Wehaveseenthattherewasonlyonehalimotinthethirteenthandtheprecedingcenturies，andthatthedivisionintocustomarycourtandcourtbarondevelopedatalatertime。
　　Wehaveseen，secondly，thatthishalimotwasameetingofthecommunityunderthepresidencyofthesteward，andthattherelativefunctionsofcommunityandstewardbecameverydistinctonlyinlaterdays。Itremainstobeseenhowfarthefundamentalclassdivisionbetweenfreetenantsandvillainsaffectedthemanagementofthecourt。Astherewasbutonehalimotandnottwo，bothclasseshadtomeetandtoactconcurrentlyinit。Thefreepeoplenowandthenassertseparateclaims：achaplainwageshislawonthemanorofBrightwalthamthathedidnotdefamethelord’sbutler，butwhenhegetsconvictedbyagoodinquestofjurorsofhavingbrokenthelord’shedgesandcarriedawaythelord’sfowls，hewillnotjustifyhimselfofthesetrespassesanddepartsincontempt，doubtlessbecausehewillnotsubmittothejudgmentofpeoplewhoarenotonaparwithhim。70*
　　Freeholdersobjecttobeingplacedonordinaryjuriesofthemanor，71*althoughtheywillserveasjurorsonspecialoccasions，andasasortofcontrollingbodyoverthecommonpresentersAmercementsaresometimestaxedbyfreesuitors。Butalthoughsomedivisionisapparentinthisway，andtheelementsforaseparationintotwodistinctcourtsaregathering，thenormalconditionisonewhichdoesnotadmitofanydistinctionbetweenthetwoclasses。Wecomehereacrossthesamepeculiaritythatwehaveseeninpoliceandcriminallaw，namely，thatthefundamentallineofcivilconditionseemsdisregarded。Evenwhenacourtismainlycomposedofvillains，andinfactcalledcuriavillanorum，someofitssuitorsmaybefreeholders。74*Eveninacourtcomposedoffreepeople，likethatofBroughton，theremaybevillainsamongthem。Theparson，undoubtedlyafreeman，mayappearasavillaininsomerolls。Altogether，thefacthastobenoticedasaveryimportantone，thatwhateverbusinessthefreeholdersmayhavehadinconnexionwiththemanorialsystem，thisbusinesswastransactedbycourtswhichconsistedchieflyofserviletenants。Infactthepresentinginquests，onwhichthefreetenantsrefusedtoserve，wouldnotbepreventedbytheircompositionfromattaintingthesefreetenants。
　　Thisseemsstrangeandindeedanomalous。Onepointremainstobeobservedwhichcompletesthepicture：althoughthegreatmajorityofthethirteenthcenturypeasantryaremerevillains，althoughonsomemanorswehardlydistinguishfreeholders，thereisalegalrequirementthatthereshouldbeatleastafewfreeholdersoneverymanor。Latertheorydoesnotrecogniseasamanoranestatecomposedonlyofdemesnelandandcopyhold。
　　Freeholdsaredeclaredtobeanecessaryelement，andshouldtheyallescheat，themanorwouldbeonlyareputedone。78*Wehavenorighttotreatthisnotionasamereinventionoflatertimes。
　　itcomesforwardagainandagainintheshapeofarule，thattherecanbenocourtunlesstherearesomefreetenantstoformit。Thenumberrequiredvaries。InHenryVIII’sreignroyaljudgeswerecontentedwithtwo。InJohn’stimeasmanyastwelveweredemanded，ifafreeoutsiderwastobejudged。Thenormalnumberseemstohavebeenfour，andwhentherecordoftheproceedingswassentuptotheKing’stribunalfoursuitorshadtocarryit。ThedifferencebetweenthestatementofCokeandtheearlierdoctrineliesinthesubstitutionofthemanorforthecourt。Cokeandhisauthorities，thejudgesofHenryVIII’sreign，speakofthemanorwheretheolderjurisprudencespokeofthecourt。Theirruleinvolvesthemoreancientoneandsomethinginaddition，namely，theinferencethatiftherebenocourtbaronthereisnomanor。Nowthispartofthedoctrine，thoughinterestingbyitself，muststandoverforthepresent。Letussimplytaketheassertionthatfreesuitorsarenecessarytoconstituteacourt，andapplyittoastateofthingswhentherewasbutonestrictlymanorialcourt，thehalimot。In1294itisnotedinthereportofatrialthat，’inorderthatonemayhaveacourthemusthaveatleastfourfreetenants，withoutborrowingthefourthtenant。’79*Nowanumberofeasyexplanationsseemathand：fourfreetenantsatleastwerenecessary，becausefoursuchtenantswererequiredtotaketherecorduptotheking’scourtandtoanswerforanyfalsejudgment；afreetenantcouldprotestagainstbeingimpleadedbeforeunfreepeople；someofthefranchisescouldnotbeexercisedunlesstherewerefreesuitorstoformatribunal。Butalltheseexplanationsdonotgodeepenough：theywoulddoverywellforthelatercourtbaron，butnotforthehalimot。Itisnotassertedthatfreesuitorsarenecessaryonlyinthosecaseswherefreetenantsareconcerned——itisthecourtassuchwhichdependsontheexistenceofsuchfreesuitors，thecourtwhichhaslargely，ifnotmostly，todealwithcustomarybusiness，andconsiststoagreatextentofcustomarytenants。And，curiouslyenough，whenthecourtbarondisengagesitselffromthehalimot，theruleastosuitors，insteadofapplyinginaspecialwaytothiscourtbaron，forwhichitseemsparticularlyfitted，extendstothenotionofthemanoritself，sothatwearedriventoaskwhythemanorisassumedtocontainacertainnumberoffreetenantsandacourtforthem。Whyisitsexistencedeniedwheretheseelementsarewanting？Revertingtothethirteenthcentury，wehavetostatesimilarpuzzlingquestions：thusifoneturnstothemanorialsurveysofthetime，thefreeholdelementseemstoberelativelyinsignificantandmoreorlessseveredfromthecommunity；ifonetakesupthemanorialrolls，thehalimotistherewiththeemphaticallyexpressedfeaturesandeventhenameofacourtofvillains；butwhenthecommonlawisconcerned，thissametribunalappearsasacourtoffreeholders。ThemanorsoftheAbbeyofBeconEnglishsoilcontainedhardlyanyfreeholdersatall。HadtheAbbeynocourts？HaditnomanorsfromthestandpointofCoke’stheory？Whatwerethehalimotswhoseproceedingsarerecordedintheusualwayonitsmanorialrolls？InpresenceoftheseflagrantcontradictionsIcannothelpthinkingthatweherecomeacrossoneofthoseinterestingpointswherethetwolinesoffeudaldoctrinedonotmeet，andwheredifferentlayersoftheorymaybedistinguished。
　　Withoutdenyingintheleastthepracticalimportanceofsuchnotionsasthatwhichrequiredthatone’sjudgesshouldbeone’speers，orofsuchinstitutionsasthebringingupofthemanorialrecordtotheKing’sCourt，Isubmitthattheymusthaveexercisedtheirinfluencechieflybycallingforthoccasionswhenthemainprinciplehadtobeasserted。Ofcoursetheycouldnotcreatethisprinciple：theideathatthehalimotwasacommunalcourtconstitutedbyfreesuitorsmeetingunderthepresidencyofthesteward，musthaveexistedtosupportthem。Thatideaisfullyembodiedintheconstitutionoftheancientdemesnetribunal，wherethesuitorswereadmittedtobethejudges，althoughtheywerevillains，privilegedvillainsandnothingelse。Mightwenotstartfromtheoriginalsimilaritybetweenancientdemesneandordinarymanors，andthusexplainhowtheruleastothenecessaryconstitutionofthemanorialcourtwasformed？Itseemstomeamereapplicationofthehigherrulethatacourtoverfreepeoplemustcontainfreepeople，toastateofthingswherethedistinctionbetweenfreeandunfreewasnotdrawnatthesamelevelasinthefeudalepoch，butwasdrawnatalowerpoint。Wehaveseenthatavillainwasinmanyrespectsafreeman；thathewasacceptedassuchincriminalandpolicebusiness；thathewasfreeagainsteverybodybuthislordincivildealings；thatthefrank-pledgesystemtowhichhebelongedwasactuallytakentoimplypersonalfreedom，althoughthefreeholdersultimatelyescapedfromit。Icannothelpthinkingthataliketransformationofmeaningasinthecaseoffrank-pledgedidtakeplaceinregardtothefreesuitorsofthemanorialcourt。Theoriginalrequirementcannothaveconcernedfreeholdersintheusuallegalsense，butfreeandlawfulmen，’worthyofwereandwite’——adescriptionwhichwouldcoverthegreatbulkofthevillainsandexcludeslavesandtheirprogeny。
　　Whenthedefinitionsoffreeholdingandvillainagegottobeverystringentandmarked，theliberetenentesassumedamoreandmoreoverbearingattitudeandgotaseparatetribunal，whilethecommonpeoplefellintothesameconditionastheprogenyofslaves。Inaword，IthinkthatthegeneralmovementofsocialdevelopmentwhichobliteratedthemiddleclassofSaxonceorlsorcustomaryfreetenantsleavingonlyafewscatteredindicationsofitsexistencemadeitselffeltinthehistoryofthemanorialcourtbythesubstitutionofexceptionalfreeholdersforthefreesuitorsofthehalimot。Suchasubstitutionhadseveralresults：
　　thediverginghistoryoftheancientdemesnefromthatoftheordinarymanorialcourts，theelevationofthecourtbaron，thegrowthofthenotionthatinthecustomarycourttheonlyjudgewasthesteward。Onesignificantlittletraitremainstobeobservedinthiscontext。ithasbeennoticed80*thatcareseemstobetakenthatthereshouldbecertainFreemenorFranklainsineverymanor。Thefeaturehasbeenmentionedinconnexionwiththedoctrineoffreesuitorsnecessarytoacourt。
　　Butthesepeoplearebynomeansfreetenants；intheusuallegalsensetheyaremostlyholdinginvillainage，andtheirfreedommustbetracednottothedualdivisionoffeudaltimes，buttosurvivalsofthethreefolddivisionwhichprecededfeudalism，andcontrastedslave，freeceorl，andmilitarylandowner。
　　BeforeconcludingthischapterIhavetosayafewwordsuponthoseformsofthemanorialcourtwhichappearasamodificationofthenormalinstitution。OftheancientdemesnetribunalIhavealreadyspoken，butthereareseveralotherpeculiarformationswhichhelptobringoutthemainideasofmanorialorganisation，justbecausetheyswervefromitinonesenseoranother。MrMaitlandhasspokensowellofoneofthesevariations，thatI
　　neednotdoanythingmorethanreferthereadertohispagesabouttheHonouranditsCourt。81*Hehasprovedthatitisnomereaggregateofmanors，butahighercourt，constructedonthefeudalprinciple，thateverylordwhohadfreetenantsunderhimcouldsummonthemtoformacourtfortheircommondealings。Itoughttobeobserved，however，thattheinstanceofBroughton，thoughitsmainbasisisundoubtedlythisfeudaldoctrine，stillappearscomplicatedbymanorialbusiness，whichisbroughtinbywayofappealandevocation，aswellasbyamixturebetweenthecourtofthegreatfiefandthehalimotofBroughton。
　　Asecondphenomenonwellworthconsiderationistheexistenceinsomepartsofthecountryofaunitofjurisdictionandmanagementwhichdoesnotfallinwiththemanor，——itiscalledthesoke，andcomprisesfreetenantrydispersedsometimesoveraverywidearea。AgoodexampleofthisinstitutionisgivenbyMrClark’spublicationontheSokeofRothleyinLincolnshire。82*
　　Weneednotgointothedetailsofthepersonalstatusofthetenants，theyclearlycomeunderthedescriptionoffreesokemen。
　　OurpresentconcernisthattheyarenotsimplyarrangedintothemanorofRothleyasusual，butaredistinguishedasformingthe。
　　sokeofthismanor。Theyarerathernumerous——twenty-three——
　　andcometothelord’scourt，buttheirservicesaretriflingascomparedwiththoseofthecustomers，andtheirpossessionsaresoscattered，thattherecouldbenotalkoftheirjoiningtheagrarianunitofthecentralestate。Whatunitesthemtothemanorisevidentlymerelyjurisdiction，althoughinfeudaltheorytheyareassumedtoholdofthelordofRothley。Buttheyaresetapartasformingthesoke，andthisshowsthemclearlytobesubjectedtojurisdictionratherthananythingelse。Itisinterestingtonotesuchsurvivalsinthethirteenthcentury，andwithintherealmoffeudallawthecaseofRothleyisofcoursebynomeanstheonlyone。83*Ifwecontrastthisexceptionalappearanceofthesokeoutsidethemanorwiththenormalarrangementbywhichallthefreetenantsarefittedintothemanor，weshallcometotheconclusionthatoriginallytheelementofjurisdictionoverfreeholdersmightexistseparatelyfromthemanagementoftheestate，butthatinthegeneralcourseofeventsitwasmergedintotheestateandformedoneofthecomponentelementsofthemanorialcourt。ThecaseofRothleyisespeciallyinterestingbecausethemenofthesokeorunderthesokedonotgotoacourtoftheirown，butsimplyjointhemanorialmeetings。Iftheyarestillkeptapart，itisevidentthattheirrelationtothecourt，andindeedtothemanor，waswhatmadethemdistinctfromeverybodyelse。Inshort，tostatethedifferenceinapointedform，theotherpeopleweretenantsandtheyweresubjects。