The motive adduced is worthy of notice by itself. 'Servus dicitur a servando,' a serf is a man under guardianship, like a woman in this respect[858], and so, if the guardian forgets his duty of taking care of his subject, he forfeits his rights. The Roman derivation 'a servando' is often met elsewhere, but instead of being applied to the bondman as a captive who has been kept alive instead of being slain, it is here made the starting point of a new conception and one very favourable to the bondman. It is not the only indication that the author of the Mirror had been speculating about the origin of servitude. By the law of nature all men are free, of course, but yet, says he, there exists by human law a class of men to whom nothing belongs, and who are considered as the property of other people: an anomaly which he guesses may possibly come from the time when Noah pronounced his malediction against Canaan, the son of Cham, or else from the defeat of Goliath by David[859].
It is curious too, and at first sight rather inconsistent, that our author sometimes speaks against those very serfs towards whom he seems, as a rule, so favourably disposed. He dwells on their disability, marks as an abuse that they are admitted to act in the courts without the help of their lords, although nothing can be owned by them[860], and, what is more, he insists on the necessity of their being excluded from the system of frank-pledge, which ought to be restricted entirely to free men[861]. All this seems rather strange at first, and certainly not in favour of liberty. It turns out, however, that these very qualifications are prompted by the same liberal spirit which we noticed from the first; they are suggested by a most characteristic attempt to draw a definite line between the serf and the villain.
The villain is no serf, in any sense of the word. He is a free man[862], his tenure is a free tenure[863]. He is enfeoffed of his land, with the obligation to till it, as the knight is enfeoffed of his fee in return for military service; the burgess enfeoffed of his freehold in the borough for a rent[864]. The right of ownership on the part of the villain is clearly recognised in the Great Charter, which prescribes the mode and extent of amercing villains, and thereby supposes their independent right of property, while the serf has nothing of his own, and could not be amerced in his own[865]. The author undoubtedly hits here on a point where the usual feudal theory had been discountenanced by statute: it was certainly difficult to maintain at the same time that the villain, as serf, had nothing but what had been precariously entrusted to him by the lord, and at the same time that he must suffer for misdeeds in the character of an owner. Strained in one sense the article of the Charter could be made to mean that, at the time of the Great Charter, there was no such thing as the civil disability of servitude in England. Strained in another sense suggested by the Mirror, it would lead to a standing distinction between villains, as owners, and serfs, as people devoid of civil rights. We know that legal practice preferred a compromise which was anything but consistent in point of doctrine, but, as I have said in my text, the notion of the civil right of the villain, and especially in his so-called wainage, seems to have been deep-rooted enough to counterbalance in some respects the current feudal doctrine.
It would have been difficult for the author of the Mirror to maintain that practice was in accordance with his theory; and he falls out of his part now and then, as, for instance, when he speaks of the enfranchisement of the serf from whom the lord had received homage in addition to fealty—this is a case clearly applying to villains as well as to those whom he calls serfs, and it is not the only time that he forgets the distinction[866]. But when his attention is not distracted by details he takes his ground on the assumption that the original rights of the villains were gradually falling into disuse through the encroachments of the stronger people. We even find in the Mirror that the villains ought to have the assise of novel disseisin as a remedy in case of dispossession. If they were oppressively made to render other than the accustomed services they had to resort to the writ, 'ne injuste vexes,' and it is a sign of bad times that they are getting deprived of it. Edward the Confessor took good care that the legal rights of the villains should not be curtailed[867]. It is needless again to point out that this view of villainage is well in keeping with the fundamental notion which I tried to bring out in my text, the notion, namely, that the law of villainage contained heterogeneous elements, and had been derived partly from the status of free ceorls.
IV.
[Coram Rege 10 Henry III, N. 26. m. 4. d.]
Assisa venit recognitura si Iohannes Cheltewynd iniuste etc. disseisiuit Willelmum filium Roberti de libero tenemento suo in Cheltewynd post ultimum etc. Et Iohannes venit et dicit quod non disseisiuit eundem Willelmum de aliquo libero tenemento quia villanus suus est et nullum habet liberum tenementum et quod Robertus pater suus fuit villanus. Et Willelmus dicit quod tenementum illud liberum est et quod Robertus pater suus libere tenuit de Ada patre Iohannis de Chetewod et per cartam quam profert in haec verba quod Adam de Chetwud concessit Roberto filio Wourami patri Willelmi et heredibus suis dimidiam virgatam terre cum pertinenciis in Chetwud in feodum et hereditatem tenendam de eodem Roberto et heredibus suis libere quiete cum omnibus consuetudinibus et libertatibus quas ceteri franci homines habent pro 26 denariis per annum reddendo pro omni servicio et pro omnibus rebus ad eum et heredes suos pertinentibus.
Et Iohannes bene cognoscit cartam illam et dicit quod idem Robertus fuit villanus patris sui et per pecuniam domini sui redemptus fuit a seruitute et quod antequam esset liberatus a servitute fuit idem Willelmus nativus, et petit judicium si per cartam quam pater suus ei fecerat debeat esse liber tempore Iohannis cum redemptus esset per pecuniam patris Iohannis et Robertus nichil proprium habuit cum esset villanus. Et dicit quod idem Willelmus non fuit nisi custos patris sui de eadem terra dum pater suus fuit alibi manens.