he　people　admitted　to　use　them　and　those　excluded　from　this　benefit。　One　part　of　the　revolution　effected　by　the　development　of　royal　jurisdiction　is　very　noticeable　in　our　documents：　the　struggle　between　king　and　magnates　as　to　the　right　of　judging　freeholders　has　left　many　traces；　of　which　the　history　of　the　'breve　quod　vocatur　praecipe'　is　perhaps　the　most　remarkable。　But　the　victorious　progress　of　royal　jurisdiction　in　regard　to　freeholders　was　counter…balanced　by　an　all　but　complete　surrender　of　it　in　regard　to　villains。　The　celebrated　tit。　29　of　William　the　Conqueror's　laws　providing　that　the　cultivators　of　the　land　are　not　to　be　subjected　to　new　exactions；　had　lost　its　sense　in　the　reign　of　Henry　II；　and　so　soon　as　it　was　settled　that　one　class　of　tenants　was　to　be　protected；　while　another　was　to　be　unprotected　in　the　king's　court；　the　lawyers　set　themselves　thinking　over　the　problem　of　a　definite　and　plain　division　of　classes。　Their　work　in　this　direction　bears　all　the　marks　of　a　fresh　departure。　They　are　wavering　between　the　formal　and　the　material　test：　instead　of　setting　up　at　once　the　convenient　doctrine　that　villainage　is　proved　by　stock；　and　that　in　regard　to　service　and　tenure　the　question　is　decided　by　their　certainty　or　uncertainty；　they　try　for　a　long　time　to　shape　conclusive　rules　as　to　the　kind　of　services　and　incidents　which　imply　villainage；　and　for　a　time　distinction　between　rural　labour　and　rent　becomes　especially　important。　　　　　On　the　whole；　I　think　that　an　analysis　of　the　legal　and　manorial　evidence　belonging　to　the　feudal　age　leads　forcibly　to　the　conclusion　that　the　general　classification　of　society　under　the　two　heads　of　freeholders　and　villains　is　an　artificial　and　a　late　one。　A　number　of　important　groups　appear　between　the　two）　and　if　we　try　to　reduce　them　to　some　unity；　we　may　say　that　a　third　class　is　formed　by　customary　freeholders。　Another　way　of　stating　the　same　thing　would　be　to　say；　that　the　feudal　notion　of　a　freehold　from　which　the　modern　notion　has　developed　must　be　supplemented　from　the　point　of　view　of　the　historian　by　a　more　ancient　form　which　is　hidden；　as　it　were；　inside　the　class　distinction　of　villainage。　By　the　side　of　the　freeholder　recognised　by　later　law　there　stands　the　villain　as　a　customary　freeholder　who　has　lost　legal　protection。　I　do　not　think　that　the　problems　resulting　from　the　ambiguous　position　of　the　feudal　villain　can　be　solved　better　than　on　the　supposition　of　this　'third　estate。'
  NOTES：
  1。　Chandler；　Court　Rolls　of　Great　Cressingham；　p。　14：　'20　solidi　de　toto　Homagio　quia　recusaverunt　preparare　fenum　domini。　Debitum　ponatur　in　respectum　usque　proximam　curiam　et　interea　scrutatur　le　Domesday。'　A　manorial　extent　is　evidently　meant。　Comp。　Domesday　of　St。　Paul's。
  2。　Ely　Inq。；　Cotton　MSS。；　Claudius；　C。　xi。　60；　a：　'Anelipemen；　Anelipewyman　et　coterellus　manens　super　terram　episcopi　vel　terram　alicuius　custumariorum　suorum　metet　unam　sellionem　in　autumpno　ex　consuetudine　que　vocatur　luuebene。'　Cp。　42；　a；　'quilibet　anlepiman　et　anlepiwyman　et　quiibet　undersetle　metet　dimidiam　acram　bladi；'　etc。；　and　Ramsey；　Cart。i　50。　　I　have　not　been　able　to　find　a　satisfactory　etymological　explanation　of；　anelipeman；；　but　he　seems　a　small　tenant；　and　sometimes　settled　on　the　land　of　a　villain。
  3。　Of　course　in　later　times　the　test　applied　in　drawing　the　line　between　freehold　and　baser　tenure　was　much　rather　the　mode　of　conveyance　than　anything　else。　The　commutation　into　money　rent　of　labour　services　due　from　a　tenement；　held　by　copy　of　court　roll；　（a　commutation　which　in　some　cases　was　not　effected　before　the　fifteenth　century）；　did　not　convert　the　tenement　into　freehold；　had　it　done　so；　there　would　have　been　no　copyhold　tenure　at　the　present　day。　But　I　am　here　speaking　of　the　thirteenth　century　when　this；　conveyancing　test；　could　not　be　readily　applied；　when　the　self…same　ceremony　might　be　regarded　either　as　the　feoffment　by　subinfeudation　of　a　freehold　tenant　or　the　admittance　of　a　customary　tenant；　there　being　neither　charter　on　the　one　hand　nor　entry　on　a　court　roll　on　the　other　hand。　Thus　the　nature　of　the　services　due　from　the　tenement　had　to　be　considered；　and；　at　least　in　general；　a　tenement　which　merely　paid　a　money　rent　was　deemed　freehold。