vill2 [7]
in curia domini Regis... et quod ibi dirationavit eos esse villanos suos, et non defendit disseisinam... Et ipsi Elilda et Ricardus defendunt vilenagium et ponunt se super juratam,' etc.
1. Maitland, Select Pleas of the Crown (Selden Soc. I), pl. 3: 'Quendam nativum suum quem habuit in vinculis eo quod voluit fugere.' Bract. Notebook, pl. 1041: 'Petrus de Herefordia attachiatus fuit ad respondendum R. fil. Th. quare ipse cepit Ricardum et eum imprisonauit et coegit ad redempcionem I marce. Et Petrus venit alias et defendit capcionem et imprisonacionem set dicit quod villanus fuit,' etc. It must be noted, however, that in such cases it was difficult to draw the line as to the amount of bodily injury allowed by the law, and therefore the King's courts were much more free to interfere. In the trial quoted on p. 45, note 2, the defendants distinguish carefully between the accusation and the civil suit. They plead 'not guilty' as to the former. And so Bishop Stubbs' conjecture as to the 'rusticus verberatus' in Pipe Roll, 31 Henry I, p. 55 (Constit. Hist. I. 487), seems quite appropriate. The case is a very early one, and may testify to the better condition of the peasantry in the first half of the twelfth century.
2. As to the actual treatment experienced by the peasants at the hands of their feudal masters, see a picturesque case in Maitland's Select Pleas of the Crown (Selden Soc.), 203.
1. Stubbs, Constitutional History, ii. 652, 654; Freeman, Norman Conquest, v. 477; Digby, Introduction to the Law of Real Property, 244.
1. Sir Thomas Smith, The Commonwealth of England, ed. 1609, p. 123, shows that the notion of two classes corresponding to the Roman servus and the Roman adscriptus glebae had taken root firmly about the middle of the sixteenth century. 'Villeins in gross, as ye would say immediately bond to the person and his heirs... (The adscripti) were not bond to the person but to the mannor or place, and did follow him who had the mannors, and in our law are called villains regardants (sic), for because they be as members or belonging to the mannor or place. Neither of the one sort nor of the other have we any number in England. And of the first I never knew any in the Realme in my time. Of the second so fewe there bee, that it is not almost worth the speaking, but our law doth acknowledge them in both these sorts.'
1. Section 182 is not quite consistent with such an exposition, but I do not think there can be any doubt as to the general doctrine.
2. I need not say that the work done by Mr Horwood, and especially by Mr Pike, for the Rolls' Series quite fulfil the requirements of students. But in comparison with it the old year Books in Rastall's, and even more so in Maynard's edition, appear only the more wretchedly misprinted.
1. For instance, Liber Assisarum, ann. 44, pl. 4 (f 283): 'Quil fuit son villein et il seisi de luy come de son villein come regardant a son maneir de B. en la Counte de Dorset.'
1. Y.B. Hil. 5 Edw. II: 'Iohan de Rose port son [ne] vexes vers Labbe de Seint Bennet de Holme, et il counta qil luy travaille, etc., e luy demande.' Migg.: 'defent tort et force, ou et quant il devera et dit qil fuist le vilein Labbe, per qi il ne deveroit estre resceve.' Devom.: 'il covient qe vous disez plus qe vous estes seisi, ut supra,' etc. Migg.: ' il est nostre vileyn, et nous seisi de luy come de nostre vileyn.' Ber.; 'Coment seisi come,' etc.? Migg.: 'de luy et de ces auncestres come de nos vileynes, en fesant de luy nostre provost en prenant de luy rechate de char et de saunk et redemption pur fille et fitz marier de luy et de ces auncestres et a tailler haut et bas a nostre volente, prest,' etc. (Les reports des cases del Roy Edward le II, London, 1678; f 157.)
2. I do not think it ever came into any one's mind to look at the Plea Rolls in this matter. Even Hargrave, when preparing his famous argument in Somersett's case, carried his search no further than the Year Books then in print. And in consequence he just missed the true solution. He says (Howell's State Trials, xx.
1. Maitland, Select Pleas of the Crown (Selden Soc. I), pl. 3: 'Quendam nativum suum quem habuit in vinculis eo quod voluit fugere.' Bract. Notebook, pl. 1041: 'Petrus de Herefordia attachiatus fuit ad respondendum R. fil. Th. quare ipse cepit Ricardum et eum imprisonauit et coegit ad redempcionem I marce. Et Petrus venit alias et defendit capcionem et imprisonacionem set dicit quod villanus fuit,' etc. It must be noted, however, that in such cases it was difficult to draw the line as to the amount of bodily injury allowed by the law, and therefore the King's courts were much more free to interfere. In the trial quoted on p. 45, note 2, the defendants distinguish carefully between the accusation and the civil suit. They plead 'not guilty' as to the former. And so Bishop Stubbs' conjecture as to the 'rusticus verberatus' in Pipe Roll, 31 Henry I, p. 55 (Constit. Hist. I. 487), seems quite appropriate. The case is a very early one, and may testify to the better condition of the peasantry in the first half of the twelfth century.
2. As to the actual treatment experienced by the peasants at the hands of their feudal masters, see a picturesque case in Maitland's Select Pleas of the Crown (Selden Soc.), 203.
1. Stubbs, Constitutional History, ii. 652, 654; Freeman, Norman Conquest, v. 477; Digby, Introduction to the Law of Real Property, 244.
1. Sir Thomas Smith, The Commonwealth of England, ed. 1609, p. 123, shows that the notion of two classes corresponding to the Roman servus and the Roman adscriptus glebae had taken root firmly about the middle of the sixteenth century. 'Villeins in gross, as ye would say immediately bond to the person and his heirs... (The adscripti) were not bond to the person but to the mannor or place, and did follow him who had the mannors, and in our law are called villains regardants (sic), for because they be as members or belonging to the mannor or place. Neither of the one sort nor of the other have we any number in England. And of the first I never knew any in the Realme in my time. Of the second so fewe there bee, that it is not almost worth the speaking, but our law doth acknowledge them in both these sorts.'
1. Section 182 is not quite consistent with such an exposition, but I do not think there can be any doubt as to the general doctrine.
2. I need not say that the work done by Mr Horwood, and especially by Mr Pike, for the Rolls' Series quite fulfil the requirements of students. But in comparison with it the old year Books in Rastall's, and even more so in Maynard's edition, appear only the more wretchedly misprinted.
1. For instance, Liber Assisarum, ann. 44, pl. 4 (f 283): 'Quil fuit son villein et il seisi de luy come de son villein come regardant a son maneir de B. en la Counte de Dorset.'
1. Y.B. Hil. 5 Edw. II: 'Iohan de Rose port son [ne] vexes vers Labbe de Seint Bennet de Holme, et il counta qil luy travaille, etc., e luy demande.' Migg.: 'defent tort et force, ou et quant il devera et dit qil fuist le vilein Labbe, per qi il ne deveroit estre resceve.' Devom.: 'il covient qe vous disez plus qe vous estes seisi, ut supra,' etc. Migg.: ' il est nostre vileyn, et nous seisi de luy come de nostre vileyn.' Ber.; 'Coment seisi come,' etc.? Migg.: 'de luy et de ces auncestres come de nos vileynes, en fesant de luy nostre provost en prenant de luy rechate de char et de saunk et redemption pur fille et fitz marier de luy et de ces auncestres et a tailler haut et bas a nostre volente, prest,' etc. (Les reports des cases del Roy Edward le II, London, 1678; f 157.)
2. I do not think it ever came into any one's mind to look at the Plea Rolls in this matter. Even Hargrave, when preparing his famous argument in Somersett's case, carried his search no further than the Year Books then in print. And in consequence he just missed the true solution. He says (Howell's State Trials, xx.