^{page 236 note 1} Cunningham, History of Industry and Commerce, i. 376, 402–3, 533; ii. 90.

^{page 236 note 2} L.Q.R. ix. 348 65.

^{page 236 note 3} E.H.R xv. 20–37.

^{page 237 note 1} Umwandlung der Frohndienste in Geldrenten, Baltimore, 1897Google Scholar; End of Villeinage in England, 1900, Public, of American Econ. Association. Cf. DrVinogradoff's, review of the latter work in E.H.R. xv. 774–81Google Scholar.

^{page 238 note 1} End of Villeinage, p. 99.

^{page 238 note 2} Trans. Roy. Hist. Soc. xiv. 123–41, ‘Decay of Villeinage in East Anglia.’

^{page 238 note 3} The passages that follow are mostly very well known. I apologise for repeating these old things, but it is necessary to put them together and to mark the differences between various authors.

^{page 239 note 1} Description of England, ii., 5th ed.New Shak. Soc. 1877Google Scholar.

^{page 239 note 2} De Republica Anglorum, iii., ch. viii., pp. 107–13, ed. 1583.

^{page 240 note 1} Dict. Nat. Biogr. and England under Protector Somerset (1900), p. 75, note.

^{page 241 note 1} Surveyinge, p. 13, ed. 1539.

^{page 241 note 2} Surveyor's Dialogue, pp. 77–9 (ed. 1607).

^{page 241 note 3} Ib. p. 105.

^{page 242 note 1} Notes and Queries, ser. 1, i. 139.

^{page 242 note 2} Norden's, survey of the manor is printed in the publications of the North Riding Record Soc. i. 13–63 (1894)Google Scholar. The passages quoted can be found on pp. 13, 21, 27.

^{page 242 note 3} Ch. xviii.

^{page 243 note 1} Kitchin, ed. 1580, p. 10; Adames, ed. 1593, p. 133.

^{page 243 note 2} Bill of Resumption of 1 H. VII. in Rotuli Parl. vi. 339 a–b, 3 H. VII. c. 3, 19 H. VII. c. 15, s. 4; Journal of the House of Lords, 28 H. VIII. 16 dic et 22 die huius parliamenti.

^{page 243 note 3} Works, vii. 437 (Reading of the Statute of Uses).

^{page 244 note 1} Doctor and Student, ed. Muchall, (1874)Google Scholar, ii., ch. xviii. May I remind that the doctor is a doctor of divinity and the student is a student of law?

^{page 245 note 1} Berkeley MSS. iii. 43 (1885). J. Smyth was steward of the Berkeley Hundred in 1597–1640. He wrote the passage in the thirties of the seventeenth century. I do not know who his ‘learned author’ is.

^{apge 246 note 1} See Appendix.

^{page 249 note 1} Here are some examples:—Rymer, xiv. 43–5 = Pat. 17 H. VIII.p. 2m. 20, many Lincolnshire manors; Yorkshire Archzol. Asstc. Journal, lxiii. (1902)Google Scholar, 333 = Close, 31 H. VIII. p. 4, n. 27, nunnery of Kirklees; East Anglian, vii. 274–5 = Pat. 35 H. VIII. p. 1, m. 27, Dry Drayton, Cambridgeshire; Dartmoor Preserv. Assoc. Publ. i. 161 = Pat. 38 H. VIII. p. 1, m. 35, Wolkehampton, Devonshire; Blashill, Sutton-in-Holderness, 134–6, 5 Edw. VI. Sutton, Yorkshire, E.R.; Boxall, , Records of the Duke of Manchester, manorial estates, manor of Kimbolton, Huntingdonshire, pp. 53–4Google Scholar, grant of 14 H. VIII.: ‘we have given all lands, tenements, rents, services, bond-tenants, and villeins etc’ pp. 57–9, conveyance of 1616. All court leets are alienated, with all that to court leets belonge Assize of bread, waifes etc., bondmen, bondwomen, and villeins, with their sequels, estovers etc.’ I mention also two examples of leases for years where ‘rents and services of freeholders and natives’ are entered: Campbell, , Henry VII. (Roll Series), ii, 333–4Google Scholar, 3 H. VII. Snettesham, Norfolk; Brewer, iv. 4993, 27 = Pat. 20 H. VIII. p. 1, m. 9, Grafton, Northamptonshire.

^{page 249 note 2} The accounts of 34 H. VIII. are printed in Dugdale's, Monasticon, ii. 124–6Google Scholar; iii. 232: (a) a battia de Croyland, Lincolnshire; redd' nativor' ten' cop' cur'; (d) a battia de Kyrkefee Lincolnshire; redd' assis' cūm redd' nativ' cop' voc' Kyrkefee; (c) manor of Gedney, Leicestershire; redd' nativor' feod' a is cῡ redd' ass'; (d) Holbeche, Cambridgeshire; redd' ass' cῡ redd' nativor' cop'; (e) Addyngton Parva et Magna, Northamptonshire; redd' ass' et terrar' nativor' cop' cur; (f) Sutton, Lincolnshire; redd' assis' cū redd' nativ.’ Of the same character is an entry in the Valor Eccl. iv. 4: Episcopatus Lincolnensis, manor of Farundon, Notts: redditus nativor' cū o ibus arrent' añum 23 l. 9 s. redd' ass' 6 l. 17 s. But the presence of bondmen in Farundon becomes highly probable if Farundon and Farneton is the same place (see my table). It is instructive to consider the use of the words nativi tenentes in the Cressingham Court Rolls (Norfolk), edited by Chandler, pp. 62 and 88, 5 H. VII. and 26 Eliz. I think that bond tenements, and not bondmen, are meant there.

^{page 250 note 1} Brewer, iv. 2000.

^{page 250 note 2} Chetham Society, Stanley Papers, vol. ii.Google Scholar The date is 1558.

^{page 250 note 3} Y.B. 14 H. VII. 5. Noy, Rep. 27 = Hil. 15 Jac. I. Common Bench (see my table, p. 286, note 4). Very interesting is a case in the Court of Requests, edited by Mr. Leadam for the Selden Society (xii. 42–6, Netheway v. Gorge, 25 H. VIII.) and interpreted in his articles in the L.Q.R. (ix. 348 sqq.). But I cannot agree with all details of Mr. Leadam's commentary. He thinks that the award of the defendant with the uncles of the plaintiff was a manumission. The matter is not perfectly clear for me. I think the rowdy and greedy knight had to give up because twenty witnesses stood unanimously for the plaintiff.

^{page 250 note 4} Here and in the next note I quote some cases of Edward IV.'s time, but I do not include them in my table. Y.B. 21 Edw. IV. 5 and 181, 11 H. VII. 13;Dyer, , Rep. 266Google Scholarb and 283, where the Court found the defendant to be villein. Cf. Y.B. 22 H. VI. pp. 30–3, giving two very interesting cases.

^{page 251 note 1} The Year Books and the early reports are no mere records of Court proceedings; they have something of the nature of text-books; in every case those points only are reported which have a legal interest. Very often we do not know the decision. Y.B. 2 E. IV. 5, 6 E. IV. 8, 12 E. IV. 4, 13 E. IV. 2–4, 15 E. IV. 32+17, E. IV. 3, 13 H. VII. 17; Dyer, , Rep. 48Google Scholarb; Paschal, 33 H. VIII.; Star Chamber Proc. H. VIII. 6, 19 n, 178; Selden Soc. xii. 48–59, 32 H. VIII., 6 E. VI; Yelverton, , Rep. 2 King's Bench, 1Google Scholar Jac. I.

^{page 251 note 2} Gairdner, xi. 705, 892.

^{page 251 note 3} Id. xi. 843.

^{apge 251 note 4} Works (Parker Soc), ii. 185, 195Google Scholar.

^{page 251 note 5} StShaw, , Hist. of Staffs. (1798), i. 147Google Scholar.

^{page 252 note 1} Dartmoor Preserv. Assoc. Publ. i. 143–4. Court Rolls of May 8, 31 Eliz.: ‘Presentant unam ianuam vocatam Hart Yeate infra parochia de Meavie quam villani de Brysworthie reparare debent esse in ruinoso.’ Court Roll of May 29, 31 Eliz. We read, ‘villani de Brysworthie in mĩa’ because they have not yet repaired the gate. But in the identical case in the Court Roll of Sept. 21, 30 Eliz., we find the ‘inhabitantes de Sourton.’

^{page 252 note 2} Argument in Somersett's Case, pp. 34–5 (1772)Google Scholar.

^{page 252 note 3} Wat Tyler's Rebellion, part ii. Essays on the Decay of the Feudal System (Russian), chiefly 260–85 (1901). Before him Professor Vinogradoff had pointed out the chief features of the Edwardian labour legislation, Villenage, pp. 53–5, and Appendix 412–5. I do not agree in all points with Professor Petrushevsky. See my review of his book in E.H.R. October 1902.

^{page 253 note 1} For instance, Duchy of Lane. Spec. Com. n. 122, 7 Eliz.: E. Payne ot Anderstone in Dorset, husbandman, two debtors and thirteen creditors. Ib. n. 55, 4 Eliz.: R. Mackerell of Kingston Lacy in Dorset, eleven creditors. John Kinge of Norwiche (ib. n. 157, 9 Eliz.) is an interesting example of a villein who lived in the town. He has five debtors and very many creditors.

^{page 253 note 2} Doct. and Stud. (ed. Muchall, ), ii. 43Google Scholar.

^{page 253 note 3} Litt. s. 191 = Co. Lit. 124 a.

^{page 253 note 4} 19 H. VII. c. 15, s. 4.

^{page 254 note 1} Y.B. 50 E. III. 21.

^{page 254 note 2} Petrushevsky, 331–2. Chron. Man. de Melsa (Rolls Series), iii. 127–142.

^{page 255 note 1} Keilwey, pp. 134–5.

^{page 255 note 2} Y.B. 40 E. III. 39.

^{page 255 note 3} Y.B. 26 II. VI. 2.

^{page 255 note 4} Y.B. 22 II. VI. 30–33.

^{page 255 note 5} Another issue was about villein status. See p. 18 a, n. 2.

^{page 256 note 1} Argument, pp. 29–33.

^{page 257 note 1} Y.B. 9 H. VI. 67.

^{page 257 note 2} Villanage, pp. 83–6.

^{page 258 note 1} 12 E. IV. 4 … ascuns disoient que il ne diut trover tel suerty, car il diut viver et aver son sustenance de les biens, et auci faire les costes de son triel.

^{page 258 note 2} Litt. s. 193.

^{apge 258 note 3} Dyer, , Rep. 266 b, 283Google Scholar.

^{page 258 note 4} Supra, p. 244.

^{page 259 note 1} 25 E. III. St. 5, c. 18; Fitzherbert, , Nov. Nat. Brev. 77Google Scholar, ‘Libertate probanda.’ Coke (Co. Lit. 126 a) calls the statute ‘darkely and obscurely penned.’

^{page 259 note 2} 1 R. II. c. 6.

^{page 259 note 3} 9 R. II. c. 2.

^{page 259 note 4} 19 H. VII. c. 15, s. 4.

^{page 259 note 5} Rol. Parl, iii. 294.

^{page 259 note 6} lb. iii. 296, iii. 448 a,

^{page 260 note 1} Rot, Parl, iii. 499.

^{page 260 note 2} Ib. iii. 556 a.

^{page 261 note 1} Rot. Parl. v. 448–9 = Pat. 25 H. VI. p. 2, m. 9.

^{page 261 note 2} Dasent, xiv. 48, 100, 153, 190, xv. 69, 303, 304.

^{page 261 note 3} The evidence relating to the manor is given in my table

^{page 263 note 1} A special action is sometimes permitted to villeins, ‘pur un dread ou fear.’ Cf. Y.B. 2 E. IV. 5, 15 E. IV. 32 + 17; E. IV. 3, 13 H. VII. 17 = Keilwey, , Rep. 34, 35Google Scholar II. VI. 12; Calendar of Elizabethan Chancery Proceedings, i., p. cxiii (1 R. III.).

^{page 263 note 2} L.Q.R. ix. 348 and 99.

^{page 263 note 3} Y.B. 19 H. VI. 32.

^{page 263 note 4} Y.B. 21 E. IV. 5, 81.

^{page 263 note 5} Brewer, iv. 3447.

^{page 263 note 6} Selden Society, xii. 42–46, Netheway v. Jorge.

^{page 264 note 1} End of Villeinage, pp. 97, 98.

^{page 264 note 2} Hearne, , Langtoft's Chronicle = Dugdale, Monast. i. 10–21Google Scholar.

^{page 264 note 3} See, for instance, Ducky of Lanc. Spec. Comm. 106, 6 Eliz. ‘W. Parkeman is our villaine regardant to the manoure of Gymyngham and is seised of divers landes and chattels, by reason whereof the said landes and chattels ought of right to come to our handes and possession.’ Cf. the numerous manumissions of Lee, H. in Duchy of Lanc. Miscellanea, v. 102Google Scholar.

^{page 265 note 1} State Papers, Dow., E. VI., iv. n. 48.

^{page 265 note 2} Archæologia, xlvi. 373.

^{page 265 note 3} Dugdale, , Monast. ii. 589Google Scholar.

^{page 265 note 4} Duchy of Lanc. Miscellanea, , fol. 9, 10, 5 H. V., 28 H. VI., 3 H. VII., 23 H. VII., 1 H. VIII.

^{page 266 note 1} MrPage, considers chevage as payment for licence to leave the manor (End of Villeinage, p. 92)Google Scholar. Professor Vinogradoff criticises this opinion in his interesting review of MrPage's, work (E.H.R. xv. 778)Google Scholar. I fully agree with the view that payment of chevage was chiefly confession of villein status and recognition of seignorial authority; but I have met no single case where chevage was paid by all villeins of the manor, at least in Tudor times. I put aside the rare cases in which free persons, chiefly apprentices, pay chevage or head-money (Scrope, , History of Castle Combe, pp. 221, 245, 250)Google Scholar. Bond persons pay chevage when they apply for the licence to leave the manor. I know only one exception, adduced by Miss Davenport, and relating to the manor of Forncett, (Trans. Roy. Hist. Soc. xiv. 136)Google Scholar. But if the bondman was a tenant his lands were in potestate domini. The lord could seize them whenever he wanted to enforce his seignorial rights. As a confession of villeinage, chevage was unnecessary in such cases. A tenant was usually a husbandman and lived on his tenement; it was not difficult to trace his villein origin. But when the bondman had no lands, and went to some far-off place to earn his bread, payment of a certain amount of money, however small, for his head remained the only sign of his servile blood.

^{page 267 note 1} Duchy of Lanc. Miscellanea, , fol. 9, 10.

^{page 267 note 2} Massingberd, , History of the Parish of Ormsby-cum-Ketsby, 250–257 (1899)Google Scholar.

^{page 267 note 3} Surveyinge, p. 9.

^{page 267 note 4} Duchy of Lane. Spec. Comm. n. 7, Elizabeth, IGoogle Scholar. Four examples of free women married to villeins occur in the Elizabethan survey of the manor of Long Bennington, Duchy of Lane. Miscellanea, . The instances of a bondwoman married to a freeman are more rare.

^{page 269 note 1} Duchy of Lane. Miscellanea, : A. Johnson, A. Orbie, J. Allen.

^{page 269 note 2} Davenport, , Trans. Royal Hist. Soc. xiv. 140, 141Google Scholar.

^{page 269 note 3} Rymer, xv. 731.

^{page 269 note 4} Brewer, iii. 1285.

^{page 270 note 1} II. 210 (Rolls Series).

^{page 270 note 2} Duchy of Lane. Spec. Comm. n. 191.

^{page 270 note 3} Y.B. 2 H.IV. pp. 10, 11.

^{page 271 note 1} State Papers, Domestic, E. VI. iv. n. 48. Aug. 4, 1548. Commission to Sir Richard Sakewyle upon his appointment as Chancellor of the Exchequer.

^{page 271 note 2} The documents relating to the Lee affair are collected in a large bundle, Duchy of Lane. Miscellanea, , bearing the title ‘Sondrie graunts of bondmen and women in the nomber of 200 graunted by Queene Elizabeth to Sir Henry Lee, knight, with the names of those which weare by her Majestie manumised under the seal of this court for his benefitt etc. inferius p with a survay or certificatt of bondmens landes and goods in Longbenyngton.’ As I am explaining in the text, it is very probable that this important Long Bennington survey is connected with the same subject. The 102nd volume of the Miscellaneous Books of the Duchy of Lancaster contains copies of manumissions by Lee arranged in chronological order.

^{page 272 note 1} Society in Elizabethan Age, 33–36 (1886)Google Scholar.

^{page 272 note 2} End of Villeinage, pp. 97, 98.

^{page 274 note 1} In one case we have the note, ‘This is an honest pore man.’

^{page 275 note 1} ‘W. Bainbrigg, clerk, beinge a curate of Norwiche.’ The later note says: ‘hath a manumission dated 4 Jan. 1 Mary cum sigillo Edwardi VI.’ ‘Th. Baynbrigge of Shortsome, clerk and curate, 3 myles from Norwiche.’ The later note adds ‘pauper. R. Rushall of Elton, Notts, curate there, and there of late deceased.’ He held two free meases in Foston, four customary oxgangs, and one oxgang of bordland. His sister's children were his heirs. On the villein clergy see Litt. s. 202 = Co, Lit. 135 b–136 b.

^{page 276 note 1} Three curious examples are adduced by Pollock and Maitland, i. 432. Professor Petrushevsky, pp. 335–7, quotes another instance from the Patent Rolls of R. II. p. 2, m. 21: the lord, the Prior of Ely, has impounded the cattle of John Reve, villein of the manor of Sutton, to the value of 100 l. Instances in the case of Forncett occur in MissDavenport's, article in Trans. Roy. Hist. Soc. xiv. 123–142Google Scholar.

^{page 277 note 1} Gairdner, xiii. 324, Febr. 29 H. VIII.

^{page 277 note 2} Hoare v. Hundred of Alderbury, pp. 67–72.

^{page 278 note 1} Calendar of Elizabethan Chancery Proceedings, i. p. cxiii.

^{page 278 2} The story is told by Scrope in the History of Castle Combe, pp. 223–6.

^{page 279 note 1} Duchy of Lane. Miscellanea, ; Duchy of Lanc. Miscellanea, v. 102.

^{page 279 note 2} Exch. Queen's Rem. Spec. Comm. n. 7067. Hugh Wind is the name of the manumitted bondman.

^{page 279 note 3} Ib. n. 1551.

^{page 279 note 4} Ib. nn. 1637, 1554. John Style died worth very little in goods and seised of one acre of freehold. But his son Martin was doing well: he acquired one tenement and four acres of copyhold, worth, allowing for all charges, 33 s. 4 d.

^{page 279 note 5} Exch. Queen's Rem. Spec. Comm. n. 2046.

^{page 280 note 1} Duchy of Lanc. Spec. Comm., n. 258, membrane 2.

^{page 280 note 2} Duchy of Lanc. Spec. Comm., n. 258, membrane 1.

^{page 281 note 1} In 19 Eliz. this family was almost extinct—only one woman survived. The manuscript custumal of the manor, kindly given me by Mr. Seebohm, shows that there were bondwomen in the manor in 1484.

^{page 281 note 2} I am in doubt about the manor of Tewington, Cornwall. See the well-known Concanen's report of Rowe v. Brenton, 167, 169, 170, 180. The tenants in the Ministers' Accounts of 22–23 H. VII. and of 39–40 Eliz. are divided into free and conventionaries. The latter again are divided into free and natives. But as I find once the expression ‘our natives or tenants in bondage’ (p. 180) it is not impossible that these natives were personally free.

^{page 282 note 1} In this case the plaintiff's ancestor received manumission in 1478, but the defendant denies its validity.

^{page 282 note 2} But some of them were already manumitted at this time: the Mackerells and one of the Payne families (see in D. of Lanc. Miscellanea, , their manumission of 5 and of 7 Eliz.)

^{page 282 note 3} But the date of manumission is not given.

^{page 282 note 4} But out of three families only one woman, Margery (born Smith), now Poole, is stated to be alive.

^{page 282 note 5} It is the description of the Hundred of Berkeley written by the old Smyth in the thirties of the seventeenth century. The passage is interesting: ‘In this manor or tithenge (of Alkington), and in all or most of this hundred, the lords therof have had divers villeins or bondservants … until the time of our last civill warres between the houses of Yorke and Lancaster; of whom I have seen many sales and grants by divers deeds, some of whom continued till end E. IV., and beginninge of H. VII.; when the last manumission was by William lord Berkeley in this manor.’

^{page 282 note 6} Brewer gives here an abstract of the document called ‘the survey of the lands of the duke of Buckingham, executed.’ The passages about the bondmen are these: ‘… In some manors are woods and bondmen…. Of bondmen there is a good number in Thornebury, as appears by the court rolls.’

^{page 283 note 1} The matter is obscure. The lord of the manor, Lord Stafford, ‘claims many persons as villeins regardant to the manor of Thornebury and tries to sease their bodyes.’ The Mayor of Bristol and his brother are of the number. The defendants pretend to be freemen.

^{page 283 note 2} ‘The St. Swithun's Cathedral Enrolment Book,’ which runs from 1345 to 1496, contains a large number of manumissions of the natives, averaging about one a year during the whole period. They are most frequent in the latter part of the fifteenth century. Kitchin (pp. 101–103, 222) quotes also five fifteenth-century entries about the particular villeins from the Court Rolls and Compotus Rolls of the manor. The latest quotation relates to 1462.

^{page 283 note 3} One of the articles of the survey was: ‘Item a boke of the names of the bondmen and lett them be also presentyd at the court.’ The surveyor, Anthony Browne, answered: ‘Thay[= the jury] have presentyd same, but thay cannot remember all and as many as tary within the Lordesshypp thay have not presentyd. The names must be presentyd for Sutton and Hethley and Rapley at more leasure. For the names of them that dwell and tarye in the Libertye ar not presentyd, but only such as by fyne and lycens do dwell abrode and make yerelye recognicon.’

^{page 283 note 4} I have included these manumissions of Edward IV.'s time. They show a considerable number of villeins living on the St. Albans Abbey estates during the Wars of the Roses, and it is by no means clear that all of them attained freedom before Henry VII. ‘Chronica Monasterii S. Albani’ does not go further than 1485. It is interesting that there is no single manumission in 1452–1464 in the ‘Registrum Whethamstede’ (ib. vol. i.). It is not altogether impossible that Abbot Whethamstede did not care to enter manumissions. But it is much more probable that he did not manumit the villeins of the abbey: he was a staunch guardian of old seignorial rights, so far as we can judge from the instructive incident with the mill in 1455 (id. i. 199–202).

^{page 283 note 5} I have made use of this early case because, considering the local peculiarities, he Kentish villeins are especially interesting. However, the Kentish origin of these villeins is not perfectly certain. The document quoted is a manumission by will. Will of Sir W. Septvans of Milton, near Canterbury: ‘Item lego A. Stanford, J. Hamonde, R. Handerd, R. Chirche et J. Richesforde, servis et nativis meis, plenam libertatem et volo quod quilibet eorum habeat cartam manumissionis.’

^{page 284 note 1} These bondmen (‘R. Mors and others’) are plaintiffs in the case Mors v. Duchess of Buckingham.

^{page 284 note 2} This interesting monograph about the manor of Forncett gives much valuable information on the decay of villeinage. The number of the villein population decreases slowly but constantly. In 1400 sixteen servile families were tenants of the manor (besides five other families are mentioned in the Court Rolls that did not hold any land of, but were villeins regardant to, the manor). In 1500 not more than eight families; in 1525 only five; in 1550 only three; and after that no more villein tenants are mentioned in the rolls. But in 1563 a bondwoman purchased a license to marry, and in 1575 ‘two or three’ serfs still paid their yearly chevage.

^{page 285 note 1} The bulk of the evidence in this case relates to 17–19 Eliz. Two villein families were manumitted in 41 Eliz., and only one family, Kye or Collet, out of the nineteen is not mentioned in the evidence of 17–19 Eliz. Out of eighteen families referred to. in 17–19 Eliz. twelve received manumission during these two years.

^{apge 285 note 2} It is the well-known ‘survey of the lately attainted lands of the monastery of Glastonbury by Pollard and Moyle.’ The manuscript was in the Bodleian, Ainter Rot. A great part of it was printed also by Dugdale, , Mon. i. 10–21Google Scholar. Dugdale gives a larger number of villein families (227 instead of 215). Ten manors are named separately with the following numbers of villein families: 14 + 15 + 7 + 2 + 22 + 1 ÷ 1 + 17 + 7 + 11. But the remainder of the bond population, 118 families, are not distributed by manors.

^{page 285 note 3} It is a manumission by will. The will was made by H. Smyth, of Long Ashton, Somerset, on February 27.

^{page 285 note 4} As the reference shows, the entry is already printed in N. and Q. Being, as far as I am aware, the latest certain mention of bondmen by blood in a manorial survey, the case is of exceptional interest, and I beg for allowance to reprint the entry for the convenience of the reader. The passage is taken from Norden's manuscript ‘Survey of certain crown manors.’ ‘There are three bondmen of bloude belonginge unto this manor, never known to be anie way manumissed, namely Thomas, William, John Goringe. Thomas dwells at Amberley, William at Piddinghow, John at Rottingdean. What goods they have the jurie knowe not. All poor men. Thomas has the reversion of a cotage now in the tenure of W. Jeffreye. But mee thinks this kind of advantage is nowe out of season; yet, were they men of ability, they might be, upon some consideracion, infraunchized.’ However, it is possible that villeins remained even later in the forest of Pickering (see p. 242, above).

^{page 286 note 1} In the manor of Castle Combe, Wilts, as late as 1476, there were evidently many villeins. I read in the Court Roll of the year: ‘Preceptum est nativo homagio ibidem habere hic ad proximam Willelmum Newman, nativum domini de sanguine, commorantem cum Th. Bokeler apud Foxcote, sub pena 6 s. 8 d.’ (Scrope, , Hist, of Castle Combe, p. 325)Google Scholar.

^{page 286 note 2} The bond families are distributed by manors in the following manner: 6 + 2 + 2 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 18. The manor of Idmiston {and what of Damerham?) is in the number.

^{page 286 note 3} It is a curious case. One John Middelmore has taken and hidden seventy-one pieces of evidence proving the bond estate of the Woods. Some trick was suspected. The bailiff complains that it has been done ‘by roial power.’

^{page 286 note 4} I do not adduce the last case where the plaintiff claimed the defendant as his villein regardant (Noy, , Rep. 27Google Scholar Hil. 15 Jac. I., Common Bench), because eventually it was found that the defendant was of free condition, though it is not quite clear upon what ground. Hargrave (Somersett's case, 33–4) attributes the decision to the want of service by the claimant during sixty years; his interpretation of the report is very probable, but not certain. Hargrave (l.c.) quotes two more cases of pleading villeinage: Coke's Entries, 406 b, Hil. 18 Eliz.; Hughes's Abr. tit. Villeinage, 23 Trin. 8 Jac. 1. I could not verify the quotations. There are many other cases in the Year Books and the Reports of the Tudor age where one party to the suit is claimed as of villein condition. But as I do not know whether the claim be true, I could not use them for numerical purposes. Some of them are discussed in another connexion. Even concerning the only report I made use of in the text I have to state a limitation. It was found by the Court that the defendant became of free condition because the plaintiff and his ancestors had no seisin of him and his ancestors during sixty years. Thus the defendant ceased to be a bondman some time before the suit. I shall discuss in another connexion the interesting case of the Welsh bondmen.