THE PEASANT'S WILL 249
but his personal property he could dispose of as he would. In
his last moments, therefore, the priest having come, his con-
fession made, and at peace with God, he could turn to make
provision for those who would survive him. There and then, in
the presence of witnesses, he made known his ultima voluntas—
and we may readily understand that there was little need to write
down the few simple bequests of his personal property which were
all he could make. Nor was it necessary according to law. The
nuncupative, i.e. spoken, will only required the presence of two
witnesses (and there is even some doubt whether either of
these need have been a priest).1 How simple, then, in circum-
stances such as these, for men to forget or to ignore the fact that
what they were giving away was not in strict legal theory theirs
to dispose of. However the Church may have viewed the matter,
many lay lords (and many ecclesiastics in their temporal capacity
as holders of manors) saw much danger in such practices. What
was this *' personal property'' which the peasant was bequeathing
to his friends? It was, according to the law, the property of the
lord—had not the Abbot of Burton told his serfs that they
owned nothing but their bellies—and to admit that a man had
the right to bequeath any property was tantamount to relin-
quishing any rights in it. The lawyers finally got round the
difficulty by saying that the lord undoubtedly had the right of
seizure, but if he did not exercise it, the serf's will was valid.
The lord, however, could step in and take the chattels at any
time before probate of the will had been obtained.2
The Church, in the thirteenth century, came out boldly on the
side of the serf. As early as 1261, Boniface, Archbishop of
Canterbury, had declared that the serf had the right to make a
will,3 and this was reiterated at the Synod of Exeter in 1287.*
Evidently opposition to this was encountered throughout the
country, for in 1292 this right was included in the list of grava-
mina presented to the King by some of the Bishops.5 Again, in
1295, Archbishop Winchelsey, when complaining to the Pope
of subterfuges adopted by the Secular Courts to usurp juris-
1 Wilkins, Concilia, II, 155, and Pollock and Maitland, op. cit. n, 337 n. 5;
cf. Holdsworth, op. cit. in, 539.
* Swinburne, Testaments, 47, 48. 3 Lyndwood, Provinciate, 171.
* Wilkins, Concilia, n, 155. B Reg. Pontissara, 775.