaspectofvillainage。Eveninthedefinitionofitsfundamentalprinciplesweseenotablediscrepanciesandvacillations，whicharetheresultoftheconflictbetweenlogicalrequirementsandfluctuatingfacts。
Theoriginalunityofpurposeandfirmnessofdistinctionareevenmorebrokenupwhenwelookatthecriminalandthepolicelawwheretheytouchvillainage。Inthecriminallawofthefeudalepochthereishardlyanydistinctionbetweenfreemenandvillains。Inpointofamercementsthereisthewell-knowndifferenceastothe’contenement’ofafreelandholder，amerchantandavillain，butthisdifferenceispromptednotbyprivilegebutbythediversityofoccupations。TheDialogusdeScaccarioshowsthatvillainsbeingreputedEnglishareinalowerpositionthanfreemenasregardsthepresumptionofEnglishryandthepaymentofthemurder-fine，*butthisfeatureseemstohavebecomeobliteratedinthethirteenthcentury。Insomecasescorporalpunishmentmayhavedifferedaccordingtotherankoftheculprit，andtheformalitiesofordealwerecertainlydifferent。*Themainfactremains，thatbothvillainsandfreemenwerealikeabletoprosecuteanybodybywayof’appeal’*forinjurytotheirlife，honour，andevenproperty，*andequallyliabletobepunishedandprosecutedforoffencesofanykind。
Theirequalrightwascompletelyrecognizedbythecriminallaw，andasanaturalsequenceofthis，thepleasofthecrowngenerallyomittotakeanynoticeofthestatusofpartiesconnectedwiththem。OnemayreadthroughMrMaitland’scollectionofPleasoftheCrowneditedfortheSeldenSociety，orthroughhisbookofGloucestershirepleas，withoutcomingacrossanybutexceptionalandquiteaccidentalmentionsofvillainage。InfactwerewetoformourviewoftheconditionofEnglandexclusivelyonthematerialaffordedbysuchdocuments，wemightwellbelievethatthewholeclasswasallbutanextinctone。OneglanceatAssizeRollsoratCartularieswouldteachusbetter。StillthesilenceoftheCoronaRollsismosteloquent。
Itshowsconvincinglythatthedistinctionhardlyinfluencedcriminallawatall。
Itiscuriousthat，asregardspolice，villainsaregroupedunderaninstitutionwhich，evenbyitsname，accordingtothethenacceptedetymology，wasessentiallyafreeinstitution。Thesystemoffrankpledgeplegiumliberale，whichshouldhaveincludedeveryone’worthyofhiswereandhiswite，’is，asamatteroffact，asystemwhichallthroughthefeudalperiodischieflycomposedofvillains。Freemenpossessedoflandarenotobligedtojointhetithingbecausetheyareamenabletolawwhichhasadirectholdontheirland，*andsothegreatmassoffreemenappeartobeoutsidethesearrangements，forthepolicerepresentationofthefree，or，puttingittheotherway，feudalserfsactuallyseemtorepresentthebulkoffreesociety。Thethirteenth-centuryarrangementsdonotaffordacluetosuchparadoxes，andonehastolookforexplanationtothehistoryoftheclasses。
Thefrankpledgesystemisamostconspicuouslinkbetweenbothsectionsofsocietyinthiswayalso，thatitdirectlyconnectsthesubjugatedpopulationwiththehundredcourt，whichisthestarting-pointoffreejudicialorganisation。Twiceayearthewholeofthispopulation，withveryfewexceptions，hastomeetinthehundredinordertoverifytheworkingofthetithings。Besidesthis，theclassofvillainsmustappearbyrepresentativesintheordinarytribunalsofthehundredandtheshire：thereeveandthefourmen，mostlyunfreemen，*withtheirimportantdutiesintheadministrationofjustice，serveasacounterpoisetotheexclusiveemploymentof’liberietlegaleshomines’onjuries。
AndnowIcometothemostintricateandimportantpartofthesubject——tothecivilrightsanddisabilitiesofthevillain。Afterwhathasbeensaidofthevillaininotherrespects，onemaybepreparedtofindthathisdisabilitieswerebynomeanssocompleteasthestrictoperationofgeneralruleswouldhaverequired。Thevillainwasableinmanycasestodovalidcivilacts，toacquirepropertyandtodefenditinhisownname。Itistruethat，bothintheoryandinpractice，itwasheldthatwhateverwasacquiredbythebondmanwasacquiredbythelord。Thebondmancouldnotbuyanythingbutwithhislord’smoney，ashehadnomoneyorchattelsofhisown。*Buttheworkingoftheseruleswaslimitedbythemedievaldoctrineofpossession。Landorgoodsacquiredbytheserfdonoteoipsolapseintohislord’spossession，butonlyifthelatterhastakenthemintohishand。*Ifthelordhasnotdonesoforanyreason，forwantoftime，orcarelessness，orbecausehedidnotchoosetodoso，thebondmanisasgoodastheownerinrespectofthirdpersons。Hecangiveaway*orotherwisealienatelandorchattels，hehastheassizeofnoveldisseisintodefendtheland，andleavestheassizeofmortd’ancestortohisheirs。Inthiscaseitwouldbenogoodpleatoobjectthattheplaintiffisavillain。Infactthisobjectioncanberaisedbyathirdpersononlywiththeadditionthat，asvillain，theplaintiffdoesnotholdinhisownname，butinthenameofhislord。*A
thirdpersoncannotexceptagainstaplaintiffmerelyonthegroundofhispersonalstatus。Astothirdpersons，avillainissaidtobefreeandcapabletosueallactions。*Thisofcoursedoesnotmeanthathehasanyactionforrecoveringordefendinghispossessionofthetenementswhichheholdsinvillainage，butthisdisabilityisnoconsequenceofhisservileblood，forhesharesitwiththefreemanwhoholdsinvillainage；itisaconsequenceofthedoctrinethatthepossessionofthetenantinvillainageisinlawthepossessionofhimwhohasthefreehold。
Itmaybeconvenientforavillainasdefendanttoshelterhimselfbehindtheauthorityofhislord，*anditwasdifficulttopreventhimfromdoingso，althoughsomeattemptsweremadebythecourtseveninthiscasetodistinguishwhetherapersonhadbeeninpossessionasadependantornot。Buttherewasabsolutelynothingtopreventavillainfromactingineveryrespectlikeafreemanifhewassomindedandwasnotinterruptedbyhislord。Therewasnoneedofanyaccessoryactiontomakehisactscompleteandlegal。*Againwecometoananomaly：theslaveisfreeagainsteverybodybuthislord。
Evenagainsthislordthebondmanhadsomestandinggroundforacivilaction。Ithasrightlybeenmaintained，thathecouldimpleadhismasterinconsequenceofanagreementwithhim。Theassertionisnotquiteeasytoprovehowever，andhasbeenputforwardtoosweepingly。*Atfirstsightitseemseventhattheoldlawbooks，i。e。thoseofBractonandhisfollowers，teachtheoppositedoctrine。Theydealalmostexclusivelywiththecaseofafeoffmentmadebythelordtoavillainandhisheirs，andgivethefeoffeeanactiononlyonthegroundofimpliedmanumission。
Thefeofforenfranchiseshisserfindirectly，evenifhedoesnotsaysoinasmanywords，becausehehasspokenofthefeoffee’sheirs，andthevillainhasnootherheirsbesidesthelord，*Theactioneventuallyproceedsinthiscase，becauseitisbroughtnotbyaserfbutbyafreedman。OnedifficultpassageinBractonpointsanotherway；itisprintedinafoot-note。*Therecanbenodoubt，thatinitBractonisspeakingofacovenantmadebythelordnotwithafreemanorafreedman，butwithavillain。Thiscomesoutstronglywhenitissaid，thatthelord，andnotthevillain，hastheassizeagainstintruders，andwhentheauthorputsthemainquestion——isthefeofforboundtoholdthecovenantornot？Thewholedriftofthequotationcanbeunderstoodonlyonthefundamentalassumptionthatwehavelordandvillainbeforeus。Buttherearefourwordswhichmilitateagainstthisobviousexplanation；thewords’sibietheredibussuis，’Weknowwhattheirmeaningis——theyimplyenfranchisementandafreeholdestateofinheritance。Theyinvolveahopelesscontradictiontothedoctrinepreviouslystated，adoctrinewhichmightbefurthersupportedbyreferencestoBritton，FletaandBractonhimself。*Inshort，ifweacceptthem，wecanhardlygetoutofconfusion。WereourtextofBractonmuchmoredefinitelyandsatisfactorilysettledthanitis，*onewouldstillfeeltemptedtostrikethemout；asitiswehaveatextstuddedwithinterpolationsanderrors，anditseemsquitecertainthat’sibietheredibussuis’hasgotintoitsimplybecausethecompositorofTottell’seditionrepeateditfromtheconclusionofthesentenceimmediatelypreceding，andsomixeduptwocases，whichweretobedistinguishedbythisveryqualification。ThefourwordsaremissinginalltheMSS。oftheBritishMuseum，theBodleianandtheCambridgeUniversityLibrary，*Ihavenodoubtthatfurtherverificationwillonlyconfirmmyopinion。OnmyassumptionBractonclearlydistinguishesbetweentwopossibilities。Inonecasethedeedsimplybindsthelordastoaparticularperson，intheotheritbindshiminperpetuity，andinthislattercase，asthereoughtnottobeanyheirsofabondmanbutthelord，bondageisannihilatedbythedeed。Itisnotannihilatedwhenonepersonisgrantedacertainprivilegeastoaparticularpieceofland，andineveryotherrespectthegranteeandallhisdescendantsremainunfree：*——hehasnofreehold，buthehasaspecialcovenanttofallbackupon。ThisseemstolieattherootofwhatBractoncallsprivilegedvillainagebycovenantasdistinguishedfromvillainsocage。*
Thereadermaywellaskwhetherthereareanytracesofsuchaninstitutioninpractice，asitisnotlikelythatBractonwouldhaveindulgedinmeretheoreticaldisquisitionsonsuchanimportantpoint。Nowitwouldbedifficulttofindverymanyinstancesinpoint；thelinebetweencovenantandenfranchisementwassoeasilypassed，andanincautiousstepwouldhavesuchunpleasantconsequencesforlandlords，thattheykeptasclearaspossibleofanydeedswhichmightindirectlydestroytheirclaimsastothepersonsoftheirvillains。*Ontheotherhand，evenprivilegedserfswouldhaveagreatdifficultyinvindicatingtheirrightsonthebasisofcovenantiftheyremainedatthesametimeundertheswayofthelordingeneral。ThedifficultiesonbothsidesexplainwhyFletaandBrittonendorseonlythechiefpointofBracton’sdoctrine，namely，theimpliedmanumission，anddonotputthealternativeastoacovenantwhenheirsarenotmentioned。StillIhavecomeacrosssometracesinlegalpractice*ofcontractsintheshapeoftheonediscussed。A
veryinterestingcaseoccurredinNorfolkin1227，beforeMartinPateshullhimself。AcertainRogerofSuffordgaveapieceoflandtooneofhisvillains，WilliamTailor，toholdfreelybyfreeservices，andwhenRogerdied，hissonandheirWilliamofSuffordconfirmedthelease。Whenitpleasedthelordafterwardstoejectthetenant，thislatteractuallybroughtanassizeofnoveldisseisinandrecoveredpossession。Bracton’smarginalnotetothecaserunsthus：’Note，thatthesonofavillainrecoveredbyanassizeofnoveldisseisinapieceoflandwhichhisfatherhadheldinvillainage，becausethelordofthevillainbyhischartergaveittotheson[i。e。totheplaintiff]，evenwithoutmanumission。’*ThecourtwentinthiscaseevenfurtherthanBracton’streatisewouldhavewarranted：thevillainwasconsideredashavingthefreehold，andanassizeofnoveldisseisinwasgranted；butalthoughsuchatreatmentofthecasewasperhapsnotaltogethersound，thechiefpointonwhichthecontentionrestedisbroughtoutclearlyenough。Therewasacovenant，andinconsequenceanaction，althoughtherewasnomanumission；anditistothispointthatthemarginalnotedrawsspecialattention。*
Again，wefindinthebeginningofBracton’streatisearemark*whichisquiteoutofkeepingwiththedoctrinethatthevillainhadnopropertytovindicateagainsthislord；itiscontradictedbyotherpassagesinthesamebook，anddeservestobeconsideredthemorecarefullyonthataccount。Ourauthorisenumeratingthecasesinwhichtheserfhasanactionagainsthislord。HefollowsAzoclosely，andmentionsinjurytolifeortolimbasonecause。Azogoesontosaythataplaintmaybeoriginatedbyintollerabilisinjuria，inthesenseofcorporealinjury。Bractontakestheexpressioninaverydifferentsense；