THE MIXED MARRIAGE 243
that is, between free and bond—the subject becomes very com-
plicated and gave the medieval lawyers many a happy hour. The
Leges Henrici, Britton, Glanvill and Bracton all lay down rules
and counter-rules in bewildering variety; but
ultimately, uthe better opinion of our books** was that marriage of a
female serf with a free man, other than her lord, did not absolutely
enfranchise her, but merely made her free during the marriage...,
In the converse case in which a bondman marries a free woman, he of
course is not enfranchised though Bracton » doctrine \vould moke the
children free if born in her free tenement,
but doubtfully so if born in his unfree tenement.1
Apart from personal status, mixed marriages between free and
unfree raised difficult points of inheritance and the like. In u
lawsuit of 1277 on the manor of Hales concerning a freeholding,
it was shown that one of the parties interested had married a
bondman. Her claim, thereafter, was quietly dropped, as by so
marrying her rights (for the time being at any rate) had lapsed.-
The prevailing custom is clearly stated about the same time
(1275) in a Northampton manor court at Wedon Beck, when " the
full court declares that in case any woman shall have altogether
quitted the Lord's domain and shall marry a free man, she may
return and recover what right and claim she has in any land: but
if she has married a serf then she cannot do this during the
lifetime of the serf, but after his death she may".3 From this we
can see that to be of free condition in itself is not a thing that can
be lost altogether, though it may become inoperative in such
circumstances as these, and if the will of the lord is sufficiently
strong, or manorial custom sufficiently undeveloped, it may be
hard to reassert one's status after a lapse of years.
The widow, who had inherited her husband's property, or
some dowry therefrom, was subjected to considerable control by
her lord. In general she was not allowed to re-marry without
permission,4 and the lord looked with some anxiety as to where
1 Pollock and Maitland, op. cit. i, 423. See full discussion there and in
Villainage, 61-3.
a Hales Rolls, 87-8- Cf. Lit. Cant, i, 520.
3 Selden Soc. n, 24; E.H.R. xx, 480, But note Abbots Langley, 36^, where
the tenement reverts to the lord on marriage to a free man.
* Glouc. Cart, in, 208, 210; Sussex Rec. Soc. xxxi, 102; Durham Halmote
Rolls, n.
16-2