Theprocedureintrialstouchingthequestionofstatuswasdecidedlyfavourabletoliberty。Tobeginwith，onlyoneproofwasacceptedasconclusiveagainstit——absoluteproofthatthekinsfolkofthepersonclaimedwerevillainsbydescent。*Theverdictofajurywasnotsufficienttosettlethequestion，*andamanwhohadbeenrefusedanassizeinconsequenceofthedefendantpleadingvillainageinbarhadtherightnotwithstandingsuchdecisiontosueforhisliberty。Whentheproofbykinshipcameon，twolimitationswereimposedonthepartymaintainingservitude：womenwerenotadmittedtostandaslinksintheproofbecauseoftheirfrailtyandofthegreaterdignityofaman，andonemanwasnotdeemedsufficienttoestablishtheservileconditionofthepersonclaimed。*Ifthedefendantinapleaofniefty，oraplaintiffinanactionofliberty，couldconvincinglyshowthathisfatheroranynottooremoteancestorhadcometosettleonthelord’slandasastranger，hislibertyasadescendantwassufficientlyproved。*
Inthiswaytoprovepersonalvillainageonehadtoprovevillainagebybirth。Recognitionofservilestatusinacourtofrecordandreferencetoadeedarequiteexceptional。
Thecoincidenceinallthesepointsagainstthepartymaintainingservitudeisbynomeanscasual；thecourtsproclaimedtheirleaning’infavourofliberty’quiteopenly，andfolloweditinmanyinstancesbesidesthosejustquoted。Itwasheld，forinstance，thatindefendinglibertyeverymeansoughttobeadmitted。Thecounselpleadingforitsometimessetuptwoorthreepleasagainsthisadversaryanddeclinedtonarrowhiscontention，thustransgressingtherulesagainstduplicityofplea’infavourofliberty。’*Inthecaseofastrangersettlingontheland，hislibertywasalwaysassumed，andthecourtdeclinedtoconstrueanyuncertaintyofconditionagainsthim。4
Whenvillainagewaspleadedinbaragainstapersonoutofthepowerofthelord，thespecialquestionwasveryoftenexaminedbyajuryfromtheplacewherethepersonexceptedtohadbeenlatelyresident，andnotbyajuryfromthecountrywherehehadbeenborn。*Thistoldagainstthelord，ofcourse，becausethejurorsmightoftenhaveveryvaguenotionsastothepreviousconditionoftheirnewfellow-countryman。*
Itwouldbeimpossibletosayinwhatparticularcasesthispartialityofthelawistobetakenasaconsequenceofenlightenedandhumanitarianviewsmakingtowardstheliberationoftheservileclass，andinwhatcasesitmaybetracedtothefactthatanoriginalelementoffreedomhadbeenattractedintotheconstitutionofvillainageandwasinfluencingitslegaldevelopmentdespiteanygeneraltheoryofaservilecharacter。
Thereisthistobenoticedinanycase，thatmostofthelimitationswehavebeenspeakingofarefoundinfullworkattheverytimewhenvillainagewastreatedasslaveryinthebooks。Onefeature，perhapsthemostimportantofall，iscertainlynotdependentonanyprogressofideas，howevercompletethelord’spowerovertheserfmayhavebeen，itwasentirelyboundupwiththemanorialorganisation。Assoonasthevillainhadgotoutofitsboundarieshewasregularlytreatedasafreemanandprotectedintheenjoymentoflibertysolongashisservilestatushadnotbeenproved。*Suchprotectionwasalegalnecessity，anecessarycomplementtothewarrantyofferedbythestatetoitsrealfreemen。Therecouldbenoquestionofallowingthelordtoseizeonanypersonwhomhethoughtfittoclaimashisserf。And，again，ifthepoliticalpowerinherentinthemanorgavethelordAgreatprivilegesandimmunitiesastothepeoplelivingunderhissway，thissamemanorialpowerbegantotellagainsthimassoonassuchpeoplehadgotundertheswayoflordBorwithintheprivilegedtownCThedependantcouldbeeffectuallycoercedonlyifhegotbacktohisunfreenestagainorthroughthemeansofsuchkinsfolkashehadleftintheunfreenest。*Andsothesettlementofdisputedrightsconnectedwithstatusbringshomeforciblytwoimportantpositions：firstthetheoryofpersonalsubjectionismodifiedinitslegalapplicationbyinfluenceinfavourofliberty；andnextthisinfluenceisnottobetracedexclusivelytomoralandintellectualprogress，butmustbeaccountedfortoagreatextentbypeculiaritiesinthepoliticalstructureoffeudalism。
Onepointremainstobeinvestigatedintheinstitutionofvillainage，namelymodesinwhichavillainmightbecomefree。I
havehadoccasiontonoticetheimpliedmanumissionwhichfollowedfromadonationoflandtoabondmanandhisheirs，whichinprocessoftimewasextendedtoallcontractsandconcordsbetweenalordandhisserf。Avillainwasfreedalso，asiswellknown，byremainingforayearandadayontheprivilegedsoilofacrownmanororacharteredtown。*Astodirectmanumission，itsusualmodewasthegrantofacharterbywhichthelordrenouncedallrightsastothepersonofhisvillain。Tracesofotherandmorearchaiccustomsmayhavesurvivedincertainlocalities，but，ifso，theywerequiteexceptional。ManumissionisoneofthefewsubjectstouchedbyGlanvilleinthedoctrineofvillainage，andheisveryparticularastoitsconditionsandeffects。Hesaysthataserfcannotbuyhisfreedom，becausehehasnomoneyorgoodsofhisown。Hislibertymaybeboughtbyathirdpersonhowever，andhislordmayliberatehimastohimself，butnotasregardsthirdpersons。Thereseemstobeawantofclearnessin，ifnotsomecontradictionbetweenthesetwolaststatements，becauseonedoesnotseehowmanumissionbyastrangercouldpossiblybewiderthanthateffectedbythelord。Again，thewholepositionofafreedmanwhoremainsaserfasregardseverybodybuthislordisverydifficulttorealize，evenifonedoesnottakethelaterviewintoaccount，whichisexactlythereverse，namelythatavillainisfreeagainsteverybodybuthislord。Imaybeallowedtostartaconjecturewhichwillfindsomesupportinalaterchapter，whenwecometospeakaboutthetreatmentoffreedomandserfdominmanorialdocuments。ItseemstomethatGlanvillehasinmindliberationdefactofromcertaindutiesandcustoms，suchasagriculturalworkforinstance，orthepaymentofmerchet。
Suchliberationwouldnotamounttoraisingthestatusofavillain，althoughitwouldputhimonaverydifferentfootingastohislord。*Howeverthismaybe，iffromGlanville’stimeswecomedowntoBractonandtohisauthorities，weshallfindallrequirementschanged，butdistincttracesoftheformerviewstilllingeringinoccasionaldecisionsandpractices。Therearefrequentcasesofvillainsbuyingtheirfreedomwiththeirownmoney，*butthepracticeofsellingthemformanumissiontoastrangerismentionedbothinBracton’sTreatise*andinhisNotebook。Adecisionof1226distinctlyrepeatsGlanville’steachingthatamanmayliberatehisserfastohimselfandnotastoothers。ThemarginalnoteintheNotebookveryappropriatelyprotestsagainstsuchaview，whichiscertainlyquiteinconsistentwithlaterpractice。*Suchflagrantcontradictionsbetweenauthoritieswhichareseparatedbarelybysomesixtyorseventyyears，andonpointsofprimaryimportancetoo，canonlytendtostrengthentheinferencepreviouslydrawnfromotherfacts——thatthelawonthesubjectwasbynomeanssquareandsettledevenbythetimeofBracton，butwasineveryrespectinastateoftransition。
3。IneednotsaythattherewereverynotablevariationsinthehistoryoftheRomanruleitselfcfforinstance，Puchta，Institutionen，211，butthesedonotconcernus，aswearetakingtheRomandoctrineasbroadlyasitwastakenbymedievallawyers。
4。Matercertaest。Gai。Inst。I。82。3SeeFitz。Abr。Villenage，pl。543Edw。III：’Ouilallegebastardisepurceoqesisonauncestorfuitbastardilnepuitestrevillein，sinonparconnusance。’Therewasaspecialreasonforturningthetablesinfavourofbastardy，whichishintedatinthiscase。Thebastard’sparentscouldnotbeproducedagainstabastard。Hehadnofather，andhismotherwouldbenoproofagainsthimbecauseshewasawoman[Fitz。Abr。Vill。3713Edw。I，Parceqelafemenepuitestreadmisepurproveparlourfraylteetausicestqiestdemaundeestpluizdignepersonqeunfeme]。Itfollowedstrictlythathecouldbeavillainbyconfession，butnotbybirth。Thefactisagoodinstanceoftheinsolublecontradictionsinwhichfeudallawsometimesinvolveditself。
5。Bracton，f5：’Servusrationequisecopulaveritvillanaeinvillenagioconstitutae。’Bract。Note-book，1839：’JuratoresdicuntquodpredictusAluredushabuitduosfratresHugonem[medium]mediotemporenatumetGilibertumpostnatumquinuncpetit，setHugocepitquamdamterraminuillenagioetduxituxorem[uillanam]etinuillenagioilloprocreauitquemdamfiliumquiadhucsuperest。Etbenedicuntquod。IsteGilibertuspropinquiorhereseiusest，earacionequodfiliusHugonisgenitusfuitinuillenagio。’2Y。B。30/31Edw。I，p。167sqq。：
’UsagedeCornwallestcecyqelaouneyfedeytestremarierhorsdemaneroueleestreseant，qeeletroveraseurte。derevenirasonnyovseschateuxapreslamortdesonbaroun。’Bracton，f。
26，’Quasiavisinnido。’
6。Bract。Note-book，pl。702：’Notaquodliberafeminamaritatauillanononrecuperatpartemalicuiushereditatisquamdiuuillanusuixerit。’
7。Bract。Note-book，pl。1837：’Notaquodmulierqueestliberauelinstatuliberosaltemadminusnondebetdisseisiriquinrecuperarepossitperassisamquamuisnuptafuerituillanosethereditatempeterenonpoterit。’Bract。Note-book，pl。1010：’Etuillanimoripoteruntperquodpredictesororespeterepossintiussuum。’Fitzherb。Villen。27P。7Edw。II。：’Lesfemmessontsansrecouverieversleseignioruiuantleurbaronspurcequeilssontvillens。’CfBracton，f202。
8。Anotherinstanceoftheinfluenceofmarriageontheconditionofcontractingpartiesisaffordedbytheenfranchisementofthewifeincertaincases。Thecommonlawwas，however，bynomeanssettledastothispoint。Y。B。30/31Edw。I，p。I67sqq。：’Laouleseygnurespousesaneyfe，siestenfranchipurtozjurs；secusestlaouunhommeestrangelyespose，qedonknesteleenfraunchisinonvivantSonbaroun，etpostmortemvirireditadpristinumstatum。’Fitzherb。Vill。21P。33Edw。III：’Sihomeespousefemmeqeestsonvilleinelestfrankedurantlesespousailles。Mesquandsonbaronestmortelestinstatuquoprius，etissintelpuisestrevilleinasonfilsdemesne。’Itisquitelikelythatgentlemensometimesgotintoastateofmoralbondagetotheirownbondwomen，andwereevenledtomarriageinafewinstances，butthelawhadnotmuchtofeeduponinthisdirection，Iimagine。
9。Fitzherbert，Vill。24H。50Edw。III；P。40Edw。III，17：
’Sihomedemurtenterretenueenvillenagedetempsdount，etc。，ilseravillen，etestbonprescripcionetencountretelprescripcionestbonpleadireqesonpereouaylefuitadventiffe，’etc。Isupposeayleheretobeasimpleerrorforaylorael，grandfather。
10。CambridgeUniv。，Dd。vij。6，f231：’Notadetemporequoservusdicerepoteritquiafecerltconsuetudinesvillanasracionetenementinonracionepersone。Etsciendum，quodquamdiuservuspoteritverificarestipitemsuamliberamnondiciturnativus，setquamcitiusdominusdlcerepoteritvillicusnosterestexauoettritauo，tuncprimodesinitgauderereplicacioneomnimodaetprivilegiolibertatisracionestipitis，utsiA。primoingressusvillenagiumtenueritdeF。pervillanaservitia，deindeB。filiusA。，deindeC。filiusB。，deindeD。filiusC。，etsictenuerintinvillenagiumdegraduingradumusqueadquartumgradumdeF。etheredibussuis，illeuillanusinuentusinquintogradudescendentenatiuusdicitur。’IamindebtedforthispassagetothekindnessofProfMaitland。
11。Britton，i。196，206。
12。Hale，PleasoftheCrowned。1736，ii。298，givesaninterestingrecordfromEdwardI’sreign，whichshowsthateventhegeneraltheorywasdoubtful，13。Dial。deScacc。I。10。p。193：’Eapropterpenequicumquesichodieoccisusreperitur，utmurdrumpunitur，exceptishisquibuscertasuntutdiximusserviliscondicionisindicia。’OntheotherhandtheDialoguslaysstressonthefact，thatifavillain’schattelsgetconfiscatedtheygotothekingandnottothelordii。10。p。222，butthisisregardedasabreachofageneralprinciple。
14。Glanville，xiv。I：’Perferrumcallidumsifuerithomoliber，peraquamsifueritrusticus。’
15。Lighteroffencescommittedbythelordcouldnotgiverisetoprosecution，butthepersonastandiiniudiciowasadmittedinageneralwayeveninthiscase。AcuriousillustrationofthedifferentfootingofvillainsincivilandcriminalcasesisaffordedbyatrialofRichardI’stime。RichardofWaurebringsanappealagainsthismanandreeve，RobertThistleful，forconspiringwithhisenemiesagainsthisperson。Heofferstoproveitagainsthim，’utdominus，veluthomomaimatus，sicutcuriaconsideraverit。’Reevesweremostlyvillains，andthedutyofservingasareevewasconsideredasacharacteristicofbasecondition。ThelordprobablygoestotheKing’scourtbecausehewantshismansubjectedtomoreseverepunishmentthanhecouldinflictonhimbyhisownpower。Rot。Cur。RegisRicardi，60。
16。Thelordhadpowerovertheirproperty，butagainsteverybodyelsetheywereprotectedbythecriminallaw。
17。Sometimesthesystemisusedsoastoenforceservitude。SeeCourtRollsofRamseyAbbey。AugmentationCourtRolls，Edw。I，Portf34，No。46，m。1d。Aylington：’AdhucdicuntquodJohannesfiliusRicardiDunningesttannatoretmanetapudHeyham，setdatperannumprorecognicioneduoscapones。Etquiapotensestethabetmultabona，preceptumfuitHugoniAchardeteiusdecennaeadultimumvisumadhabendumipsumadistamcuriam，etnonhabuit。Ideoipseetdecennasuainmisericordia。’ThiscaseisnowbeingprintedinSeldenSoc。vol。Ii。p。64。
18。Bracton，124b：’Quiaomnishomosiuelibersiueseruus，autestautdebetesseinfrancoplegioautdealicuiusmanupastu，nisisitaliquisitineransdelocoinlocum，quinonplusseteneatadunumquamadalium，velquidhabeatquodsufficiatprofrancoplegio，sicutdignitatemvelordinemvelliberumtenementum，velincivitatemremimmobilem。’Nichols，Britton，i。
181，givesanotefromCambr。MS。Dd。vii。6，totheeffectthat’Villeinsandnaifsoughtnottobeintithings，secundumquosdam。’Thisiscertainlyamisunderstanding，butitcanhardlybeaccountedforeitherbytheenfranchisementofthepeasantorthedecayofthefrankpledge。IthinktheannotatormayhaveseenthepassagesinLeg。CnutiorLeg。HenriciI，whichspeakaboutfreemenjoiningthetithings，orspeculatedaboutthemeaningof’plegiumliberale。’Therecouldbenothoughtofexcludingthevillainsinpracticeduringthefeudalperiod。AstotheallusionintheMirrorofJustices，IshallrefertoitinAppendixIII。