Ploughmenwhohaveperformedtheirploughingonthelord’slandbadly，villainswhohavefledfromthefeeandliveonstrangesoil，amanwhohasnotfulfilledsomeinjunctionofthelord，awomanwhohaspickedalockappendedtothedoorofhercottagebyamanorialbailiff，aninveterateadultererwholosesthelord’schattelsbybeingfinedintheecclesiasticalcourts——
　　allthesedelinquentsofverydifferentkindsarepresentedtobepunished，andgetamercedorputintothestocks，accordingtothenatureoftheiroffences。Itoughttobenoticedthatanactioncommittedagainsttheinterestsofthelordisnotpunishedbyanyone-sidedactofhiswill，orbythecommandofhissteward，buttreatedasamatteroflegalpresentment。Thenegligentploughmanisnottakentotaskdirectlybythebailifforanyotheroverseer，butispresentedasanoffenderbyhisfellow-peasants，andaccordingtostrictlegalformality。Ontheotherhand，theentriesarewordedinsuchawaythatthepartplayedbythecourtisquiteclearonlyastothepresentingofmisdeeds，whiletheamercementorpunishmentisdecreedinsomemannerwhichisnotspecifiedexactly。Weread，forinstance，inarolloftheAbbeyofBechow’thecourthaspresentedthatSimonCombehassetupafenceonthelord’sland。Thereforeletitbeabated……Thecourtpresentedthatthefollowinghadencroachedonthelord’sland，towit，WilliamCobbler，MaudRobins，widowfined12d。，JohnShepherdfined12s。。
　　Thereforetheyareinmercy。’45*Whohasorderedthefencetobethrowndown，andwhohasimposedthefinesonthedelinquents？
　　Themostnaturalinferenceseemstobethatthepenaltieswereimposedbythelordorthepresidingofficerwhorepresentedhiminthecourt。Butitisbynomeansimpossiblethatthecourtitselfhadtodecideonthepenaltyortheamountoftheamercementafterfirstmakingthepresentmentastothefact。Itsactionwouldmerelydivideitselfintotwoindependentdecisions。
　　Suchaprocedurewouldbeanecessityinthecaseofafreetenantwhocouldnotbefinedatwill；andthereisnothingtoshowthatitwasentirelydifferentinregardtotheserviletenantry。Whenthelordinterferesatpleasurethisisnotedasanexceptionalfeature。46*Itisquitepossible，again，thattheamercementwasimposedontheadviceorbyadecisionofcertainsuitorssingledoutfromtherestaspersonsofspecialcredit，asinacasefromthesamemanorialrollsofBec。47*Itishardlynecessarytodrawverypreciseconclusions，asthefunctionsofthesuitorsdonotappeartohavebeensharplydefined。Butforthisveryreasonitwouldbewrongtospeakoftheone-sidedrightofthelordorofhisrepresentativetoimposethepenalty。
　　Thecharacteristicmixtureofdifferentelementswhichwenoticeinthecriminaljurisdictionofthemanorialcourtmaybeseenalsoifweexamineitsciviljurisdiction。Wefindthehalimottreatinginitshumbleregionallthequestionsoflawwhichmaybedebatedinthecourtsofcommonlaw。Seisin，inheritance，dower，leases，andthelikearediscussed，andthepleading，thoughsubjecttothecustomofthemanor，takesverymuchtheshapeofthecontentionsbeforetheroyaljudges。Nowthiscivillitigationisinterestingfromtwopointsofview：itinvolvesstatementsoflawanddecisionsastotherelativevalueofclaims。Inbothrespectsthepartieshavetorefertothebodyofthecourt，toitsassessorsorsuitors。Theinfluenceofthe’country’onthejudgmentgoesfurtherherethanintheCommonLawCourts，becausethereisnoindependentcommonlawtogoby，andthecustomofthemanorhasgenerallytobemadeoutbythemanorialtenantsthemselves。Andsoaparty’putshimselfonhiscountry’，notonlyinordertodecidesomeissueoffact，butalsoinregardtopointsofcustomarylaw。Inquisitionsaremadeandjuriesformedquiteasmuchtoestablishthejurisprudenceofthecourtastodecidewhohasthebetterclaimunderthesaidjurisprudence。Theoreticallyitisthefullcourtwhichisappealedto，butinordinarycasesthedecisionrestswithajuryoftwelve，orevenofsix。Theauthorityofsuchaverdictgoesbackhowevertothesupposedjuridicalsenseorjuridicalknowledgeofthecourtasabody。Nowitcannotbecontestedthatsuchanorganisationofjusticeplacesalltheweightofthedecisionwiththebodyofthesuitorsasassessors。Thepresidingofficerandthelordwhomherepresentshavenotmuchtodointhecourseofthedeliberation。IfwemaytakeupthecomparisonwhichMrMaitlandhasdrawnwithGermanprocedure，48*weshallsaythatthe’Urtheilfinder’haveallthebestofitinthetrialasagainstthe’Richter。’This’Richter’isseeminglyleftwiththedutiesofachairman，andtheformalrighttodrawupandpronounceadecisionwhichismateriallydependentontherulingofthecourt。Butaspecialreserveofequityisleftwiththelord，andinconsequenceofitsoperationwefindsomedecisionsandsentencesaltered，ortheirexecutionpostponed。49*IhavetoendorseonemorepointofMrMaitland’sexposition，namely，hisviewofthepresentmentsystemasofagradualmodificationoftheoriginalstandingofthemanorialsuitorsastrueassessorsofthecourt。Throughtheinfluenceoftheprocedureofroyalcourts，ontheonehand，ofthestringentclassificationsofthetenantryinregardtostatusontheother，thepresentersweregraduallydebased，andlegallearningcametomaintainthattheonlyjudgeofacustomarycourtwasitssteward。Butapresentmentofthekinddescribedinthemanorialrollsvouchesforaveryindependentpositionofthesuitors，andindeedfortheirprevalentauthorityintheconstitutionofthetribunal。
　　Theconveyancingentries，althoughbarrenandmonotonousatfirstsight，areveryimportant，insofarastheyshow，betterperhapsthananythingelse，thepartplayedbythecommunityandbyitstestimonyinthetransmissionofrights。Ithasbecomeacommon-placetoarguethatthepracticeofsurrenderandadmittancecharacterisestheabsoluteownershipthatthelordhasinthelandheldinvillainage，andproceedsfromthefactthateveryholderofservilelandisintruthmerelyanoccupieroftheplotbyprecarioustenure。Everychangeofoccupationhastobeperformedthroughthemediumofthelordwho’re-enters’thetenement，andconcedesitagainasiftherehadbeennopreviousoccupationatallandthenewtenantenteredonaholdingfreshlycreatedforhisuse。Nonetheless，atheorywhichlaysallthestressinthecaseonthesurrenderintothehandofthelord，andexplainsthisactfromthepointofviewofabsoluteownership，iswronginmanyrespects。
　　Tobeginwiththelegaltransmissionofafreeholding，althoughtheelementofsurrenderhasasitwereevaporatedfromit，itisquiteasmuchboundupwiththefictionoftheabsoluteownershipofthelordasisthesurrenderandadmittanceofvillainsandcopyholders。Theceremonyofinvestiturehadnoothermeaningbutthatofshowingthatthetrueownerre-enteredintotheexerciseofhisright，andeveryactofhomageforlandwasconnectedwithanactoffeoffmentwhich，thoughobligatory，firstbycustomandthenbylaw，wasneverthelessnomerepageant，becauseitgaverisetoveryseriousclaimsofserviceandcasualrightsintheshapeofwardship，marriage，andthelike。Thekingwhowantedtobeeverybody’sheirwasmuchtooconsequentanexponentofthefeudaldoctrine，andhissuccessorswereforcedintoagentlerpractice。Butthefictionofhigherownershipwaslurkingbehindallthesecontentionsoftheupperclassquiteasmuchasbehindtheconveyancingceremoniesofthemanorialcourt。Andinbothcasesthefictionstretcheditsstandardofuniformityoververydifferentelements：allodialownershipwasmodifiedbyasubjectiontothe’dominiumdirectum，’ontheonehand；leasesandprecariousoccupationwerecrystalisedintotenure，ontheother。Itisnotmyobjecttotracetheparalleloffreeandpeasantholdinginitsdetails，butIlaystressontheprinciplethattheprivilegedtenureinvolvedthenotionofapersonalconcessionquiteasmuchasdidthebasetenure，andthatthisfundamentalnotionmadeitselffeltbothinconveyancingformalitiesandinpracticalclaims。
　　Iameveninclinedtogofurther：itseemstomethatthemanorialceremonyofsurrenderandadmittance，asconsideredfromthepointofviewoflegalarchaeology，mayhavegonebacktoapracticewhichhasnothingtodowiththelord’sownership，althoughitwasultimatelyconstruedtoimplythisnotion。Thetenantenfeoffedofhisholdingontheconditionsofbasetenurewastechnicallytermedtenantbycopyofcourtrollortenantbytherod——parlaverge。Thisseconddenominationisconnectedwiththefactthat，incasesofsuccessionaswellasinthoseofalienation，theholdingpassedbytheceremonialactionofthestewardhandingarodtothepersonwhowastohavetheland。
　　Now，thisformalitylookscharacteristicenough；itisexactlythesameastheactionofthe’salman’inFrankishlawwherethetransmissionofpropertyiseffectedbythehandingofarodcalled’festuca。’Theimportantpointis，thatthe’salman’wasbynomeansarepresentativeoflordshiporownership’，butthenecessarymiddlemanprescribedbycustomarylaw，inordertogivethetransactionitsconsecrationagainstallclaimsofthirdpersons。TheSaliclaw，initstitle’deaffatomire，’presentstheceremonyinastillearlierstage：whenamanwantstogivehispropertytoanother，hehastocallinamiddlemanandwitnesses；intothehandsofthismiddlemanhethrowsarodtoshowthatherelinquishesallclaimtothepropertyinquestion。
　　Themiddlemanthenbehavesasownerandhost，andtreatsthewitnessestoamealinthehouseandonthelandwhichhasbeenentrustedtohim。Thethirdandlastactis，thatthisintermediatepersonpassesonthepropertytothedoneedesignatedbytheoriginalowner，andthisbythesameformalactofthrowingtherod。50*TheEnglishpracticehasswervedfromtheoriginal，becausetheofficeofthemiddlemanhaslapsedintothehandsofthesteward。ButtheCharacteristichandingoftherodhaswellpreservedthefeaturesoftheancient’laisuwerpitio’’thethrowingontothebosom’，and，indeed，itcanhardlybeexplainedonanyothersuppositionbutthatofasurvivalofthepractice。Ibegthereadertonoticetwopointswhichlookdecisivetome：thestewardwhenadmittingatenantdoesnotusetherodasasymbolofhisauthority，becausehedoesnotkeepit——hegivesittothepersonadmitted。Stillmore，inthesurrendertherodgoesfromthepeasant-holdertothesteward。Cantherebeadoubtthatitsymbolisestheplotofland，orrathertherightovertheplot，andthatinitspassagefromhandtohandthereisnothingtoshowthatthestewardasmiddlemanrepresentsabsoluteownership，whilethepeasantsatbothendsarerestrictedtomereoccupationonsufferance？51*
　　Isitnecessarytoexplainthattheseceremonialdetailsarenottriflesfromahistoricalpointofview？Theirarrangementisnotamatterofchancebutoftradition，andiflatergenerationsusetheirsymbolsmechanically，theydonotinventthemathaphazard。
　　Symbolsandceremoniesarebutoutwardexpressionsofideas，andthereforetheircombinationsareruledbyacertainlogicandareinstinctwithmeaning。Inasensetheirmeaningisdeeperandmoretobestudiedthanthatsuppliedbytheoriesexpressedinsomanywords：theygiveaninsightintoamoreancientorderofthings。Itmaybeasked，inconclusion，whyaFrankishformshouldbefoundprevalentinthecustomaryarrangementoftheEnglishmanorialsystem？Thefactwillhardlyappearstrangewhenweconsider，firstly，thatthesymbolicalactsofinvestitureandconveyancingwereverysimilarinOldEnglishandOldFrankishlaw，52*andthatmanypracticesofprocedurewereimportedintoEnglandfromFrance，throughthemediumofNormandy。Itisimpossibleatthepresentdatetotraceconclusivelytheceremoniesofsurrenderandadmittanceinalltheirvarietiesandstagesofdevelopment，butthemostprobablecourseofprogressseemstohavebeenapassagefromsymbolicalinvestitureinthefolk-lawoffreeEnglishceorlsthroughtheFrankishpracticeof’affatomire，’tothefeudalceremonyofsurrenderandadmittancebythesteward。
　　Andnowletustakeupthesecondthreadofourinquiryintothemanorialformsofconveyancing。Atenantbythevergeisalsoatenantbycopyofcourtroll。Thestewardwhopresidedatthecourthadtokeeparecordofitsproceedings，andthisrecordhadaprimaryimportancefortheservileportionofthecommunity。Whilethefreepeoplecouldenterintoagreementsandperformlegalactsintheirownnameandbycharter，thevillainshadtocontentthemselveswithceremonialactionsbeforethecourt。TheywerefaithfulinthisrespecttooldGermantradition，whiletheprivilegedpeoplefollowedprecedentswhichmaybeultimatelytracedtoaRomanorigin。Thecourtrollorrecordofmanorialcourtsenabledthebasetenanttoshow，forinstance，thatsomepieceoflandwashisalthoughhehadnochartertoproduceinproofofhiscontention。Andwefindtherollsappealedtoconstantlyinthecourseofmanoriallitigation。53*Buttherollswerenothingelsethanrecordsofactionsinthecourtandbeforethecourt。Theycouldactuallyguidethedecision，buttheirauthoritywasnotindependent；itwasmerelyderivedfromtheauthorityofthecourt。Forthisreasontheevidenceoftherolls，althoughveryvaluable，wasbynomeansindispensable。Aclaimantcouldgopastthemtotheoriginalfount，thatis，tothetestimonyofthecourt。Andherewemustkeepclearofamisconceptionsuggestedbyafirst-sightanalysisofthefactsathand。Itwouldseemthattheverdictofneighbours，towhichdebateableclaimsarereferredtointhemanorialcourts，standsexactlyonaparwiththeverdictsofjurymentakenbythejudgesoftheRoyalCourts。Thisisnotso，however。Itistruethatthestrivingofmanorialofficerstomaketheprocedureofhalimotesasmuchlikethecommonlawprocedureaspossible，wentfartoproducesimilaritybetweenformsofactions，presentments，verdictsandjuries，inbothsetsoftribunals。Butnevertheless，characteristicdistinctionsremainedtoshowthattheimportofsomeinstitutionsbroughtneareachotherinthiswaywaswidelydifferent。Ihavesaidalreadythatthepeasantsuitorsofthehalimoteareappealedtoonquestionsoflawaswellasonquestionsoffact。Butthemostimportantpointforourpresentpurposeisthis：thejurorscalledtosubstantiatetheclaimofapartyinatrialaremererepresentativesofthewholecourt。Thetestimonyofthecourtistakenindirectlythroughtheirmeans，andveryoftenresortishadtothattestimonywithouttheintermediatestageofajury。