quarters　and　get　bound　up　together　only　through　economic　conditions。　　　　　The　same　observations　hold　good　in　regard　to　other　customs　which　come　to　be　considered　as　implying　personal　servitude。（53*）　Merchet　was　the　most　striking　consequence　of　unfreedom；　but　manorial　documents　are　wont　to　connect　it　with　several　others。　It　is　a　common　thing　to　say　that　a　villain　by　birth　cannot　marry　his　daughter　without　paying　a　fine；　or　permit　his　son　to　take　holy　orders；　or　sell　his　calf　or　horse；　that　he　is　bound　to　serve　as　a　reeve；　and　that　his　youngest　son　succeeds　to　the　holding　after　his　death。（54*）　This　would　be　a　more　or　less　complete　enumeration；　and　I　need　not　say　that　in　particular　cases　sometimes　one　and　sometimes　another　item　gets　omitted。　The　various　pieces　do　not　fit　well　together：　the　prohibition　against　selling　animals　is　connected　with　disabilities　as　to　property；　and　not　derived　directly　from　the　personal　tie；（55*）　as　for　the　rule　of　succession；　it　testifies　merely　to　the　fact　that　the　so…called　custom　of　Borough　English　was　most　widely　spread　among　the　unfree　class。　The　obligation　of　serving　as　a　reeve　or　in　any　other　capacity　is　certainly　derived　from　the　power　of　a　lord　over　the　person　of　his　subject；　he　had　it　always　at　his　discretion　to　take　his　man　away　from　the　field；　and　to　employ　him　at　pleasure　in　his　service。　Lastly；　the　provision　that　the　villain　may　not　allow　his　son　to　receive　holy　orders　stands　on　the　same　level　as　the　provision　that　he　may　not　give　his　daughter　in　marriage　outside　the　manor：　either　of　these　prohibited　transactions　would　have　involved　the　loss　of　a　subject。　　　　　We　must　place　in　the　same　category　all　measures　intended　to　prevent　directly　or　indirectly　the　passage　of　the　peasantry　from　one　place　to　the　other。　The　instructions　issued　for　the　management　of　the　Abbot　of　Gloucester's　estates　absolutely　forbid　the　practice　of　leaving　the　lord's　land　without　leave。（56*）　Still；　emigration　from　the　manor。　from　time　to　time　the　could　not　be　entirely　stopped；　inhabitants　wandered　away　in　order　to　look　out　for　fieldwork　elsewhere；　or　to　take　up　some　craft　or　trade。　In　this　case　they　had　to　pay　a　kind　of　poll…tax　（chevagium）；　which　was；　strictly　speaking；　not　rent：　very　often　it　was　very　insignificant　in　amount；　and　was　replaced　by　a　trifling　payment　in　kind；　for　instance；　by　the　obligation　to　bring　a　capon　once　a　year。（57*）　The　object　was　not　so　much　to　get　money　as　to　retain　some　hold　over　the　villain　after　he　had　succeeded　in　escaping　from　the　lord's　immediate　sway。　There　are　no　traces　of　a　systematic　attempt　to　tax　and　ransom　the　work　of　dependents　who　have　left　the　lord's　territory　nothing　to　match　the　thorough　subjection　in　which　they　were　held　while　in　the　manor。　And　thus　the　lord　was　forced　in　his　own　interest　to　accept　nominal　payments；　to　concentrate　his　whole　attention　on　the　subjects　under　his　direct　control；　and　to　prevent　them　as　far　as　possible　from　moving　and　leaving　the　land。　In　regulations　for　the　management　of　estates　we　often　find　several　paragraphs　which　have　this　object　in　view。　Sometimes　the　younger　men　get　leave　to　work　outside　the　lord's　possessions；　but　only　while　their　father　remains　at　home　and　occupies　a　holding。　Sometimes；　again；　the　licence　is　granted　under　the　condition　that　the　villain　will　remain　in　one　of　his　lord's　tithings（58*）；　an　obligation　which　could　be　fulfilled　only　if　the　peasant　remained　within　easy　reach　of　his　birth…place；　Special　care　is　taken　not　to　allow　the　villains　to　buy　free　land　in　order　to　claim　their　freedom　on　the　strength　of　such　free　possession。（59*）　Every　kind　of　personal　commendation　to　influential　people　is　also　forbidden。（60*）　　　　　Notwithstanding　all　these　rules　and　precepts；　every　page　of　the　documents　testifies　to　frequent　migrations　from　the　manors　in　opposition　to　the　express　will　of　the　landowners。　The　surveys　tell　of　serfs　who　settle　on　strange　land　even　in　the　vicinity　of　their　former　home。（61*）　It　is　by　no　means　exceptional　to　find　mention　of　enterprising　landlords　drawing　away　the　population　from　their　neighbours'　manors。（62*）　The　fugitive　villain　and　the　settler　who　comes　from　afar　are　a　well…marked　feature　of　this　feudal　society。（63*）　　　　　The　limitations　of　rights　of　property　have　left　as　distinct　traces　in　the　cartularies　as　the　direct　consequences　of　personal　unfreedom。　These　two　matters　are　connected　by　the　principle　that　everything　acquired　by　the　slave　is　acquired　by　his　master；　and　this　principle　finds　both　expression　and　application　in　our　documents。　On　the　strength　of　it　the　Abbot　of　Eynsham　takes　from　his　peasant　land　which　had　been　bought　by　the　latter's　father。（64*）　The　case　dates　from　the　second　half　of　the　fourteenth　century；　from　a　time　when　the　social　conflict　had　become　particularly　acute　in　consequence　of　the　Black　Death；　and　of　the　consequent　attempts　on　the　part　of　landlords　to　stretch　their　rights　to　the　utmost。　But　we　have　a　case　from　the　thirteenth　century：　the　Prior　of　Barnwell　quotes　the　abovementioned　rule　in　support　of　a　confiscation　of　his　villain's　land。（65*）　　In　both　instances　the　principle　is　laid　down　expressly；　but　in　other　cases　peasants　were　deprived　of　their　property　without　any　formal　explanation。　　　　　Of　course；　one　must　look　upon　such　treatment　as　exceptional。　But　an　important　and　constant　result　of　the　general　conception　is　to　be　found　in　some　of　the　regular　feudal　exactions。　The　villain　has　no　property　of　his　own；　and　consequently　he　cannot　transmit　property。　Strictly　speaking；　there　is　no　inheritance　in　villainage。　As　a　matter　of　fact　the　peasant's　property　did　not　get　confiscated　after　his　death；　but　the　heirs　had　to　surrender　a　part　of　it；　sometimes　a　very　considerable　one。　A　difference　is　made　between　chattels　and　land。　As　to　the　first；　which　are　supposed　to　be　supplied　by　the　lord；　the　duty　of　the　heir　is　especially　onerous；　On　the　land　of　the　Bishopric　of　Lichfield；　for　instance；　he　has　to　give　up　as　heriot　the　best　head　of　horned　cattle；　all　horses；　the　cart；　the　caldron；　all　woollen　cloth；　all　the　bacon；　all　the　swine　except　one；　and　all　the　swarms　of　bees。（66*）　The　villains　of　St。　Alban's　have　to　give　the　best　head　of　cattle；　and　all　house　furniture。（67*）　But　in　most　cases　only　the　best　beast　is　taken；　and　if　there　be　no　cattle　on　the　tenement；　then　money　has　to　be　paid　instead。（68*）　The　Cartulary　of　Battle　is　exceptionally　lenient　as　to　one　of　the　Abbey's　manors：（69*）　it　liberates　from　all　duty　of　the　kind　those　who　do　not　own　any　oxen；　It　sometimes　happens；　on　the　other　hand；　that　the　payment　is　doubled；　one　beast　is　taken　from　the　late　occupier　by　way　of　heriot；　and　the　other　from　his　widow　for　the　life　interest　which　is　conceded　to　her　after　the　death　of　her　husband。（70*）　Such　'free　bench'　is　regulated　very　differently　by　different　customs。　The　most　common　requirement　is；　that　the　widow　may　not　marry　again　and　must　remain　chaste。　In　Kent　the　widow　has　a　right　to　half　the　tenement　for　life；　even　in　case　of　a　second　marriage；　in　Oxfordshire；　if　she　marries　without　the　lord's　leave；　she　is　left　in　possession　only　during　a　year　and　a　day。（71*）　　　　　In　all　these　instances；　when　a　second　payment　arises　alongside　of　the　heriot；　such　a　payment　receives　also　the　name　of　heriot　because　of　this　resemblance；　although　the　two　dues　are　grounded　on　different　claims；　The　true　heriot　is　akin　in　name　and　in　character　to　the　Saxon　'here…geat'　　to　the　surrender　of　the　military　outfit　supplied　by　the　chief　to　his　follower。　In　feudal　times　and　among　peasants　it　is　not　the　war…horse　and　the　armour　that　are　meant；　ox　and　harness　take　their　place；　but　the　difference　is　not　in　the　principle；　and　one　may　even　catch　sometimes　a　glimpse　of　the　process　by　which　one　custom　shades　off　into　the　other。　On　the　possessions　of　St。　Mary　of　Worcester；　for　instance；　we　find　the　following　enactment：（72*）　Each　virgate　has　to　give　three　heriots；　that　is　a　horse；　harness；　and　two　oxen；　the　half…virgate　two　heriots；　that　is　a　harnessed　horse　and　one　ox；　other　holdings　give　either　a　horse　or　an　ox。　In　such　connexion　the　payment　has　nothing　servile　about　it；　and　simply　appears　as　a　consequence　of　the　fact　or　assumption　that　the　landlord　has　provided　his　peasant　with　the　necessary　outfit　for　agricultural　work。　And　still　the　heriot　is　constantly　mentioned　along　with　the　merchet　as　a　particularly　base　payment；　and　though　it　might　fall　on　the　succession　of　a　free　man　holding　in　villainage；　it　is　not　commonly　found　on　free　land。　the　fact　that　this　old　Saxon　incident　of　dependence　becomes　in　the　feudal　period　a　mark　of　servile　tenure；　is　a　fact　not　without　significance。　　　　　It　is　otherwise　with　the　relief　（relevium）；　the　duty　levied　for　the　resumption　of　the　holding　by　the　heir：　it　extends　equally　to　military　tenure　and　to　villainage。　Although　the　heriot　and　relief　get　mixed　up　now　and　then；　their　fundamental　difference　is　realised　by　the　great　majority　of　our　documents　and　well　grounded　on　principle。　In　one　case　the　chattels　are　concerned；　in　the　other　the　tenement；　one　is　primarily　a　payment　in　kind；　the　other　a　money…fine。　As　to　the　amount　of　the　relief　the　same　fluctuations　may　be　traced　as　in　the　case　of　the　heriot。　the　most　common　thing　is　to　give　a　year's　rent；　but　in　some　instances　the　heir　must　settle　with　the　lord　at　the　latter's　will；