« PreviousContinue »
INFERIOR TENURES AND VILLENAGE.
tenures. The term scutage is now commonly used of the tax for which service of the shield was commuted. Originally it meant the obligation to serve in arms forty days in the year, and was attached to every knight's fee. Fealty, with or without homage, and socage together, made up knight's service. Fealty, with or without homage, and any other special service below petty serjeanty, constituted the important class of socaged tenures. The obligation to perform all services indiscriminately, was villenage. In other words, the distinction between gentry and mere freedom lay in the service of arms; between freedom and servitude, in fixed, instead of variable, dues. The distinctions of socage tenure are numerous, as the word came to cover the service of the plough, rent for houses paid immediately to the crown (burgage tenure), or rent by various tenures, even one so debasing as doing the hangman's duty. Sometimes two or three conditions were united; it did not matter, so long as they were not variable. Beneath these middle classes came the large class of villeins. A villein might be regardant, attached to the soil, or in gross, attached to the person of his lord. A freeman might hold land in villenage, and be bound to do villein's service upon it. One of the things that most complicates the consideration of feudal England, is the way in which a personality attached to corporations and lands. Every acre of soil, every institution, was animate, so to speak, with duties and privileges, which had attached to it from time immemorial, and could not be lost.
The obligations of a feudal vassal were service in council, in the court of law, and in the field. He was bound to guard his lord's castle during a certain number of days. He was forced to contribute, to redeem his lord from captivity, when his lord's eldest daughter was married, or when the eldest son became knight. These reliefs, as they were called, were at first arbitrary and oppressive. Gradually they were fixed, by custom, at the rate of five pounds for the knight's fee of land, or four hides; this was "the reasonable relief" that is mentioned in Magna Charta. The heriot, or royalty on the goods of a deceased vassal, seems gradually to have been confounded
OBLIGATIONS OF FEUDAL SERVICE.
by the Normans with a relief which the heir was bound to pay out of his own purse on succeeding to an estate. The heriot conveyed the acknowledgement of former vassalage; and, from analogy, one was claimed by the church at the death of every believer. The relief was rather a recognition of the lord's claim to continued service from an estate. It is important to observe that no man was bound to pay the necessary reliefs more than once to every natural heir of the estates, otherwise a frequent change of owners, by sales or forfeitures, would have been intolerably oppressive. In the case of tenants-inchief, their heiresses were royal wards, whom the king might marry at pleasure. The abuse of this prerogative by monarchs who gave the daughters of noblemen to unworthy favourites, was a grave grievance, of which the barons constantly complained, but which was never effectually redressed.
The vassal forfeited his fief if he did not perform its duties, or if he made any attempt on the person or honour of his lord and his family. But these obligations were reciprocal. The lord was not even allowed to raise a stick upon his vassal. Insult, outrage, or the denial of aid or justice, entitled the vassal to withdraw his fief and declare war upon his superior. In cases that did not come to this extremity, the vassal might appeal to a court of his peers, presided over, it is true, by his lord; but a further appeal lay from this to the suzerain. That injustice was often done, is probable. But the institutions of these times are not chargeable with unfairness in their spirit. The great curse of the country was its over-legality, and the belief that it could root out abuses by multiplying systems and laws.
It has been said that a freeman might owe service in villenage for lands held on that tenure. But these cases, which Littleton speaks of as folly, were of course comparatively exceptional. During the twelfth century, three men in five were villeins or serfs. In theory, these men were entitled to all the protection of the law; they could not be slain, mutilated, or outraged by their lord. Their condition in practice, of course, varied with the times, the district, and the character of their
CAUSES OF EMANCIPATION.
owner. The worst point in their state was the right the owner had, if he chose to enforce it within a certain term, to'any real property or merchandize they might acquire, though apparently not to their money, and certainly not to the necessary implements of their occupations. In other words, a peasant could neither be a trader nor a landowner. It is doubtful how far this increased the difficulty for men to buy their own liberty; though they certainly did it at times. Becoming a priest, or escaping to a town, was another means of acquiring liberty; in each case, the man had transferred his service to a new lord. Owners of serfs accordingly legislated against these infringements of their rights; but their best remedy lay in making escape from their estates difficult, as the church and cities were interested in protecting the fugitives. The humane subtlety of English lawyers came to the aid of the oppressed class. The principle of Roman jurisprudence, that slavery is against the law of nature, was reproduced by Bracton;2 and Fortescue finely observes, that the liberty which has been taken from a man seeks every issue to return to him. The remarkable doctrines, that a free father made a free son, and that all cases of doubt were to be decided in favour of liberty, must have emancipated a large class in the middle ages. The first is a gross method to look back upon, though it has issued in good. Nevertheless, it is doubtful,
I think, if the men who freed themselves, or who were accounted free as illegitimate, were much more numerous than those who, by their own confession in a court of record, made themselves serfs to obtain subsistence or protection. English
1 Coke upon Littleton, 118, a, b. I assume that if the villein's wainage could not be seized for a fine to the crown, it was regarded as his property, and the enactment in Magna Charta no doubt rested upon old custom, which had been arbitrarily infringed. In the various Latin poems against the men of Norfolk, which Mr. Wright has printed, mention is made of a landowner who oppressed his serfs by hard labour, and took their cattle and money. Yet the villeins clubbed together and bought their freedom of him. It is hardly possible, therefore, that he can have had the right to take their money from them, or he would have done so, when it was tendered in payment.-Early Mysteries, p. 94.
2 Institutes of Justinian, lib. i., tit. iii., s. 2.-Bracton, fol. 5. No one who compares the two passages can doubt that Bracton is copying the Institutes.
INFLUENCES OF FEUDALISM ON SOCIETY.
liberty is mainly derived from two originals. The plot of ground allowed to the serf remained so long in one family that the notion of a fixed or copyhold tenure was substituted for that of arbitrary service. Or, as the employment of hired soldiers made money more valuable than a large following, and the trade in wool made pasture more profitable than arable land, the great landowners evicted their tenantry, who were thus thrown upon the country, houseless and landless, but free.
The universality with which the principles of feudalism were applied can scarcely be exaggerated. In the ordinary life of society, the knight was invested with his order as with a fief, and the woman bound to her husband by a promise resembling the oath of homage. In religion, the great question at issue between church and state was conceived under feudal aspects, and men debated whether pope and emperor were alike supreme in their own demesne, but each owing service to the other for some fief held of him; or one subject to the other, or both independent powers, holding only of Christ, their suzerain. In law, the theory that a monarchy was a fief, and the administration of justice one of its appurtenances, has stamped itself upon English legislation. In itself, it was no small change that the monarch should be called king of England instead of king of the Angles; it substituted the notion of proprietorship for that of headship of a clan. That peculiar feature of these ages, which led them to express their abstract ideas in rigid symbols, to materialize and petrify what would otherwise have been fleeting and vague, contributed to invest legal fictions with an intense reality. Hence it was that the English towns, as soon as they became free and corporate, were treated as barons. Each of them was an organic life, so to speak, with many members, but only one will, and with the responsibilities of an individual. The governing powers of a corporation, its mayor, aldermen, and common council, were the lord of the citizens. Naturally, therefore, they were held re
1 See, e. g., Ockham, Disp. Cler. et Mil. Goldasti. Monarch., vol. i., pp.13-18, and Dante, De Monarchiâ, lib. iii.
ORIGIN OF CHIVALRY.
sponsible for the actions of any one of their body. The cost of a criminal's offences was assessed on his fellow-citizens; and the debt owed by a single man to the exchequer might be recovered from his township; the act of a deputation was binding on those from whom it came. In these few facts lies the whole representative theory. Once grant that a city can be conceived as a person, and the great democratic problem of expressing every individual will is solved.
As feudalism was the conservative element which connected mediæval society with order and property, but threatened to turn it into a hierarchy of castes, so chivalry may be called the element of progress. The one took its stand on what was real; the other devoted itself to ideas. Antiquarians may trace the name chivalry to the fiefs which were bound to supply horsemen, but the institution itself is derived from deeper wants of human nature than the mere need of a militia. It expresses the union of the citizen with the Christian. During many centuries the words of Christ, that his kingdom was not of this world, were interpreted as a command to desert secular society. The silent heroism of men, who fasted and prayed, in fearless unconcern that the world was crashing around them, may command the admiration even of those who deplore it as unintelligent. When Europe was reconstructed, its nobility in every country came in as barbarians and pagans, and were converted by the subject-people, or by their more civilized neighbours. The comrades of Rollo and Guthrum were willing to be baptized, if it were with the sword at their side. Hence the question arose whether war might not be reconciled with religion. The conscience of men answered that it was right to fight for their homes and faith. But the duty of self-defence, though it might kindle enthusiasm, could not create chivalry. Mere brotherhood in arms was not knighthood; it did not distinguish the civilized man from the berserkar. The crusades idealized war. Men who left home and hope behind them, to fight for a shattered cross and a blackened
1 Madox's Firma Burgi, chap. 2, 7, 9.
Previous <unk>Continue <unk> INFERIOR TENURES AND VILLENAGE. tenure. Neno scutage sasa hutumiwa kwa kawaida kwa kodi ambayo huduma ya ngao ilibadilishwa. Mwanzoni ilimaanisha wajibu wa kutumikia katika silaha siku arobaini kwa mwaka, na ilihusishwa na ada ya kila farasi. Uaminifu, pamoja au bila heshima, na socage pamoja, alifanya huduma ya knight ya. Uaminifu, pamoja na au bila heshima, na huduma nyingine yoyote maalum chini ya serjeanty ndogo, iliunda darasa muhimu la tenure socaged. Wajibu wa kufanya huduma zote bila ubaguzi, ilikuwa villenage. Kwa maneno mengine, tofauti kati ya watu wa hali ya juu na uhuru tu ilikuwa katika utumishi wa silaha; kati ya uhuru na utumwa, katika malipo ya kudumu, badala ya kubadilika. "Mambo ya tofauti ya ""socaje tenure"" ni mengi, kama neno lilivyokuja kufunika huduma ya ""plow,"" kodi ya nyumba iliyolipwa mara moja kwa taji (burge tenure), au kodi ya ""tenure"" mbalimbali, hata moja ya hali ya chini kama kufanya wajibu wa hangman." Nyakati nyingine hali mbili au tatu ziliunganishwa; haikuwa na maana, mradi tu hazikuwa tofauti. Chini ya tabaka hilo la kati kulikuwa na tabaka kubwa la watu wa vijijini. Villein angeweza kuwa na uhusiano wa karibu, uliounganishwa na udongo, au kwa ukali, uliounganishwa na mtu wa bwana wake. Freeman inaweza kushikilia ardhi katika villenage, na kuwa amefungwa kufanya huduma ya villein juu yake. Moja ya mambo ambayo zaidi complicates kuzingatia feudal Uingereza, ni njia ambayo utu kushikamana na mashirika na ardhi. Kila ekari ya udongo, kila taasisi, ilikuwa animated, hivyo kusema, na majukumu na mapendeleo, ambayo alikuwa amefungwa kwa hiyo kutoka wakati immemorial, na hakuweza kupotea. Wajibu wa mtumishi wa kifalme ulikuwa kutumikia katika baraza, mahakamani, na shambani. Alilazimika kulinda ngome ya bwana wake kwa siku fulani. Alilazimika kutoa mchango ili kumkomboa bwana wake kutoka uhamishoni wakati binti mkubwa wa bwana wake alipooa au mwana wake mkubwa alipokuwa ametawazwa kuwa shujaa. Mwanzoni, michoro hiyo iliitwa michoro ya ukumbusho, lakini ilikuwa ya kimakusudi na yenye kukandamiza. "Kwa kawaida, kwa sababu ya sheria za kifalme, ""five pounds for the knight's fee of land"" (pamoja na ""four hides"" kwa ajili ya farasi) ilikuwa ni kiasi cha fedha cha kawaida cha kifalme." Hao, au haki ya kifalme juu ya bidhaa za mtawa aliyekufa, inaonekana hatua kwa hatua kuwa ilichanganyikiwa MAHIMU YA HUDUMA YA FEODAL. Normans, na kuondolewa ambayo mrithi alikuwa na wajibu wa kulipa nje ya mfuko wake mwenyewe juu ya kufanikiwa kwa mali. Heru ilionyesha utambuzi wa utumwa wa zamani; na, kwa mfano, moja ilidaiwa na kanisa wakati wa kifo cha kila mwamini. Badala yake, msaada huo ulikuwa utambuzi wa madai ya bwana ya kuendelea kutumikia kutoka kwenye mali. Ni muhimu kutambua kwamba hakuna mtu aliyelazimika kulipa misaada ya lazima zaidi ya mara moja kwa kila mrithi wa asili wa mali, vinginevyo mabadiliko ya mara kwa mara ya wamiliki, kwa mauzo au forfeits, ingekuwa intolerably kukandamiza. Katika kisa cha wakulima-wakuu, warithi wao walikuwa walinzi wa kifalme, ambao mfalme angeweza kuoa kwa furaha. Kutumia vibaya haki hii na wafalme ambao waliwapa binti za watu mashuhuri kwa wapendwa wasiofaa, ilikuwa ni kosa kubwa, ambalo mabwana walilalamika daima, lakini ambalo halikuwahi kusuluhishwa kwa ufanisi. Mtumishi wa mfalme angepoteza fimbo yake ikiwa angekosa kutimiza wajibu wake, au ikiwa angefanya jaribio lolote dhidi ya mtu au heshima ya bwana wake na familia yake. Lakini wajibu huo ulikuwa wa pande zote mbili. Bwana huyo hakuruhusiwa hata kuinua fimbo juu ya mlinzi wake. Utukanaji, ukatili, au kukataa msaada au haki, ulimruhusu mrithi kuondoa fief yake na kutangaza vita dhidi ya mkuu wake. Katika kesi ambazo hazikufika katika hali hii ya mwisho, mtawa angeweza kukata rufaa kwa mahakama ya wenzao, iliyoongozwa, ni kweli, na bwana wake; lakini rufaa zaidi ilikuwa kutoka kwa hii kwa suzerain. Kwamba ukosefu wa haki ulifanywa mara nyingi, ni uwezekano. Lakini taasisi za nyakati hizi hazina hatia ya ukosefu wa haki katika roho yao. Laana kubwa ya nchi ilikuwa uhalali wake wa kupita kiasi, na imani kwamba inaweza kuondoa unyanyasaji kwa kuzidisha mifumo na sheria. Imesema kwamba mtu huru angeweza kuwa na deni la utumishi katika kijiji kwa ajili ya mashamba yaliyokuwa katika mamlaka hiyo. Lakini visa hivi, ambavyo Littleton anazungumzia kuwa upumbavu, bila shaka vilikuwa vya kipekee kwa kulinganisha. Katika karne ya kumi na mbili, wanaume watatu kati ya watano walikuwa wakazi wa vijijini au watumwa. Kwa kweli, watu hao walikuwa na haki ya kupata ulinzi wote wa sheria; hawangeweza kuuawa, kuharibiwa, au kukasirishwa na bwana wao. Hali yao katika mazoezi, bila shaka, ilitofautiana kulingana na nyakati, wilaya, na tabia ya sababu zao za uhuru. mmiliki. Jambo baya zaidi katika hali yao lilikuwa haki ya mmiliki, kama yeye alichagua kutekeleza ndani ya muda fulani, kwa mali yoyote halisi au bidhaa wangeweza kupata, ingawa inaonekana si kwa fedha zao, na hakika si kwa vifaa muhimu ya kazi zao. Kwa maneno mengine, mkulima hangeweza kuwa mfanyabiashara wala mmiliki wa ardhi. Ni shaka ni kwa kadiri gani hii iliongeza ugumu kwa watu kununua uhuru wao wenyewe, ingawa hakika walifanya hivyo wakati mwingine. Kujifanya kuhani au kukimbilia mji mwingine kulikuwa njia nyingine ya kupata uhuru; katika kila kisa, mtu huyo alikuwa amehamisha utumishi wake kwa bwana mpya. Wamiliki wa serf walifanya sheria dhidi ya ukiukaji huu wa haki zao; lakini suluhisho lao bora lilikuwa kufanya kutoroka kutoka kwa mali zao kuwa ngumu, kwani kanisa na miji walipendezwa na kulinda wakimbizi. Ujanja wa kibinadamu wa wanasheria Waingereza ulisaidia tabaka lililodhulumiwa. "Kama ilivyo katika sheria ya Kirumi, kwamba utumwa ni kinyume na sheria ya asili, ilirudishwa na Bracton, na Fortescue kwa makini anasema kwamba uhuru ambao umechukuliwa kutoka kwa mtu anatafuta kila suala la kurudi kwake. """ Mafundisho ya ajabu ya kwamba baba huru hufanya mwana huru, na kwamba kesi zote za shaka zilipaswa kuamuliwa kwa niaba ya uhuru, lazima kuwa zimetolewa kwa jamii kubwa katika enzi za kati. Ya kwanza ni njia mbaya ya kutazama nyuma, ingawa imetolewa kwa wema. Hata hivyo, ni jambo la kushangaza, nadhani, kama watu ambao walijikomboa wenyewe, au ambao walihesabiwa kuwa huru kama wasio halali, walikuwa wengi zaidi kuliko wale ambao, kwa kukiri kwao wenyewe katika mahakama ya rekodi, walijifanya watumwa kupata riziki au ulinzi. "Kama vile ilivyo katika kitabu cha ""Coke on Littleton"" cha mwaka 118 A.D., ""Kama mali ya mwekundu haingeweza kukamatwa kwa faini kwa taji, ilionwa kuwa mali yake, na sheria ya Magna Carta bila shaka ilitegemea desturi ya zamani, ambayo ilikuwa imevunjwa kwa hiari.""" Katika mashairi mbalimbali ya Kilatini dhidi ya watu wa Norfolk, ambayo Mheshimiwa Wright ameweka, ni kutaja ya mmiliki wa ardhi ambaye alinyanyasa serfs yake na kazi ngumu, na alichukua ng'ombe zao na fedha. Hata hivyo, watu wa kijiji hicho walijiunga pamoja na kumnunua ili wapate uhuru. Kwa hiyo, haiwezekani kwamba angeweza kuwa na haki ya kuchukua fedha zao kutoka kwao, au angefanya hivyo, wakati zilipotolewa kwa malipo. - Early Mysteries, p. 2 Taasisi za Justinian, lib. i., tit. iii., s. 2.-Bracton, fol. 5. Uwe na mtazamo mzuri. Hakuna mtu anayelinganisha mistari hiyo miwili anayeweza kutilia shaka kwamba Bracton anataja vitabu vya Taasisi. Uvutano wa Feudalism juu ya Jamii Uhuru ni hasa inayotokana na mbili ya awali. Sehemu ya ardhi iliyopewa mtumwa ilibaki kwa muda mrefu sana katika familia moja hivi kwamba wazo la umiliki wa kudumu au wa kuhifadhiwa lilibadilishwa na lile la huduma ya kimakusudi. Au, kama vile kuajiriwa kwa askari waliolipwa kulipwa kulifanya fedha ziwe na thamani zaidi kuliko wafuasi wengi, na biashara ya sufu ilifanya malisho kuwa yenye faida zaidi kuliko ardhi ya kilimo, wamiliki wakubwa wa ardhi waliwafukuza wakulima wao, ambao kwa hivyo walitupwa kwenye nchi, bila nyumba na bila ardhi, lakini huru. Ni vigumu kupambanua jinsi kanuni za feudalism zilivyotumiwa ulimwenguni pote. Katika maisha ya kawaida ya jamii, farasi alikuwa amevaa vazi lake la kifalme kama fief, na mwanamke alikuwa amefungwa kwa mume wake kwa ahadi inayofanana na kiapo cha heshima. Katika dini, suala kubwa lililokuwa likizungumziwa kati ya Kanisa na Serikali lilitokana na mambo ya kifalme, na watu walibishana kama Papa na Maliki walikuwa wakuu katika maeneo yao wenyewe, lakini kila mmoja alikuwa na wajibu wa kumtumikia mwingine kwa ajili ya fief fulani aliyokuwa nayo; au mmoja alikuwa chini ya mwingine, au wote wawili walikuwa na mamlaka huru, wakimtegemea Kristo tu, mtawala wao. Katika sheria, nadharia kwamba ufalme ulikuwa fief, na utawala wa haki moja ya appertenances yake, imekuwa stamped yenyewe juu ya sheria ya Kiingereza. "Hakuna tofauti kubwa kwamba mfalme wa Uingereza aliitwa ""mfalme wa Uingereza"" badala ya ""mfalme wa Waingereza"" na kwamba jina la ""mfalme wa Uingereza"" lilibadilishwa kuwa ""mfalme wa familia.""" "Usawa huo wa kipekee wa enzi hizi, ambao uliwaongoza kuelezea mawazo yao ya abstract katika ishara ngumu, kuunda na kuimarisha kile ambacho kingeweza kuwa cha muda mfupi na kisicho wazi, ilichangia kuweka hadithi za kisheria na hali halisi ya ""mzito.""" Kwa hiyo, miji ya Uingereza, mara tu ilipokuwa huru na ya ushirika, ilitendewa kama mabwana. Kila moja ilikuwa uhai wa kiumbe, kwa kusema, wenye viungo vingi, lakini mapenzi moja tu, na majukumu ya mtu mmoja. Mamlaka za utawala wa shirika, meya wake, maelekezi, na baraza la kawaida, zilikuwa bwana wa raia. Kwa hiyo, kwa kawaida, walikuwa uliofanyika re 1 Angalia, kwa mfano, Ockham, Disp. Cler. na Mil. Goldasti. Monarch, Buku la 1. " (trg) =""10""> Katika kitabu chake cha Dante, kitabu cha De Monarchias,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, iii. Asili ya Chevalerie kuwajibika kwa matendo ya mtu yeyote katika mwili wao. Gharama ya makosa ya mhalifu ilihesabiwa kwa wananchi wenzake; na deni la mtu mmoja kwa hazina inaweza kulipwa kutoka kwa mji wake; kitendo cha mjumbe kilikuwa cha kulazimisha wale ambao walitoka. Katika mambo haya machache iko nadharia nzima ya mwakilishi. Mara tu mji ukiweza kufasiriwa kama mtu, tatizo kubwa la kidemokrasia la kueleza kila mapenzi ya mtu binafsi litatatuliwa. Kama vile feudalism ilikuwa ni kiungo cha kihafidhina ambacho kiliunganisha jamii ya enzi za kati na utaratibu na mali, lakini kilitisha kuigeuza kuwa utaratibu wa tabaka, hivyo chivalry inaweza kuitwa kiungo cha maendeleo. Moja ilichukua msimamo wake juu ya kile kilichokuwa halisi; ile nyingine ilijitolea kwa mawazo. "Wanafalsafa wa kale wanaweza kufuatilia jina ""chivalry"" kwa feuds ambayo walikuwa na wajibu wa kutoa wapanda farasi, lakini taasisi yenyewe ni inayotokana na mahitaji ya kina ya asili ya binadamu kuliko tu haja ya jeshi." Inaonyesha muungano wa raia na Mkristo. Kwa karne nyingi maneno ya Kristo kwamba ufalme wake haukuwa wa ulimwengu huu yalifafanuliwa kuwa amri ya kuiacha jamii ya kilimwengu. Ujasiri wa kimya wa watu waliofunga na kuomba, bila hofu na bila kujali kwamba ulimwengu ulikuwa ukianguka kuzunguka kwao, unaweza kuvutia hata wale wanaolihuzunisha kama lisilo la akili. Wakati Ulaya ilipojengwa upya, watu wake mashuhuri katika kila nchi waliingia kama watu wa kienyeji na wapagani, na wakageuzwa imani na watu walio chini yao, au na majirani zao wenye ustaarabu zaidi. Rollo na Guthrum walikuwa tayari kubatizwa, ikiwa ni kwa upanga upande wao. Kwa hiyo swali lilitokea kama vita vingeweza kupatanishwa na dini. Dhamiri ya watu ilijibu kwamba ilikuwa sawa kupigana kwa ajili ya nyumba zao na imani yao. Lakini wajibu wa kujilinda, ingawa inaweza kuwasha shauku, hakuweza kujenga chivalry. Urafiki wa silaha tu haukuwa ushujaa; haukutofautisha mtu mwenye ustaarabu na mtu mwenye hasira. Vita vya Msalaba vilipendekeza vita. """Wanaume walioacha nyumba na matumaini nyuma yao, kupigana kwa msalaba uliovunjika na msalaba mweusi"" (1 Madox, Firma Burgi, chap." 2, 7, na 9.