personal　representative；　the　steward；　then　six　men　from　the　township　attend　in　his　place。　The　question　arises　naturally；　where　is　one　to　look　for　the　small　freeholders　in　the　enactment？　However　much　we　may　restrict　their　probable　number；　their　existence　cannot　be　simply　denied　or　disregarded。　It　does　not　seem　likely　that　they　were　treated　as　landlords　（terrarum　domini）；　and　one　can　hardly　escape　the　inference　that　they　are　included　in　the　population　of　the　township；　which　appears　through　the　medium　of　the　six　hundredors：　another　hint　that　the　class　division　underlying　the　whole　structure　did　not　coincide　with　the　feudal　opposition　between　freeholder　and　villain。　Again；　in　the　great　hundred　for　the　view　of　frankpledge；　which　is　distinguished　from　the　ordinary　hundred　by　fuller　attendance；　and　not　by　any　fundamental　difference　in　constitution；　all　men　are　to　appear　who　are　'free　and　worthy　of　their　wer　and　their　wite：'（36*）　this　expression　seems　an　equivalent　to　the　'free　and　lawful'　men　of　other　cases；　and　at　the　same　time　it　includes　distinctly　the　great　bulk　of　the　villain　population　as　personally　free。　　　　　I　have　not　been　able；　in　the　present　instance；　to　keep　clear　of　the　evidence　belonging　to　the　intermediate　period　between　the　Saxon　and　the　feudal　arrangements　of　society；　this　deviation　from　the　general　rule；　according　to　which　such　evidence　is　to　be　discussed　separately　and　in　connexion　with　the　Conquest；　was　unavoidable　in　our　case；　because　it　is　only　in　the　light　of　the　laws　of　Henry　I　that　some　important　feudal　facts　can　be　understood。　in　a　trial　as　to　suit　of　court　between　the　Abbot　of　Glastonbury　and　two　lay　lords；　the　defendants　plead　that　they　are　bound　to　appear　at　the　Abbot's　hundred　court　personally　or　by　attorney　only　on　the　two　law…days；　whereas　for　the　judgment　of　thieves　their　freemen；　their　reeves　and　ministers　have　to　attend　in　order　to　take　part　in　the　judgment。（37*）　It　is　clearly　a　case　of　substitution；　like　the　one　mentioned　in　Leg。　Henrici；　c。　7；　and　the　point　is；　that　the　representatives　of　the　fee　are　designated　as　reeves　and　freemen。　Altogether　the　two　contradictory　aspects　in　which　the　hundredors　are　made　to　appear　can　hardly　be　explained　otherwise　than　on　the　assumption　of　a　fluctuation　between　the　conception　of　the　hundred　as　of　an　assembly　of　freemen；　and　its　treatment　under　the　influence　of　feudal　notions　as　to　social　divisions。　In　one　sense　the　hundredors　are　villains：　they　come　from　the　vill；　represent　the　bulk　of　its　population；　which　consists　of　villains；　and　are　gradually　put　on　a　different　footing　from　the　greater　people　present。　In　another　sense　they　are　free　men；　and　even　treated　as　freeholders；　because　they　form　part　of　a　communal　institution　intended　to　include　the　free　class　and　to　exclude　the　servile　class。（38*）　If　society　had　been　arranged　consistently　on　the　feudal　basis；　there　would　have　been　no　room　for　the　representation　of　the　vill　instead　of　the　manor；　for　the　representation　of　the　vill　now　by　the　lord　and　now　by　a　deputation　of　peasants；　for　a　terminology　which　appears　to　confuse　or　else　to　neglect　the　distinction　between　free　and　servile　holding。　As　it　is；　the　intricate　constitution　of　the　hundred；　although　largely　modified　and　differentiated　by　later　law；　although　cut　up　as　it　were　by　the　feudal　principle　of　territorial　service；　looks　still　in　the　main　as　an　organisation　based　on　the　freedom　of　the　mass　of　the　people。（39*）　The　free　people　had　to　attend　virtually；　if　not　actually；　and　a　series　of　contradictions　sprang　up　from　the　attempt　to　apply　this　principle　to　a　legal　state　which　had　almost　eliminated　the　notion　of　freedom　in　its　treatment　of　peasantry　on　villain　land。　As　in　these　feudal　relations　all　stress　lay　on　tenure　and　not　on　status；　the　manorial　documents　seem　to　raise　the　hundredors　almost　or　quite　to　the　rank　of　freeholders；　although　in　strict　law　they　may　have　been　villains。　The　net　results　seem　to　be：　（1）　that　the　administrative　constitution　of　hundred　and　county　is　derived　from　a　social　system　which　did　not　recognise　the　feudal　opposition　between　freeholder　and　villain；　（2）　that　we　must　look　upon　feudal　villainage　as　representing　to　a　large　extent　a　population　originally　free；　（3）　that　this　original　freedom　was　not　simply　one　of　personal　status；　but　actually　influenced　the　conception　of　tenure　even　in　later　days。（40*）　　　　　If　in　manorial　documents　these　'hundredors'　occupy　as　it　were　an　ambiguous　position；　the　same　may　be　said　of　another　and　a　very　important　class　　the　socmen。　The　socage　tenure　has　had　a　very　curious　terminological　history。　Everybody　knows　that　it　appears　in　Domesday　as　a　local　peculiarity　of　Danish　districts；　in　modern　law　it　came　to　be　a　general　name　for　any　freehold　that　was　neither　knight　service；　frankalmoign；　nor　grand　sergeanty。　It　became　in　fact　the　normal　and　typical　free　tenure；　and　as　such　it　was　treated　by　the　Act　of　Charles　II　abolishing　military　tenure。　Long　before　this　　even　in　the　thirteenth　century　　'free　socage'　was　the　name　of　a　freehold　tenure　fully　protected　by　the　King's　Courts。　Very　great　men　occasionally　held　land　in　free　socage　（per　liberum　socagium）；　they　even　held　of　the　King　in　chief　by　free　socage；　and　the　tenure　had　many　advantages；　since　it　was　free　from　the　burdensome　incidents　of　wardship　and　marriage。　But　no　one　would　have　called　these　men　socmen　（sokemanni；　socomanni）。　On　the　other　hand；　the　socmen；　free　socmen；　were　to　he　found　all　over　England　and　not　in　the　Danish　country　only。　It　is　of　the　tenure　of　these　socmen　that　we　have　to　speak　now。　In　a　trial　of　Edward　the　First's　time　the　counsel　distinguish　three　manners　of　persons　　free　men；　villains；　and　socmen。　These　last　are　said　to　occupy　an　intermediate　position；　because　they　are　as　statu　liberi　in　regard　to　their　lords。（41*）　The　passage　occurs　in　a　case　relating　to　ancient　demesne；　but　the　statement　is　made　quite　broadly；　and　the　term　'socmen'　is　used　without　any　qualification。　As　there　were　many　socmen　outside　the　King's　possessions　on　the　land　of　lay　and　spiritual　lords；　such　usage　may　be　taken　as　proof　that　the　position　of　all　these　people　was　more　or　less　identical。　And　so　in　our　inquiry　as　to　the　characteristic　traits　of　socage　generally　we　may　start　from　the　ancient　demesne。　Further；　we　see　that　the　socman's　tenure　is　distinguished　from　free　tenure；　socmen　from　freeholders。　In　the　law　books　of　the　time　the　free　but　non…military　tenure　has　to　be　characterised　not　merely　as　socage；　but　as　free　socage：　this　fact　will　give　us　a　second　clue　in　analysing　the　condition。　　　　　There　are　two　leading　features　in　ancient　demesne　socage：　it　is　certain　in　tenure　and　service；　and　it　is　held　by　the　custom　of　the　manor　and　not　by　feoffment。　The　certainty　of　the　tenure　severs　the　class　of　socmen　from　the　villains；　and　is　to　be　found　as　well　in　the　case　of　socmen　outside　the　crown　demesne　as　in　the　case　of　socmen　on　the　crown　demesne。　What　is　to　be　said　of　the　second。　trait？　It　seems　especially　worthy　of　notice；　because　it　cannot　be　said　to　belong　to　freehold　generally。　As　to　its　existence　on　ancient　demesne　land　I　have　already　had　occasion　to　speak；　and　it　can　hardly　be　doubted。　I　will　just　recall　to　the　reader's　mind　the　fundamental　facts：　that　the　'little　writ　of　right'　was　to　insure　justice　according　to　the　custom　of　the　manor；　and　that　our　documents　distinguish　in　as　many　words　between　the　customary　admittance　of　the　socman　and　the　feoffment　of　the　freeholder。　This　means；　that　in　case　of　litigation　the　one　had　warranty　and　charter　to　lean　upon；　while　the　other　had　to　appeal　to　the　communal　testimony　of　his　fellow…suitors　in　the　court　of　the　manor；　and　in　later　days　to　an　entry　on　the　court…roll。　Freehold　appeared　as　chartered　land　（book…land）；　while　socage　was　in　truth　copyhold　secured　by　communal　custom。（42*）　The　necessary　surrender　and　admittance　was　performed　in　open　court；　and　the　presence　of　fellow…tenants　was　as　much　a　requisite　of　it　as　the　action　of　the　lord　or　his　steward。　　　　　If　we　look　now　to　the　socmen　outside　the　ancient　demesne；　we　shall　find　their　condition　so　closely　similar；　that　the　documents　constantly　confuse　them　with　the　tenants　of　the　ancient　demesne。　The　free　men　under　soke　in　the　east　of　England　have　best　kept　the　tradition；　but　even　their　right　is　often　treated　as　a　mere　variation　of　ancient　demesne。（43*）　For　this　reason　we　should　be　fairly　entitled；　I　think；　to　extend　to　them　the　notion　of　customary　freehold。　There　is　direct　evidence　in　this　respect。　In　extents　of　manors　socmen　are　often　distinguished　from　freeholders。（44*）　True；　as　already　said；　that　in　the　king's　courts　'free　socage'　came　to　be　regarded　as　one　of　the　freehold　tenures；　and　as　such　（when　not　on　the　ancient　demesne）　was　protected　by　the　same　actions　which　protected　knight…service　and　frankalmoign；　but　we　have　only　here　another　proof　of　the　imperfect　harmony　between　legal　theory　and　manorial　administration。　What　serves　in　the　manorial　documents　to　distinguish　the　'socman'　from　the　'freeholder'　is　the　fact　that　the　former　holds　without　charter。（45*）　We　are　naturally　led　to　consider　him　as　holding；　at　least　originally；　by　ancient　custom　and　communal　testimony　in　the　same　sense　as　the　socmen　of　ancient　demesne。　In　most　cases　only　the　negative　side；　namely　the　absence　of　a　charter；　is　m