THE PEASANT IN THE COURTS 311
against their opponents, despite the rule forbidding duplicity in
pleading. This leaning in favour of liberty also declared that a
bastard was a filius nulliiis, and that therefore it could not be
presumed that he was of villein stock.1 The law also assumed that
a stranger settling on the land was a free man, and the courts
declined to construe any uncertainty of condition against him.2
Again, the justices were willing to allow the defence to take full
advantage of any slip in pleading or any technical error. These
and other difficulties3 which beset the lord will become clearer if
we examine some actual cases.
It is not likely, I think, that the large majority of serfs who
appeared in the courts can be thought of as representing the
average of their class. It required both brains, courage and
money to set in motion the machinery of the medieval lawyers>
and only a few would dare attempt it. It meant the delay until
the itinerant justices should come: it meant the employment of
an attorney and the production of the necessary witnesses, etc.
Small wonder that comparatively few serfs cared to enter the
courts of law and those that did so deserved all the protection
that a tolerant judge could give them. But although the law was
favourable, it never denied the rights of the master over his serf.
When, in 1302, A. acknowledged himself to be R.'s villein,
Justice Brumpton said to R.: "Take him by the neck as your
villein, him and his issue for ever."4 Often it would seem that a
lord would take a recalcitrant serf into the courts so as to make
clear for ever his condition. There are numerous cases which
show that the wretched serf put up little or no fight once in the
presence of the overwhelming majesty of the judges and their
ceremonial. Again and again the records, mutatis mutandis, say
that "H. Pilcher was attached to answer W. le Waleys in a plea
ofnaifty. H. could not deny his naifty and so W. had him*'.5 Or
1 See Y.B. 5 Ed. II (Selden Soc.), 113-
2 Villainage, and 19 Ed. Ill (R.S.), no.
8 The Statute of Merton (20 Henry III) limited the time within which a
writ de nat. hob. could be brought, and henceforth it was not to exceed "the
last return of King John into England" (i.e. 1210). By 38 Henry VIII, cap.
2, the period was limited to sixty years. Also this writ could only be used by a
lord who had inherited a villein, and not by one who had an interest for a
term of years, etc. See Bracton, f. 1956. * Y.B. 30 Ed. I (R.S.), 200.
B Chester Rolls, 73; cf. Lane. Assize Rolls, 19,40,43; North. Assize Rolls t34,
146, 225. Wm. Salt Soc. vi, 71. Naifty=the state of being a serf.