orbyspecialprivilegeswhichhaveexemptedcertainsharesinthelandfromageneralschemeofvillainage；or，lastly，bytheexistenceoffreeholdsasnormalfactorsintheancientvillagecommunity。
Letustestthesevarioussuppositionsbythefactsrecordedinoursurveys。Atfirstsightitmayseempossibletoaccountforthefreeholdvirgatesbyreferencetotheprocesswhichconverted’workland’into’molland。’Wehaveseenabovethatifalordbegantodemandmoneyinsteadofwork，theresultmight，insomecases，betheevolutionofnewtenureswhichgraduallylosttheirvillaincharacterandbecamerecognisedasgenuinefreeholds。Andnodoubtoneconsiderableclassofcasescanbeexplainedbythisprocess。Butagreatmanyinstancesseemtocallforsomeotherexplanation。Tobeginwith，themereacceptanceofrentinlieuoflabourdidnotmakethetenementafreehold；serviletenementswerefrequentlyputadcensum，70*
anditseemsdifficulttobelievethatmanylordsallowedacommutationoflabourforrenttohavetheeffectofturningvillainageintofreehold。Anotherdifficultyisfoundontheoppositeside。Whatforcekeptthesharestogetherwhentheyhadbecomefree？Whydidtheynotaccumulateanddisperseaccordingtothechancesoffreedevelopment？Itmaybethoughtthatcustom，andexpressconditionsoffeoffment，musthaveactedagainstdisruption。Idonotdenythepossibility，butIsaythatitisnoteasytoexplaintheverywidelydiffusedphenomenonoffreeshareholdingbyacommutationwhichtendedtobreakupthesharesandtomakethemuselessforthepurposesofassessment。
StillIgrantthattheseconsiderations，thoughtheyshouldhavesomeweight，arenotdecisive，andIinsistchieflyonthefollowingargument。
Thepeculiartraitwhichdistinguishes’molland’isthetransitionfromlabourservicetomoneyrent，andtherentisundoubtedlyconsideredasanequivalentfortherighttolabourserviceswhichthelordabandons。Itmustbeadmittedthatinsomecasesthelordmayhavetakenlessthantherealequivalentinordertogetsuchaconvenientcommodityasmoney，orbecauseforsomereasonoranotherhewasinneedofcurrentcoin。StillIamnotafraidtosaythat，inageneralway，commutationsupposesanexchangeagainstanequivalent。Indeedthedemandformoneyrentswasconsideredratherasincreasingthanasdecreasingtheburdenincumbentonthepeasantry。71*Now，althoughitwouldbepreposteroustotryandmakeoutineverysinglecasewhethertherentofthefreevirgateisanadequateequivalentforvillainservicesornot，thereisaverysufficientnumberofinstancesinwhicharoughreckoningmaybemadewithoutfearofgoingmuchastray。72*Andifweattemptsuchareckoningweshallbestruckbythenumberofcasesinwhichtherentofthefreevirgatefallsconsiderablyshortofwhatityieldedbythevirgateofthevillain。WehaveseenthatinRavenston，Bedfordshire，thevillainserviceisvaluedateightshillingspervirgate，andthatthefreeassessmentamountsonlytofourshillings。InThriplow，Cambridgeshire，thevillainsperformlabourdutiesvaluedat9s。4d。perbovate，thefreeholdersareassessedvariously；butthereisacertainnumberamongthemwhichforms，asitwere，thestockofthatclass，andtheiraveragerentis5s。6d。perbovate。73*InTyringham，Buckinghamshire，thevillainholdingiscomputedatsixacresandonerood，anditsserviceatfiveshillings；thefreevirgateshavealikenumberofacresandpayvariousrents，butalmostwithoutexceptionlessthanthevillains。74*InCroxton，Cambridgeshire，therearecustomerswithtwentyacres，andotherswithtenacres；thefirsthavetopaytenshillingsandtoassistatfourboonworks。Thefreeholdersarepossessedofplotsofirregularsize，andtheirrentisalsoirregular；butontheaveragemuchlowerthanthatofthecustomers。75*Letitbenotedthatthecustomarytenantshavecommutedtheirlabourservicesintomoneypayments，and。infact，theyaretobeconsideredasmolmeninthefirststageofdevelopment。Still，theirpaymentsarecomputedonadifferentscalefromthoseofthefree。
InBrandone，Warwickshire，thetypicalvillain，WilliamBateman，paysforhisvirgate5s。3d。，andsendsonemantoworktwiceaweekfromthe29thofJuneuntiltheistofAugust，andthenceonwardhismanhastoworktwodaysoneweekandthreedaysthenext。Thefreehalf-virgatemerelypaysfiveshillings，anddoessuittothemanorialcourt。Thislastpointmakesnodifference，becausethevillainhadtoattendthemanorialcourtquiteasregularlyasthefreeholder，andindeedmoreregularly，becausehewasobligedtoserveoninquests。76*InBathekynton，Warwickshire，thedifferenceinfavourofthefreeisalsonoticeable，butnotsogreat。77*Andthesearebynomeansexceptionalcases。Nothingismorecommonthantofindfreetenementsheldbytriflingservices，andwhateverwemaythinkofsinglecases，itwouldbeabsurdtoexplainsucharrangementsintheaggregateastheresultsofabargainbetweenlordandserfs。
Itisevident，therefore，thatareferenceto’molland，’toacommutationoflabourintorent，doesnotsuitthesecases。78*
Canweexplainthesecasesof’freeshareholding’byfeoffmentsmadetofavouredpersons？Wehaveseenthatthelordusedtorecompensehisservantsbygrantsoflandandthathefavouredthespreadofcultivationbyexactingbutalightrentfromnewlyreclaimedland。Suchtransactionswouldundoubtedlyproducefreetenementsheldonveryadvantageousterms，butstilltheyseemincapableofsolvingourproblem。Tenementscreatedbywayofbeneficialfeoffmentareingeneraleasilyrecognised。Theholdingsofservantsandotherpeopleendowedbyfavourarealwaysfewandinterspersedamongtheplotsoftheregularoccupiersoftheland，betheyfreeorserfs。The’essarted’
fieldsaresometimesnumerous，butusuallycutupintosmallstripsandasitwereengraftedontheoriginalstockoftenements。Altogetherprivilegedlandmostlyappearsdividedintoirregularplotsandreckonedbyacresandnotbyshares。Andwhatwehavetoaccountforisavastnumberofinstancesinwhichwhatseemtobesomeoftheprincipalandoriginalsharesinthelandareheldfreelyandbycomparativelylightservices。Idonotthinkthatwecangetridofaveryconsiderableresidueofcaseswithoutresortingtothelastofthesuppositionsmentionedabove。WemustadmitthatsomeofthefreeholdersintheHundredRollsarepossessedofsharesinthefieldsnotbecausetheyhaveemergedfromserfdom，butbecausetheywerefromthefirstmembersofavillagecommunityoverwhichthelord’spowerspread。itwouldbeveryhardtodrawabsolutedistinctionsinspecialcases，becausetheterminologyofourrecordsdoesnottakeintoaccountthehistoryoftenureandonlyindicatesnetresults。Butacomparisonoffactsenblocpointstoatleastthreedistinctsourcesofthefreeholdvirgates。Somemaybeduetocommutation，otherstobeneficialfeoffments，butthereareyetotherswhichseemtobeancientandprimitive。Thetraitswhichmarktheselastare’shareholding’andlightrents。Thelightrentsdonotlookliketheresultofcommutation，the’shareholding’pointstosomeothercausethanfavoursbestowedbythelord。
Weshallcometothesameconclusionifwefollowtheotherlineofourinquiry。Itmaybeasked，whetherthecommunityintowhichtheshareismadetofitshouldbethoughtofprimarilyasacommunityinownershiporacommunityinassessment，whetherthesharesareconstructedforthepurposeofsatisfyingequalclaimsorforthepurposeofimposingequalduties？Thequestionisawideone，muchwiderthanthesubjectimmediatelyinhand，butitisconnectedwiththatsubjectandsomeofthematerialforitssolutionmustbetakenupinthecourseofourpresentinquiry。
Ihavebeenconstantlymentioningtheassessmentoffreetenements，theirrentsandtheirlabourservices。Thequestionoftheirweightascomparedwithvillainserviceshasbeendiscussed，butIhavenothithertotakenheedofthevaryingandirregularcharacteroftheserentsandservices。Butthevarietyandirregularityareworthyofspecialnotice。Oneofthemostfundamentaldifferencesbetweenthefreeandservilesystemsistobefoundinthisquarter。Thevillainsareequalisednotonlyasregardstheirsharesinthefields，butalsoasregardstheirdutiestowardsthelord；indeed，bothfactsappearasthetwosidesofonething。Thevirgateofthevillainisquiteasmuch，ifnotmore，aunitofassessmentasitisashareofthesoil。
Matterslookmorecomplexinthecaseoffreeland。AsIhavesaidbefore，thereareinstancesinwhichthefreepeoplearenotonlypossessedofequalsharesbutalsoarerentedinproportiontothoseshares。Inmuchthegreaternumberofinstances，however，thereisnosuchproportion。Allmayholdvirgates，butonewillpaymoreandtheotherless；onewillperformlabourduties，andtheothernot；onewillpayinmoney，andtheotherbringachicken，orapoundofpepper，oraflower。Whateverwemaythinkofthegradualchangeswhichhavedistortedconditionsthatwereoriginallymeanttobeequal，itisimpossibletogetridofthefactthat，inregardtofreetenements，equalsharesdonotimplyequaldutiesorevendutiesofoneandthesamekind。
Oneoftwothings，eitherthesharesexistonlyasasurvivaloftheservilearrangementoutofwhichthefreetenementsmayhavegrown，orelsetheyexistprimarilyforthepurposenotofassessingdutiesbutofapportioningclaims。InstatingthesepossibilitiesImustrepeatwhatIsaidbefore，thatitwouldbequitewrongtobringalltheobservedphenomenaunderonehead。I
donotintendintheleasttodenythatthefreerplayofeconomicandlegalforceswithintherangeoffreeownershipmusthaveproducedcombinationsinfinitelymorevarying，irregularandcomplicatedthanthosewhicharetobefoundinvillainage。A
largemarginmustbeallowedforsuchmodificationswhichdispersedandalteredthedutiesthatwereoriginallyproportionedtoshares。Butafewsimplequestionswillservetoshowthatotherelementsmustbebroughtintothereckoning。Whyshouldthedisruptivetendencyoperatesomuchmoreagainstproportionateassessmentthanagainstthedistributionintosharesitself；inotherwords，whyareequaltenementssomuchcommonerthanequalrents？Ifshareholdingandequalrentswereindissolublyconnectedasthetwosidesofonething，orevenascauseandeffect，whyshouldoneholditsgroundwhentheotherhaddisappeared，andhowcouldthedependentelementremainwidelyactivewhentheprincipalonehadlostitsmeaning？Ifthediscrepanciesbetweenrentandshareshadbeencasual，wemighttrytoexplainthementirelybylatermodifications。Butthesediscrepanciesareastandingfeatureofthesurveys，anditseemstomethatwecanhardlyescapetheinferencethatshareholdinghasitsraisond’etrequiteapartfromthedutiesowedtothelord，andinthiscasewehavetolooktothecommunalarrangementofproprietaryrightsforitsexplanation；itwasameansofgivingtoeverymanhisdue。Ifthisprincipleisgranted，alltheobservablefactsfallintotheirrightplaces。
Onecaneasilyimaginehowfreeholdingscametoexistwithinthevillagecommunityinspiteoftheirlooseconnexionwiththemanor。Inregardtoduties，theywerepracticallyoutsidethecommunity；notsoastoproprietaryrightsandtheagriculturalarrangementsproceedingfromthem，forexamplesucharrangementsasaffectedtherotationofcrops，theuseofcommonsandfallowpasture，thesettingupofhedges，therepairofdykes，etc。
Thereisnorealcontradictionbetweenthefacts，thatinrelationtothelordeveryfreeshareholderwas，asitwere，boundbyaseparateandprivateagreement，whileinrelationtothevillagehehadtoconformtocommunalrule。
Thislastremarkmayrequiresomefurtherdevelopment。Thestrikingdifferencesbetweenthedutiesoftheseveralfreeholdersofonemanorseemtoshowthatthesepeoplewerenotenfeoffedbythelordatthesametimeandunderthesameconditions。IfAisineveryrespectafellowofB，andstillhastopaytwiceasmuchasB，itisclearthathisrelationtothelordhasbeensettledunderdifferentcircumstancesfromthosewhichgovernedthesettlementofB’sposition。Now，fromthepointofviewoflaterlawthismeantthatthetwofreeholdswerecreatedeachbyaspecialfeoffment。Butthiswouldbeaveryformalandinadequatewayofconsideringthecase。Veryoftenthedifferencesmightbeproducedbysubsequentarrangementswhich，thoughnotgivingrisetonewtitle，destroyedtheoriginaluniformityofcondition。Oftenagainwemaysuspectthattherelationbetweenlordandtenanthaditsoriginnotreallyinagiftoflandmadebytheformertothelatterbutinasubmissionmadebythelattertotheformer。Imakeboldtopreferthisview，chieflyonaccountofthosetriflingandindeedfictitiousdutieswhichareconstantlyfoundintheSurveys。79*Theycanonlyhaveonemeaning——thatof’recognitions’。80*Triflinginthemselves，theyestablishthesubordinaterelationofoneownertotheother；andalthoughtheirimpositionmustbeconsideredfromtheformalstandpointoffeudallawastheresultofafeoffment，itisclearthattheirrealfoundationmustoftenhavebeenasubmissiontopatronage。Thesubjectisawideoneandincludesallkindsoffreetenure，communalaswellasother。