第37章

Rolls, xiv. 38. (Curia-die Jovis proxima ante festum St.

Bartholomaei Apostoli anno r. r. Ricardi II, 21mo.)'Inquisicio... dicit... quod non est aliquis homo natiuus de sanguine ingressus feodum domini, set dicunt quod est quidam Johannes Shillyllg qui Sepius dictus fuerat natiuus. Et dicunt ultra quod qnidam Johannes Shillyng pater predicti Johannis fuit alienigena et quod predictus Johannes Shillyng quod ad eorum cognitionem est liber et libere condicionis et non natiuus.'

67. Fitzherbert, Abr. Villen. 32 (H. 19 Edw. II).

68. Ibid. 5 (13 Edw. I).

69. Fitzherbert, l.c.: 'E ce issu fuit trie par gents de paiis ou le maner est e nemi ou il nasquist par touts les justices.'

70. Rotuli Parliam. Ii. 192. Hargrave's argument in the Negro Somerset's case is very good on all these points. Howell, State Trials, xx. 38, 39.

71. Bracton, 201; Britton, i. 202 sq.

72. Bracton, f 6, and on many other occasions.

73. Co. Lit. 137, b. Cf. King Henry I's writ in favour of the Monastery of Abingdon. Bigelow, Placita Anglo-Normannica, 96:

'facias habere F. abbati omnes homines suos qui de terra sua exierunt propter herberiam curie mee.' Henry II puts it the other way, p 220.. 'Nisi sunt in dominio meo.'

74. A most curious pleading based on the conceptions of Glanville occurs in a Cor. Rege case of 10 Henry III, which was pointed out to me by F. Maitland. See App. IV. Mr York Powell suggests that the limitation may have originated in the fact, that in early times a man could no more give away a slave from his family estate without the consent of the family than he could give away the estate itself or part of it. There was no reason for such limitation in the case of a slave that had been bought with one's private money. Hence the necessity of selling a slave in order to emancipate him. The conjecture seems a very probable one, but the question remains, how such ancient practice could have left a trace in the feudal period. The explanation in the text may possibly account for the tenacity of the notion.

75. Note-book, pl. 31, 343.

76. Bracton, f. 194, 195. Bracton's text has been rendered almost unintelligible here by the careless punctuation of his editors, and Sir Travers Twiss' translation is as wrong and misleading as usual. I will just give the passage in accordance with the reading of Digby, 222 (Bodleian Libr.), which is the best of all the MSS. I have seen: 'Quia esto quod seruus uelit manumitti et cum nichil habeat proprium eligat fidem alicuius qui eum emat quasi pro denariis suis, per talem emptionem non consequitur emptus aliquam libertatem nisi tantum quod mutat dominum. In re empta in primis solui debet pretium, postea sequitur traditio rei: soluitur hic pretium pro natiuo, set nulla subsequitur traditio, sed semper manet in uillenagio quo prius. Si tenementum adquirat tenendum libere et heres manumissoris uel alius successor eum eiciat, si petat per assisam et heres opponat uillenagium, et villanus replicet de manumissione et emptione, heres triplicare poterit, quod imperfecta fuit emptio siue manumissio eo quod nunquam in uita uenditoris subsecuta fuit traditio, et ita talis semper remanebit sub potestate heredis.'

77. Note book, pl. 1749: 'Iudicatum est quod liber sit quantum ad heredem manumittentis et non quantum ad alios, quod iudicium non est uerum.'

Ancient Demesne The old law books mention one kind of villainage which stands out in marked contrast with the other species of servile tenure.

The peasants belonging to manors which were vested in the crown at the time of the Conquest follow a law of their own. Barring certain exceptions, of which more will be said presently, they enjoy a certainty of condition protected by law. They are personally free, and although holding in villainage, nobody has the right to deprive them of their lands, or to alter the condition of the tenure, by increasing or changing the services.

Bracton calls their condition one of privileged villainage, because their services are base but certain, and because they are protected not by the usual remedies supplied at common law to free tenants, but by peculiar writs which enforce the custom of the manor.(1*) It seems well worth the while to carefully investigate this curious case with a view to get at the reasons of a notable deviation from the general course, for such investigation may throw some reflected light on the treatment of villainage in the common law.