Wemaystartfromthislastobservationinourgeneralestimateoftheterminology。OnemightexpecttofindtracesofverystrongFrenchinfluenceinthisrespect，ifinany。EvenifthetraditionoffactshadnotbeeninterruptedbytheConquest，nameswerelikelytobealteredfortheconvenienceofthenewupperclass。AndtheDomesdaySurveyreallybeginsanewepochinterminologybyitsuseofvillaniandbordarii。But，curiouslyenough，onlythefirstofthesetermstakesrootonEnglishsoil。
NowitisnotawordtransplantedbytheConquest；itwasinusebeforetheConquestastheLatinequivalentofceorl，geneat，andprobablygebur。ItssuccessinthethirteenthandfourteenthcenturiesisasuccessofLatin，andnotofFrench，ofthehalf-literaryrecordlanguageoverconversationalidioms，andnotofforeignoververnacularnotions。ThepeculiarlyFrench’bordier’ontheotherhand，getsmisunderstoodandeliminated。
LookingtoSaxonandDanishterms，wefindthattheyholdtheirgroundtenaciouslyenough；butstilltheonemostprevalentbeforetheConquest-ceorl-disappearsentirely，andalltheotherstakentogethercannotbalancethediffusionofthe’villains。’Thedisappearanceofceorlmaybeaccountedforbytheimportantfactthatitwasprimarilythedesignationofafreeman，andhadnotquitelostthissenseeveninthetimeimmediatelybeforetheConquest。ThespreadoftheLatintermischaracteristicenoughinanycase。Itiswellinkeepingwithahistoricaldevelopmentwhich，thoughitcannotbereducedtoanimportationofforeignmanners，wasbynomeansameresequeltoSaxonhistory。(45*)Anewturnhadbeengiventowardscentralisationandorganisationfromabove，andvillanus，theLatinrecordterm，illustratesveryaptlytheremodellingofthelowerstratumofsocietybytheinfluenceofthecuriouslycentralisedEnglishfeudalism。
Thepositionofthepeasantrygetsconsideredchieflyfromthepointofviewofthelord’sinterests，andtheclassificationonthebasisofservicescomesnaturallytothefore。Thedistributionofholdingsisalsonoticed，becauseservicesandrentsarearrangedaccordingtothem。Butthemostimportantfactremains，thatthewholesystem，thoughadmittingtheoreticallythedifferencebetweenpersonalfreedomandpersonalsubjection，worksitselfoutintoUniformityonthegroundofunfreetenure。
Freemenholdinginvillainageandbornvillainsgetmixedupunderthesamenames。Thefacthasitstwosides。Ontheonehanditdetractsfromtheoriginalrightsoffreeorigin，ontheotheritstrengthenstheelementoforderandlegalityintherelationsbetweenlordandpeasant。Thepeasantsarecustumariiattheworst——theyworkbycustom，evenifcustomisregulatedbythelord’spower。Inanycase，evenamereanalysisofterminologicaldistinctionsleadstotheconclusionthatthesimplicityandrigidityoflegalcontrastswaslargelymodifiedbytheinfluenceofhistoricaltraditionandpracticallife。
Ournextobjectmustbetoseeinwhatshapetherightsofthelordarepresentedbymanorialdocuments。Allexpressionsofhispowermaybeconsideredunderthreedifferentheads，asconnectedwithoneofthethreefundamentalaspectsofthemanorialrelation。Therewerecustomsandservicesclearlyderivedfromthepersonalsubjectionofthevillain，whichhaditshistoricalrootinslavery。Someburdensagainlayontheland，andnotontheperson。Andfinally，manorialexactionscouldgrowfromthepoliticalswayconferredbyfeudallordship。
Itmaybedifficulttodistinguishintheconcretebetweentheseseveralrelations，andtheconstanttendencyinpracticemusthavebeenundoubtedlydirectedtowardsmixinguptheseparatethreadsofsubjection。Still，ageneralsurveyofmanorialrightshasundoubtedlytostartfromthesefundamentaldistinctions。
Therehasbeensomedebateonthequestionwhetherthelordcouldsellhisvillains。Ithasbeenurgedthatwehavenotracesofsuchtransactionsduringthefeudalperiod，andthatthereforepersonalserfdomdidnotexisteveninlaw。(46*)Itcanbepointedout，ontheotherside，thatdeedsofsaleconveyingvillainsapartfromtheirtenements，althoughrare，actuallyexist。Theusualformofenfranchisementwasadeedofsale，anditcannotbearguedthatthistreatmentofmanumissionisamererelicofformertimes，becauseboththeFrankandtheSaxonmanumissionsoftheprecedingperiodassumeadifferentshape；
theyarenoteffectedbysale。Theexistingevidenceentitlesonetomaintainthatavillaincouldbelawfullysold，withallhisfamily，hissequela，butthatinpracticesuchtransactionswereuncommon。(47*)Thefactisamostimportantoneinitself。Thewholeaspectofsocietyandofitsworkwouldhavebeendifferentiftheworkmanhadbeenasaleablecommoditypassingeasilyfromhandtohand。Nothingofthekindistobenoticedinthemedievalsystem。Thereisnoslavemarket，andnoslavetrade，nothingtobecomparedwithwhattookplaceintheslavestatesofNorthAmerica，oreventotherestrictedtrafficinRussiabeforetheemancipation。Thereasonisacuriousone，andforciblysuggestedbyacomparisonbetweenthecaseswhensuchtradecomesintobeing，andthosewhenitdoesnot。Theessentialconditionforcommercialtransferisaprotectedmarket，andsuchamarketexistedmoreorlessineverycasewhenmencouldbeboughtandsold。Anorganisedstateofsomekind，howeverslightlybuilt，isnecessaryasashelterforsuchtransfer。Thefeudalsystemprovedmoredeficientinthisrespectthanveryrawformsofearlysociety，whichmakeupfordeficienciesinStateprotectionbythefacilitiesofacquiringslavesandpunishingthem。ThelandownerhadenoughpoliticalindependencetopreventtheStatefromexercisinganefficientcontroloverthedependentpopulation，andforthisveryreasonhehadtorelyonhisownforceandinfluencetokeepthosedependentsunderhissway。
Personaldependencewaslocallylimited，andnotpoliticallygeneral，ifonemayusetheexpression。Itwaseasyforthevillaintostepoutoftheprecinctsofbondage；itwasallbutimpossibleforthelordtotreathismanasatransferablechattel。Thewholerelationgottoberegulatedmorebyinternalconditionsthanbyexternalpressure，byacustomarymodusvivendi，andnotbycommercialandstate-protectedcompetition。
Thisexplainswhyinsomecasespoliticalprogressmeantatemporarychangefortheworse，asinsomepartsofGermanyandinRussia：theStatebroughtitsextendedinfluencetobearinfavourofdependence，andrenderedcommercialtransactionspossiblebyitsprotection。Inmostcases，however，theinfluenceofmoral，economical，andpoliticalconceptionsmadeitselffeltinthedirectionoffreedom，andwehaveseenalreadythatinEnglandlegaldoctrinecreatedapowerfulcheckonthedevelopmentofservitudebyprotectingtheactualpossessionofliberty，andthrowingtheburdenofproofinquestionsofstatusonthesidecontendingagainstsuchliberty。
Butnotalltheconsequencesofpersonalservitudecouldberemovedinthesamewaybytheconditionsofactuallife。Ofallmanorialexactionsthemostodiouswasincontestablythemerchetum，afinepaidbythevillainformarryinghisdaughter。(48*)Itwasconsideredasanoteofserviledescent，andthemanfreebybloodwassupposedtobealwaysexemptedfromit，howeverdebasedhispositionineveryotherrespect。Ourauthoritiesoftenalludetothispaymentbytheenergeticexpression’buyingone’sblood’(servusdesanguinesuoemendo)。
Itseemsatfirstsightthatonemaysafelytakeholdofthisdistinctioninordertotracethedifferencebetweenthetwocomponentpartsofthevillainclass。Inthestatusofthesocman，developedfromthelawofSaxonfree-men，therewasusuallynothingofthekind。Themaritagiumofmilitarytenureofcoursehasnothingincommonwithit，beingpaidonlybytheheiressofafee，andresultingfromthecontrolofthemilitarylordoverthelandofhisretainer。Themerchetummustbepaidforeveryoneofthedaughters，andeventhegranddaughtersofavillain；itbadnothingtodowithsuccession，andsprangfrompersonalsubjection。
Whenthebridemarriedoutofthepowerofthelordanewelementwasbroughttobearonthecase：thelordwasentitledtoaspecialcompensationforthelossofasubjectandofherprogeny。(49*)Whenthecaseismentionedinmanorialdocuments，thefinegetsheightenedaccordingly，andsometimesitisevenexpresslystatedthatanarbitrarypaymentwillbeexacted。Thefineforincontinencenaturallyconnectsitselfwiththemerchet，andaGlastonburymanorialinstructionenjoinstheCourtstopresentsuchcasestothebailiffs；thelordloseshismerchetfromwomenwhogowronganddonotgetmarried。(50*)
SuchisthemerchetofourextentsandCourtrolls。AsI
said，ithasgreatimportancefromthepointofviewofsocialhistory。Stillitwouldbewrongtoconsideritasanunfailingtestofstatus。Althoughitisoftentreatedexpresslyasanoteofserfdom(51*)，somefactspointtotheconclusionthatitshistoryisacomplexone。Inthefirstplacethismerchetfineoccursintheextentssporadicallyasitwere。TheHundredRolls，forinstance，mentionitalmostalwaysinBuckinghamshire，andinsomehundredsofCambridgeshire。Inotherhundredsofthislastcountyitisnotmentioned。Howevermuchwelaytotheaccountofcasualomissionsofthecompilers，theyarenotsufficienttoexplainthegeneralcontrast。Itwouldbepreposteroustoinferthatinthelocalitiesfirstmentionedthepeasantswereoneandalldescendedfromslaves，andthatinthoseotherlocalitiestheywereoneandallpersonallyfree。Andsowearedriventotheinference，thatdifferentcustomsprevailedinthisrespectinplacesimmediatelyadjoiningeachother，andthatnotallthefeudalserfsdescendedfromSaxonslavespaidmerchet。
If，ontheonehand，notalltheserfspaidmerchet，ontheotherthereissufficientevidencetoshowthatitwaspaidinsomecasesbyfreepeople。Apaymentofthiskindwasexactedsometimesfromfreemeninvillainage，andevenfromsocagetenants，Ishallhavetospeakofthiswhentreatingofthefreepeasantry；Iadverttothefactnowinordertoshowthatthemostcharacteristictestofpersonalservitudedoesnotcoverthewholegroundoccupiedbytheclass，andatthesametimespreadsoutsideofitsboundary。
Thisobservationleadsustoseveralotherswhicharenotdevoidofimportance。Assoonasthenotionarosethatpersonalservitudewasimpliedbythepaymentofmerchet，——assoonassuchanotiongotsanctionedbylegaltheory，thefinewasextendedinpracticetocaseswhereitdidnotapplyoriginally。
Wehavedirecttestimonytotheeffectthatfeudallordsintroduceditontheirlandsinplaceswhereithadneverbeenpaid(52*)，andonecannothelpthinkingthatsuchadministrativeactsasthesurveyof1279-1280，thesurveyrepresentedbytheHundredRolls，materiallyhelpedsuchencroachments。Thejuriesmadetheirpresentmentsinrespectoflargemassesofpeasantry，underthepreponderatinginfluenceofthegentryandwithoutmuchchancefortheverificationofparticularinstances。Thedescriptionwasnotfalseasawhole，butitwasapttothrowdifferentthingsintothesamemould，andtodoitintheinterestoflandedproprietors。Again，thevarietyofconditionsinwhichwecomeacrossthemerchet，leadsustosupposethatthistermwasextendedthroughthemediumoflegaltheorytopaymentswhichdifferedfromeachotherintheirveryessence：
thecommutationofthe’jusprimaenoctis，’thecompensationpaidtothelordforthelossofhisbondwomanleavingthemanor，andthefineformarriagetobeleviedbythetownshiporthehundred，wereallthrowntogether。Last，butnotleast，thevagueapplicationofthismostdefiniteofsocialtestscorroborateswhathasbeenalreadyinferredfromterminology，namely，thatthechiefstresswaslaidinalltheserelations，notonlegal，butoneconomicdistinctions。Thestratificationoftheclassandthedeterminationofthelord’srightsbothshowtraitsoflegalstatus，butthesetraitsloseinimportanceincomparisonwithotherfeaturesthathavenolegalmeaning，orelsetheyspreadovergroupsandrelationswhichcomefromdifferentquartersandgetbounduptogetheronlythrougheconomicconditions。
Thesameobservationsholdgoodinregardtoothercustomswhichcometobeconsideredasimplyingpersonalservitude。(53*)
Merchetwasthemoststrikingconsequenceofunfreedom，butmanorialdocumentsarewonttoconnectitwithseveralothers。Itisacommonthingtosaythatavillainbybirthcannotmarryhisdaughterwithoutpayingafine，orpermithissontotakeholyorders，orsellhiscalforhorse，thatheisboundtoserveasareeve，andthathisyoungestsonsucceedstotheholdingafterhisdeath。(54*)Thiswouldbeamoreorlesscompleteenumeration，andIneednotsaythatinparticularcasessometimesoneandsometimesanotheritemgetsomitted。Thevariouspiecesdonotfitwelltogether：theprohibitionagainstsellinganimalsisconnectedwithdisabilitiesastoproperty，andnotderiveddirectlyfromthepersonaltie；(55*)asfortheruleofsuccession，ittestifiesmerelytothefactthattheso-calledcustomofBoroughEnglishwasmostwidelyspreadamongtheunfreeclass。Theobligationofservingasareeveorinanyothercapacityiscertainlyderivedfromthepowerofalordoverthepersonofhissubject；hehaditalwaysathisdiscretiontotakehismanawayfromthefield，andtoemployhimatpleasureinhisservice。Lastly，theprovisionthatthevillainmaynotallowhissontoreceiveholyordersstandsonthesamelevelastheprovisionthathemaynotgivehisdaughterinmarriageoutsidethemanor：eitheroftheseprohibitedtransactionswouldhaveinvolvedthelossofasubject。
