vill2 [23]
quaerentes in tali casu recuperarint villenagium, non erit propter hoc domino lnjuriatum propter ipsius voluntatem et consensum, et contra voluntatem suam jura ei non subveniunt, quia si dominus potest villanum manumittere et feoffare multo fortius poterit ri quandam conventionem facere, et quia si potest id quod plus est, potest multo fortius id quod minus est.' We have here another difficulty with the text. The wording is so closely allied to the passage on 24 b. just quoted, and the last sentences seem to indicate so clearly that the case of a privileged villain is here opposed to manumission and feoffment, that the 'villanus manumissus vel alienus' looks quite out of place. Is it a later gloss? Even if it is retained, however, the passage points to a very material limitation of the lord's power. The holding in question can certainly not be described as being held 'at will'. To me the words in question look like a gloss or an addition, although very probably they were inserted early, perhaps by Bracton himself, who found it difficult to maintain consistently a villain's contractual rights against the lord. Another solution of the difficulty is suggested to me by Sir Frederick Pollock. He thinks 'villanus manumissus vel alienus, correct, and lays stress On the fact, that personal condition does not matter in this case: that even though the tenant be free or quoad that lord as good as free, the assize lies not and there shall only be an action on the covenant. If we accept this explanation which saves the words under suspicion, we shall have to face another difficulty: the text would turn from villanus (suus) to villanus alienus and back to villanus (suus) without any intimation that the subject under discussion had been altered.
35. The later practice is well known. Any agreement with a bondman led to a forfeiture of the lord's rights. It may be seen at a glance that such could not have been the original doctrine. Otherwise why should the old books lay such stress on the mention of heirs?
36. Besides the case from the Note-book which I discuss in the text, Bracton, f 199, is in point: 'Item esto quod villanus teneat per liberum servitium sibi tantum, nulla facta mentione de heredibus, si cum ejectus fuerit proferat assisam, et cum objecta fuerit exceptio villenagii, replicet quod libere teneat et petat assisam, non valebit replicatio, ex quo nulla mentio facta est de heredibus, quia liberum tenementum in hoc casu non mutat statum, si fuerit sub potestate domini constitutus. Ut in eodem itinere (in ultimo itinere Martini de Pateshull) in comitatu Essex, assisa noue disseisine, si Radulphus de Goggenhal.' The villain fails in his assize and there has been no manumission, still it seems admitted that in this case the villain has acquired liberum tenementum by the lord's act. How can this be except on the supposition that there is a covenant enforceable by the villain against the lord?
37. Bract. Note-book, pl. 1814: 'Nota quod filius villani recuperat per assisam noUe disseisine terram quam pater suus tenuit in villenagio quia dominus villani illam dedit filio suo per cartam suam eciam sine manumissione.'
38. F.W. Maitland tells me, that Concanen's Report of Rowe v. Brenton describes bond conventioners in Cornwall.
39. Bracton, f 6: 'Et in hoc legem habent contra dominos, quod stare possunt in judicio contra eos de vita et membris propter saevitiam dominorum, vel propter intollerabilem injuriam, ut si eos destruant, quod salvum non possit eis esse waynagium suum. [Hoc autem verum est de illis servis; qui tenent de antiquo dominico coronae, sed de aliis secus est, quia quandocunque placuerit domino, auferre poterit a villano suo waynagium suum et omnia bona sua.] Expedit enim reipublicae ne quis re sua male utatur.'
40. See my article in the L. Q. R., i. 195.
41. Bracton, f 196 202.
42. Coram Rege, 15 Edw. I, m. 18: '... licet habeant alia averia per que distringi possent distringit eos per averia de carucis suis quod est contra statutum domini Regis.' (Record Office.)
43. Spence, Equitable Jurisdiction,
35. The later practice is well known. Any agreement with a bondman led to a forfeiture of the lord's rights. It may be seen at a glance that such could not have been the original doctrine. Otherwise why should the old books lay such stress on the mention of heirs?
36. Besides the case from the Note-book which I discuss in the text, Bracton, f 199, is in point: 'Item esto quod villanus teneat per liberum servitium sibi tantum, nulla facta mentione de heredibus, si cum ejectus fuerit proferat assisam, et cum objecta fuerit exceptio villenagii, replicet quod libere teneat et petat assisam, non valebit replicatio, ex quo nulla mentio facta est de heredibus, quia liberum tenementum in hoc casu non mutat statum, si fuerit sub potestate domini constitutus. Ut in eodem itinere (in ultimo itinere Martini de Pateshull) in comitatu Essex, assisa noue disseisine, si Radulphus de Goggenhal.' The villain fails in his assize and there has been no manumission, still it seems admitted that in this case the villain has acquired liberum tenementum by the lord's act. How can this be except on the supposition that there is a covenant enforceable by the villain against the lord?
37. Bract. Note-book, pl. 1814: 'Nota quod filius villani recuperat per assisam noUe disseisine terram quam pater suus tenuit in villenagio quia dominus villani illam dedit filio suo per cartam suam eciam sine manumissione.'
38. F.W. Maitland tells me, that Concanen's Report of Rowe v. Brenton describes bond conventioners in Cornwall.
39. Bracton, f 6: 'Et in hoc legem habent contra dominos, quod stare possunt in judicio contra eos de vita et membris propter saevitiam dominorum, vel propter intollerabilem injuriam, ut si eos destruant, quod salvum non possit eis esse waynagium suum. [Hoc autem verum est de illis servis; qui tenent de antiquo dominico coronae, sed de aliis secus est, quia quandocunque placuerit domino, auferre poterit a villano suo waynagium suum et omnia bona sua.] Expedit enim reipublicae ne quis re sua male utatur.'
40. See my article in the L. Q. R., i. 195.
41. Bracton, f 196 202.
42. Coram Rege, 15 Edw. I, m. 18: '... licet habeant alia averia per que distringi possent distringit eos per averia de carucis suis quod est contra statutum domini Regis.' (Record Office.)
43. Spence, Equitable Jurisdiction,