Is he free to quit his lord and his land, or can he be pursued and captured? No one word can be obtained in answer to this question. We can only say that in Henry II.’s day the ordinary peasant was regarded by the royal officials as ascriptitius; the land that he occupied was said to be part of his lord’s demesne; his chattels were his lord’s[162]. But then this was conceived to be, at least in some degree, the result of the Norman Conquest and subsequent rebellions of the peasantry[163]. To this we may add that in one of our sets of Leges, the French Leis of William the Conqueror, there are certain clauses which would be of great importance could we suppose that they had an authoritative origin, and which in any case are remarkable enough. The nativus who flies from the land on which he is born, let none retain him or his chattels; if the lords will not send back these men to their land the king’s officers are to do it[164]. On the other hand, the tillers of the soil are not to be worked beyond their proper rent; their lord may not remove them from their land so long as they perform their right services[165]. Whether or no we suppose that in the writer’s opinion the ordinary peasant was a nativus (of nativi Domesday Book has nothing to say) we still have law more favourable to the peasant than was the common law of Bracton’s age:—a tiller who does his accustomed service is not to be ejected; he is no tenant at will.
Rarity of flight.
Hereafter we shall show that the English peasants did suffer by the substitution of French for English lords. But the question that we have asked, so urgent, so fundamental, as it may seem to us, is really one which, as the history of the Roman coloni might prove, can long remain unanswered. Men may become economically so dependent on their lords, on wealthy masters and creditors, that the legal question whether they can quit their service has no interest. Who wishes to leave his all and go forth a beggar into the world? On the whole we can find no evidence whatever that the men of the Confessor’s day who were retrospectively called villani were tied to the soil. Certainly in Norman times the tradition was held that according to the old law the villanus might acquire five hides of land and so ‘thrive to thegn-right[166].’
The villein and seignorial justice.
Our next question should be whether he was subject to seignorial justice. This is part of a much wider question that we must face hereafter, for seignorial justice should be treated as a whole. We must here anticipate a conclusion, the proof of which will come by and by, namely, that the villanus sometimes was and sometimes was not the justiciable of a court in which his lord or his lord’s steward presided. All depended on the answer to the question whether his lord had ‘sake and soke.’ His lord might have justiciary rights over all his tenants, or merely over his villani, or he might have no justiciary rights, for as yet ‘sake and soke’ were in the king’s gift, and the mere fact that a lord had ‘men’ or tenants did not give him a jurisdiction over them.
The villein and national justice.
With this question is connected another, namely, whether the villani had a locus standi in the national courts. We have seen six villani together with the priest (undoubtedly a free man) and the reeve of each vill summoned to swear in the great inquest[167]. One of the most famous scenes recorded by our book is that in which William of Chernet claimed a Hampshire manor on behalf of Hugh de Port and produced his witnesses from among the best and eldest men of the county; but Picot, the sheriff of Cambridgeshire, who was in possession, replied with the testimony of villeins and mean folk and reeves, who were willing to support his case by oath or by ordeal[168]. Again, in Norfolk, Roger the sheriff claimed a hundred acres and five villani and a mill as belonging to the royal manor of Branfort, and five villani of the said manor testified in his favour and offered to make whatever proof anyone might adjudge to them, but the half-hundred of Ipswich testified that the land belonged to a certain church of St. Peter that Wihtgar held, and he offered to deraign this[169]. Certainly this does not look as if villani were excluded from the national moots. But a rule which valued the oath of a single thegn as highly as the oath of six ceorls would make the ceorl but a poor witness and tend to keep him out of court[170]. The men who are active in the communal courts, who make the judgments there, are usually men of thegnly rank; but to go to court as a doomsman is one thing, to go as a litigant is another[171].
The villein and his land.
We may now approach the question whether, and if so in what sense, the land that the villanus occupies is his land. Throughout Domesday Book a distinction is sedulously maintained between the land of the villeins (terra villanorum) and the land that the lord has in dominio. Let us notice this phrase. Only the demesne land does the lord hold in dominio, in ownership. The delicate shade of difference that Bracton would see between dominicum and dominium is not as yet marked. In later times it became strictly correct to say that the lord held in demesne (in dominico suo) not only the lands which he occupied by himself or his servants, but also the lands held of him by villein tenure[172]. This usage appears very plainly in the Dialogue on the Exchequer. ‘You shall know,’ says the writer, ‘that we give the name demesnes (dominica) to those lands that a man cultivates at his own cost or by his own labour, and also to those which are possessed in his name by his ascriptitii; for by the law of this kingdom not only can these ascriptitii be removed by their lords from the lands that they now possess and transferred to other places, but they may be sold and dispersed at will; so that rightly are both they and the lands which they cultivate for the behalf of their lords accounted to be dominia[173].’ Far other is the normal, if not invariable, usage of Domesday Book. The terrae villanorum, the silvae villanorum, the piscariae villanorum, the molini villanorum—for the villeins have woods and fisheries and mills—these the lord does not hold in dominio[174]. Then again the oxen of the villeins are carefully distinguished from the oxen of the demesne, while often enough they are not distinguished from the oxen of those who in every sense are free tenants[175]. Now as regards both the land and the oxen we seem put to the dilemma that either they belong to the lord or else they belong to the villeins. We cannot avoid this dilemma, as we can in later days, by saying that according to the common law the ownership of these things is with the lord, while according to the custom of the manor it is with the villeins, for we believe that a hall-moot, a manorial court, is still a somewhat exceptional institution.
On the whole we can hardly doubt that both in their land and in their oxen the villeins have had rights protected by law. Let us glance once more at the scheme of bót and wer that has been in force. A villein is slain; the manbót payable to his lord is marked off from the much heavier wergild that is payable to his kindred. If all that a villein could have belonged to his lord such a distinction would be idle.