^{page 109 note 1} Bloch, M., Les Caracteres originaux de I'histoire rurale frartfaise, p. 98Google Scholar.

^{page 110 note 1} Bloch, M., Les Caractères originaux de I'histoire rurale française, pp. 95Google Scholar sq.

^{apge 110 note 2} ‘The chronology of labour services’, Trans. Roy. Hist. Soc, 4th ser., xx (1937)Google Scholar.

^{page 110 note 3} For England see Kosminsky, E. A., ‘Services and money rents in the thirteenth century’, Econ. Hist. Rev., 1st ser., V (1935)Google Scholar.

^{page 110 note 4} Bloch, , op. cit., pp. 73–4Google Scholar, and cf. p. 101 for champarts in which ‘anciennement personne n'y avait droit d'héritage’ but wherein such rights were quickly acquired.

^{page 110 note 5} I use this phrase in the sense used by ProfPostan, , art. cit., p. 187Google Scholar.

^{page 110 note 6} E.g. the spread of leases for term of years and, in England at least, of tenancies at will: Ganshof, F. L. in Cambridge Economic Hist., i. 305Google Scholar sqq., and Miller, E., The abbey and bishopric of Ely, pp. 109–11Google Scholar.

^{page 111 note 1} Boutruche, R., ‘Aux origines d'une crise nobiliaire’, Anncdes d'histoire sociale, i (1939), 161–2Google Scholar, and in IX^e congrés international des sciences historiques, Rapports, p. 429; Luchaire, A. in Lavisse, E. Histoire de France, iii (i), 368Google Scholar. For heavy reliefs as a contributory cause of ‘I'affaiblissement financier’ of the Poitevin nobility, see Lyon, E., ‘Comment fut elaborée l'ordonnance sur les rachats en Poitou’, Bibl. de I'Ecole des Chartes, lxxxviii (1927), 88Google Scholar.

^{page 111 note 2} Bloch, , op. cit., pp. 117Google Scholar sqq.; Fawtier, R., Hist, du moyen âge (Glotz series), vi. 8–9Google Scholar.

^{page 111 note 3} Teulet, E., Layettes du Trésor des Chartes, ii, no. 1640Google Scholar.

^{page 112 note 1} Henry III and the Lord Edward, ii. 711–12.

^{page 112 note 2} See R. S. Hoyt, The Royal Demesne in English Constitutional History, 1066–1272.

^{page 112 note 3} Powicke, , op. cit., p. 704Google Scholar.

^{page 112 note 4} Luchaire, , op. cit., iii (i), 203Google Scholar.

^{page 112 note 5} Declareuil, J., Histoire generate du droit français, p. 183Google Scholar.

^{page 113 note 1} For the extent of this custom, see Pollock, F. and Maitland, F. W., History of English Law, ii. 207Google Scholar; Homans, G. C., English Villagers'in the Thirteenth Century, pp. 109Google Scholar sqq. and ‘Partible Inheritance in Villein Holdings’, Econ. Hist. Rev., 1st sen, viii (1937), 48–56Google Scholar.

^{page 113 note 2} Year Books, 2–3 Edward II (ed, Maitland, F. W., Selden Soc), pp. 95–7Google Scholar.

^{page 113 note 3} Pollock, and Maitland, , op. cit., i. 268–70Google Scholar. For this and what follows, seePlucknett, T. F. T., The Legislation of Edward I, pp. 110Google Scholar sq.

^{page 113 note 4} Cf. the remarks of Boutruche, in Ann. d'hist. sociale, i (1939), 257Google Scholar.

^{page 113 note 5} E.g.Bracton's Note Book (ed. Maitland, F. W.), pl. 566Google Scholar, and Bracton's marginal note thereon which goes even further in allowing free disposition of the maritagium than the judges did in determining the case in question.

^{page 114 note 1} De Legibus, vii. i.

^{page 114 note 2} For an analysis of the various customs, see Chénon, E., Histoire générate du droit français, ii (i), 248Google Scholar sq.

^{apge 114 note 3} E.g. the case between Stephen de Sancerre and his two sisters in 1268, where it was adjudged that the latter receive half the fief. This exactly follows the custom of the district which would have applied if the heritage had been partitioned between three brothers. The casde.of Marcheville, however, which formed part of the fief, was not to be divided with the rest: Beugnot, E., Les Olim, i. 720–1Google Scholar; Boutaric, J., Actes du Parlement de Paris, i, no. 307Google Scholar.

^{page 114 note 4} In the south generally partition was the rule, and led to an extreme ‘morcellement’ of fiefs: Michel, R., L'administration royale dans la sénéschaussée de Beaucaire, pp. 114–15Google Scholar; Molinier, A., ‘Administration féodale en Languedoc’, in Devic, C. and Vaissette, J., Histoire générale de Languedoc, vii (ed. of 1879), pp. 150–1Google Scholar.

^{page 114 note 5} For the Norman custom, see Tardif, E. J., Trés ancien coutumier, c. xlvGoogle Scholar.

^{page 115 note 1} E.g. in Brittany (Teulet, , Layettes du Trésor des Charles, i, no. 337)Google Scholar, Normandy (Lagouelle, H., La propriété foncière dans le très ancien droit normande, i. 227–30)Google Scholar, and Champagne (Declareuil, , op. cit., p. 249)Google Scholar.

^{page 115 note 2} Lagouelle, loc. cit., and cf. Powicke, F. M., Loss of Normandy, pp. 68–9Google Scholar, 98–102. The Norman system can also be studied in practice in L. Delisle, Recueil des jugements de I'Echiquier de Normandie. Impartibility was the rule for baronies (nos. 137–8), ducal serjeanties (no. 504), feoda lorice (no. 598) and even for the fief of quarter of a knight (no. 247). On the other hand, there are many references to heritages which are fully partible (nos. 175, 587, 611, 650, 664, 698); and we even hear of a feudum lorice the tenant of which has participes; and of two such fees divided between four brothers (nos. 214, 653).

^{page 115 note 3} Lagouelle, , op. cit., pp. 231–3Google Scholar.

^{page 115 note 4} Ordonnances des rois de France, i. 29.

^{page 115 note 5} Beugnot, , Les Olim, i. 47Google Scholar, 424.

^{page 115 note 6} Declareuil, , op. cit., p. 252Google Scholar.

^{apge 115 note 7} Bloch, , La Société féodale: formation des liens de dépendance, pp. 315–16Google Scholar; Esmein, , tours élémentaire de I'histoire du droit français (ed. of 1895), pp. 210–11Google Scholar. On the impartibility of baronies, see Viollet, P., Etablissements de Saint Louis, ii. 36Google Scholar; iii. 285; Boutaric, , Actes, i no. 1394 and Appendice, nos. 5, 170AGoogle Scholar.

^{page 115 note 8} For a royal license to partition the barony of Servye in 1268, see Beugnot, , Les Olim, i. 706Google Scholar.

^{page 116 note 1} Teulet, , Layettes du Trésor des Chartes, iiGoogle Scholar, no. 3049.

^{page 116 note 2} Beugnot, , Les Olim, i. 263, 308Google Scholar; Boutaric, , Actes, iGoogle Scholar, Appendice, no. 21.

^{page 116 note 3} Ibid., i, Appendice, no. 928.

^{page 116 note 4} Ibid., i, no. 2269; Appendice, nos. 545, 562.

^{page 116 note 5} Declareuil, , op. cit., p. 252Google Scholar.

^{page 116 note 6} E.g. Beugnot, , Les Olim, i. 444Google Scholar, where a royal grant to X and his heir male does not defeat the expectations of that heir's younger brother.

^{page 116 note 7} Viollet, , Histoire des institutions politiques, ii. 422Google Scholar.

^{page 116 note 8} Cf. my Abbey and bishopric of Ely, pp. 177, 185–6.

^{page 117 note 1} Pollock, and Maitland, , op. cit., i. 331–2Google Scholar, and cf. Plucknett, , op. cit., pp. 103–4Google Scholar.

^{page 117 note 2} Glanville, , De Legibus, vii. 1Google Scholar.

^{page 117 note 3} For France, Chénon, , op. cit., ii (i), 167–74Google Scholar; for England, Pollock, and Maitland, , op. cit., i. 332, 346Google Scholar. Glanville seems to imply that a tenant was free to subinfeudate; but that he must obtain the consent of the lord to substitution: Brunner, H., ‘The History of English Law’, Political Science Quarterly, xi (1896), 539Google Scholar.

^{page 118 note 1} Holdsworth, , History of English Law, iii. 75Google Scholar, and Maitland, , Bracton's Note Book, i. 134Google Scholar. In at least two of the cases Bracton collected (pl. 1054, 1102) the right of the father to alienate the heritage was supported by the courts despite the protest of the heir. This situation may even have some bearing on the early history of entails: see particularly the circumstances described in pl. 36.

^{apge 118 note 2} Bloch, , La société féodale: formations des liens de dépendance, p. 220Google Scholar. For examples of its use to prevent alienations in mortmain, see Beugnot, , Les Olim, i. 444, 497Google Scholar. Heirs would also have the support of the courts against any attempt by donees to make a profit on the transaction, or even to recover compensation for improvements to the property while it was in their hands: Boutaric, , Actes, i, nos. 748, 1825Google Scholar.

^{apge 118 note 3} According to Chénon, , op. cit., ii (i), 168Google Scholar, this was the rule in Normandy, Champagne and Burgundy. In Normandy, however, a tenant seems to have had some freedom with one-third of his holding; he could mortgage it or devise it by will, give it as a marriage portion, or devise it in mortmain: Delisle, Jugements de I'Echiquier, nos. 595, 765, and Tardif, , Trés ancien coutumier, c. lvii. 4Google Scholar, lxxxix.

^{page 118 note 4} Teulet, , Layettes du Trésor des Chartes, iiGoogle Scholar, no. 1700.

^{page 118 note 5} E.g. Tardif, , Très ancien coutumier, c. xcGoogle Scholar.

^{page 118 note 6} Bloch, , op. cit., p. 324Google Scholar; Declareuil, , op. cit., pp. 259–60Google Scholar.

^{page 118 note 7} Viollet, , Hist, du droit civil français, p. 652Google Scholar.

^{page 118 note 8} For an example of this procedure from 1226, see Teulet, , Layettes du Trésor des ChartesGoogle Scholar, no. 1745.

^{page 119 note 1} Viollet, , op. cit., pp. 652–3Google Scholar.

^{page 119 note 2} Viollet, , Etablissements de Saint Louis, i. 162–3Google Scholar.

^{apge 119 note 3} Luchaire, , Manuel des institutions fiançabes, p. 241Google Scholar.

^{page 119 note 4} Ordonnances, i. 358 (art. viii); Langlois, , Hist, de France, iii (ii), 268Google Scholar. There was a good reason for this opposition. Since the king did homage to no man, the services which vassalage entailed were lost to the lord of any fief the king acquired: Halphen, L., A traversl'histoife du moyen âge, pp. 266–74Google Scholar.

^{page 119 note 5} Boutaric, , Actes, iGoogle Scholar, no. 1903.

^{page 119 note 6} Beugnot, , Les Olim, i. 604Google Scholar.

^{page 120 note 1} Viollet, , Histoire des institutions politiques, ii. 250Google Scholar.

^{page 120 note 2} Bloch, M., Rois et Serfs, pp. 60 sqGoogle Scholar.

^{page 120 note 3} So Odo, lord of La-Chapelle-St-Sepulchre sought the consent of Theobald of Champagne for the manumission of a serf in 1239: Teulet, , Layettes du Trésor des Charles, iiGoogle Scholar, no. 2762.

^{page 120 note 4} Teulet, , op. cit., iiGoogle Scholar, nos. 1670, 1691.

^{page 120 note 5} E.g. Boutaric, , Actes, iGoogle Scholar, nos. 151,1642; and on all this see Chénon, , op. cit., ii (i), pp. 68–70Google Scholar, and Esmein, , op. cit., pp. 247–8Google Scholar.

^{page 120 note 6} Ganshof, in Cambridge Economic History, i. 291Google Scholar.

^{page 120 note 7} Langlois, C. V., Philip III le Hardi, pp. 259Google Scholar sq.

^{page 121 note 1} Boutaric, , Actes, iGoogle Scholar, nos. 1941, 1948A, Appendice, no. 159; Devic and Vaissette, , Histoire générate de Languedoc, x, (Preuves)Google Scholar, col. 121–2.

^{page 121 note 2} Ordonnances, i. 303–7.

^{page 121 note 3} E.g. ibid., pp. 322–4.

^{page 121 note 4} Powicke, F. M., ‘Observations on the English Freeholder’, Festschrift Alfons Dopsch, p. 384Google Scholar.

^{page 121 note 5} Plucknett, , op. cit., p. 61Google Scholar.

^{page 121 note 6} Ibid., p. 104; Holdsworth, , History of English Law, iii. 79Google Scholar. The latter also observes (p. 82) that the objection of the tenant was equally no bar to the transfer of the seignory by the lord.

^{apge 122 note 1} Select Cases in the Court of King's Bench (ed. Sayles, G. O., Selden Soc), i, pl. 34Google Scholar. It might, of course, be possible to guard against these eventualities by private agreement, and Bractons Note Book, pl. 543, may indicate one of the ways of doing so. It records a declaration by Agatha, daughter of Alan of St. George, that she had made a covenant with Brian Lisle (is he her lord?) that she would not alienate any of her heritage without his consent; and that if she wished to do so, she would give him a right of pre-emption.

^{apge 122 note 2} Curia Regis Rolls, ii. 68; iv. 34–5; Pollock, and Maitland, , op. cit., i. 290Google Scholar.

^{page 122 note 3} Red Book of the Exchequer (ed. Hall, H., Rolls Ser.), ii, p. cclxxxvGoogle Scholar.

^{page 122 note 4} Close Rolls, 1254–6, p. 429. It may be that all memory of this enactment was lost until it was discovered by MrTurner, in very recent times (Select Cases in the Court of King's Bench, iii, p. xlvii)Google Scholar; but the principle which it embodied remained very much alive.

^{page 122 note 5} Rotuli Hundredorum, i. 13.

^{page 122 note 6} Select Cases in the Court of King's Bench, i, pl. 35; and cf. ii, pl. 36, and Fleta (ed. Selden, J., 1685), p. 198Google Scholar: ‘Dari non potuerunt sine regio assensu tenementa que de rege tenentur’.

^{page 122 note 7} Rotuli Parliamentorum, i. 430.

^{page 123 note 1} Plucknett, , op. cit., pp. 102Google Scholar sq.

^{page 123 note 2} Devic, and Vaissette, , op. cit., vii. 157Google Scholar; Ganshof, , in Cambridge Economic History, i. 285Google Scholar.

^{page 123 note 3} Restrictions against alienations applied, therefore, particularly to land held in feudal tenure: see the letter of St. Louis to the citizens of Tournai inWauters, R., Libertis communales (Preuves), p. 129Google Scholar.

^{page 123 note 4} Devic, and Vaissette, , op. cit., vii. 157Google Scholar; Miller, J, Abbey and bishopric of Ely, p. 130 nGoogle Scholar.

^{page 124 note 1} For what follows see Esmein, , op. cit., pp. 276–95Google Scholar; Chénon, , op. cit., i. 785–90Google Scholar; Luchdre, , Manuel, pp. 175–7Google Scholar; and Viollet, , Etablissements de S. Louis, i. 163Google Scholar; ii. 244–6.

^{page 124 note 2} Beugnot, , Les Olim, i. 443, 717Google Scholar; Teulet, , Layettes, iiGoogle Scholar, no. 2276; Boutaric, , Actes, iGoogle Scholar, Appendice, no. 33. In Normandy this rule applied to all acquisitions made in the fiefs of churches, and those for which churches could not properly perform the service due: Tardif, , Très ancien coutumier, c. lvii. 5Google Scholar, 6.

^{page 124 note 3} E.g. Boutaric, , Actes, iGoogle Scholar, nos. 1503, 1836.

^{page 124 note 4} Ibid., no. 1470.

^{page 124 note 5} So much is implied by the royal licence to Lagny to retain a fief given to the monastery by a certain knight forty years and more earlier: Beugnot, , Les Olim, i. 474Google Scholar.

^{page 124 note 6} For the confiscation of unlicensed acquisitions see Boutaric, , Actes iGoogle Scholar, nos. 1820, 1821, 1831. At this stage, the king seems to have been willing to accept twenty years tenure as giving a valid title (ibid., Appendice, no. 118B)—a period extended to thirty years in 1275.

^{page 124 note 7} So called in a letter to the seneschal of Toulouse: Devic, and Vaissette, , op. cit., x (Preuves)Google Scholar, col. 241; for the text, see Ordonnances, i. 303–7.

^{page 125 note 1} Ibid., p. 305; Boutaric, , Actes, iGoogle Scholar, no. 2119 and Appendice, no. 294.

^{page 125 note 2} Langlois, , Philippe III le Hardi, pp. 206–7Google Scholar.

^{page 125 note 3} Perroy, E., ‘Le cartulaire des amortissements de Forez’, Le Moyen Age, 4th ser., iv (1949), 274Google Scholar.

^{page 125 note 4} Boutaric, , Actes, iGoogle Scholar, Appendice, no. 701.

^{page 125 note 5} E.g. ibid., 1, no. 2131, and Devic and Vaissette, op. cit., x (Preuves), col. 241.

^{page 126 note 1} Boutaric, , Actes, iGoogle Scholar, no. 2501.

^{page 126 note 2} Ordonnances, i. 322–4. The tariff of charges, furthermore, was a minimum and not a maximum one. The commissioners were told to double them in certain districts where the price of land was high; and in all cases they were to increase them if possible and not to lower them on any account.

^{page 126 note 3} Chénon, , op. cit., i. 790Google Scholar.

^{page 126 note 4} Petition of the Barons, c. 10.

^{page 126 note 5} Provisions of Westminster, c. 14.

^{page 126 note 6} On this and what follows see Plucknett, , op. cit., pp. 96–102Google Scholar.

^{page 126 note 7} Select Cases in the Court of King's Bench, iii, p. xxxix. The two cases are not of course (as Professor Cheney has pointed out to me) directly comparable. The appropriation of tithes was governed by Canon Law, and not by the law and custom governing the transfer of feudal tenements.

^{page 127 note 1} Cf. Bloch, , Caractères originaux, pp. 120–1Google Scholar.

^{apge 128 note 1} For the limitations of the royal legislative authority, even under Philip the Fair, see Fawtier, , op. cit., vi. 66–7Google Scholar; and for its slight concern with the domain of private law, Chénon, , op. cit., i. 530–1Google Scholar and Viollet, , Histoire ties institutions politiques, ii. 200–2Google Scholar.

^{page 128 note 2} Constitutional History of England, p. 19.