第52章

gatekeeper，andthechiefshepherdenterintoagreementsinregardtoextensiveplotsofland。(35*)Theyappearasentirelyfreetodisposeofsuchproperty，andateverystepwefindinthecartulariesofGlastonburyAbbeyproofsoftheexistenceofanumerousandpowerful’sergeant’class。JohnofNorwood，AbbotofBurySt。Edmund’s，hadtoresorttoaregularcoupd’閠atinordertodisplacetheprivilegedfamilieswhichhadgotholdoftheofficesandtreatedthemashereditaryproperty。(36*)Infactthegreat’sergeants’endedbyhamperingtheirlordsmorethanservingthem。Andthesamefactoftheriseofa’ministerial’classmaybenoticedoneverysingleestate，althoughitisnotsoprominentthereasinthegreatcentresoffeudallife。Thewholearrangementwasbrokenbythesubstitutionofthe’cashnexus’formoreancientkindsofeconomicrelationship，andbythespreadoffreeagreements：itisnotdifficulttoseethatboththesefactsactedstronglyinfavourofdrivingouthereditaryandcustomaryobligations。

Wehaveconsideredtherelativepositionoftheunfreeholdings，ofthedomaniallandaroundwhichtheyweregrouped，andoftheclasswhichhadtoputthewholemachineryofthemanorintoaction。Butincidentallywehadseveraltimestonoticeasetofmenandtenementswhichstoodinapeculiarrelationtothearrangementwehavebeendescribing：therewereinalmosteverymanorsomefreetenantsandsomefreetenementsthatcouldnotbeconsideredasbelongingtotheregularfabricofthewhole。theyhadtopayrentsoreventoperformlabourservices，buttheirobligationsweresubsidiarytotheworkofthecustomarytenantsonwhichthehusbandryofthemanorialdemesneleanedforsupport。Fromtheeconomicpointofviewwecanseenoinherentnecessityfortheconnexionoftheseparticularfreetenementswiththatparticularmanorialunit。Therent，largeorsmall，couldhavebeensentdirectlytothelord’shousehold，orpaidinsomeothermanorwithoutanyperceptiblealterationinfavourofeitherparty；thework，iftherewassuchtoperform，waswithoutexceptionofarathertriflingkind，andcouldhavebeeneasilydispensedwithandcommutedformoney。

Severalreasonsmaybethoughtoftoexplainthefactthatfreetenementsarethusgroupedalongwiththevillainholdingsandworkedintothatsingleunit，themanor。Itmaybeurgedthatthedivisionintomanorsisnotmerelyandperhapsnotchieflyaneconomicone，butthatitreflectsacertainpoliticalorganisation，whichhadtodealwithandtoclassfreetenantsaswellasservilepeople。Itmaybeconjecturedthatevenfromtheeconomicpointofview，althoughthecaseoffreetenantswouldhardlyhavecalledthemanorialunitintoexistence，itwasconvenienttousethatclasswhenoncecreatedforthegroupingofvillainlandandwork：whyshouldthefreetenantsnotjointhedivisionsformedforanotherpurposebutlocallywithineasyreachandthereforeconvenientlysituatedforsuchintercoursewiththelordaswasrenderednecessarybythecharacterofthetenement？Again，thegroupingoffreetenantsmayhaveoriginatedinatimewhentheconnexionwiththewholewasfeltmorestronglythaninthefeudalperiod；itmaypossiblygobacktoacommunitywhichhadnothingorlittletodowithsubjection，andinwhichthefreelandownersjoinedformutualsupportandorganisation。Itisnotimpossibletoassume，ontheotherhand，thatinmanycasesthefreetenantwasleftinthemanorialgroupbecausehehadbegunbybeinganunfreeandthereforeanecessarymemberofit。Allsuchsuppositionsseemprimafacieadmissibleandreasonableenough，andatthesametimeitisclear，thatbydecidinginfavourofoneofthemorbytherelativeimportanceassignedtoeachweshallverymateriallyinfluencethesolutionofinterestinghistoricalproblems，inordertoappreciaterightlythepositionofthefreetenementsinthemanorwehavetoexaminewhetherthesetenementsareallofoneandthesamekindornot，andthismustbedonenotfromthelegalstandpointwhenceithasalreadybeenreviewed，butinconnexionwiththepracticalmanagementoftheestate。Ithinkthatasurveyofthedifferentmeaningswhichthetermbearsinourdocumentsmustleadustorecognisethreechiefdistinctions：firstthereisfreelandwhichonceformedpartofthedemesnebuthasbeenseparatedfromit；thenthereisthelandheldbyvillagersoutsidetheregulararrangementsoftheruralcommunity，andlastlythereareancientfreehold