Facsimiles, vol. ii. is a fine specimen of the solemn charters
referred to above. A considerable number of specimens, genuine
and spurious (for our present purpose a forgery is almost as
valuable as a true charter), will be found in the Monasticon,
e.g. i. 174, Rufus for Rochester; i. 266, Rufus for Bath; ii.
109-111, 126, Henry I. for Abingdon; i. 163, Henry I. for
Rochester; ii. 65-6, Henry I. for Evesham; ii. 267, Henry I.
for Bath; ii. 539, Henry I. for Exeter; iii. 448, Henry I. for
Malvern; vi. (1) 247, Henry I. for Merton; iii. 406, Stephen
for Eye. Nor was this solemn form employed only by kings:--See
Monast. ii. 385-6, Earl Hugh for Chester; iii. 404, Robert
Malet for Eye; v. 121, Hugh de la Val for Pontefract; v. 167,
William of Mortain for Montacute; v. 190, Simon of Senlis for
St. Andrew Northampton; v. 247, Stephen of Boulogne for
Furness; v. 316, Richard Earl of Exeter for Quarr; v. 628,
Ranulf of Chester for Pulton. As to Normandy, see the charters
in the Neustria Pia and the Gallia Christiana. A charter of
Henry II. for Fontenay recites a charter by which the
ancestors of Jordan Tesson founded the abbey with the consent
of Duke William, also a charter of Duke William, 'quae cartae
crucibus sunt signatae secundum antiquam consuetudinem';
Neustria Pia, p. 80; Gallia Christiana, xi. Ap. col. 82. It is
probable that during the Norman reigns the king's cross was
considered more valuable even than the king's seal; Monast.
iv. p. 18, Henry I. says, 'hanc donationem confirmo ego
Henricus rex et astipulatione sanctae crucis et appositione
sigilli mei'; Ibid. ii. 385-6, Earl Hugh confirms a gift 'non
solum sigillo meo sed etiam sigillo Dei omnipotentis, id est,
signo sanctae crucis.' It is not implied in our text that
every specimen of each of the two forms of instrument that we
have mentioned will always display all the characteristics
that have been noticed. There is no reason, for example, why
in a solemn charter the king should not speak in the past
tense of the act of gift, and as a matter of fact he does so
in some of the Anglo-Saxon books, while, on the other hand, an
instrument which begins with a salutation may well have the
words of gift in the present tense (this is by no means
uncommon in Anglo-Norman documents); nor of course is it
necessary that an instrument in writ-form should be
authenticated by a seal instead of a cross. Again, a solemn
charter with crosses and pious recitals may begin with a
salutation. We merely point out that the diplomata of Edward
the Confessor and his Norman successors tend to conform to two
distinct types. As to this matter see the remarks of Hickes,
Dissertatio Epistolaris, p. 77; Hardy, Introduction to Charter
Rolls, xiv., xxxvi.
[949] The curious formula, Schmid, App. XI., already has 'ne sace ne
socne.' This seems to suppose that it is a common thing for a
man to have sake and soke over his land.
[950] R. H. ii. 231.
[951] R. H. ii. 458.
[952] D. B. i. 172 b.
[953] R. H. ii. 283.
[954] Hale, Worcester Register, pp. xxx, 21 b; K. Appendix, 514 (vi.
237); Hickes, Dissertatio Epistolaris, i. 86; at the end of
his dissertation Hickes gives a facsimile of the instrument.
[955] A record of 825 (H. & S. iii. 596-601) mentions a place 'in
provincia Huicciorum' called Oslafeshlau; the editors of the
Councils say 'Oslafeshlau is probably the original name of the
hundred which now, either from some act of St. Oswald or by an
easy corruption, is called Oswaldslaw.' One of Oswald's books
(K. iii. 160) mentions 'Oswald's hlaw' among the boundaries of
Wulfringtune, i.e. Wolverton, a few miles east of Worcester.
It is very likely that the true name of the hundred is
Oswald's hlaw, i.e. Oswald's hill, not Oswald's law, though
the mistake was made at an early time. But the story told by
the charter as to the fusion of three old hundreds is
corroborated by Domesday, and in the thirteenth century one of
the three courts was still held at Wimborntree.
[956] But Dr Stubbs, Const. Hist. i. 118, relies on part of this
charter and it is not like ordinary forger's work. If, as is
highly probable, there has been some 'improvement' of the
charter, such improvement seems to have favoured, not the
church of Worcester as against the king, but the monks as
against the bishop.
[957] 'cum tolle et teame, saca et socne, et infangenetheof, et
proprii iuris debitum transgressionis, et poenam delicti quae
Anglice dicitur ofersæwnesse, et gyltwyte.'
[958] D. B. i. 172 b: 'Ecclesia S. Mariae de Wirecestre habet unum
hundret quod vocatur Oswaldeslau in quo iacent ccc. hidae. De
quibus episcopus ipsius ecclesiae a constitutione antiquorum
temporum habet omnes redditiones socharum et omnes
consuetudines inibi pertinentes ad dominicum victum et regis
servitium et suum, ita ut nullus vicecomes ullam ibi habere
possit querelam, nec in aliquo placito, nec in alia qualibet
causa. Hoc testatur totus comitatus.'
[959] Another example is Edgar's charter for Ely, A.D. 970 K. 563
(iii. 56), which bestows the soke over the two hundreds which
lie within the Isle, five hundreds in Essex, and all other
lands of the monastery. Kemble was inclined to accept the
A.-S. version of the charter. It purports to be obtained by
bishop Æthelwold and, if genuine, is closely connected with
the Oswaldslaw charter; both testify to unusual privileges
obtained by the founders of the new monasticism.
[960] E.g. K. 1298 (vi. 149), 'Dis is seo freolsboc to ðan mynstre
æt Byrtune.'
[961] E.g. K. 277 (ii. 58), 278 (ii. 60).
[962] A.D. 875; K. 306 (ii. 101); B. ii. 159.
[963] Unsuspected charters of the seventh and eighth centuries are
so few, that we hardly dare venture on any generalities about
their wording. But already in a charter attributed to 674, E.
p. 4, Brit. Mus. Facs. iv. 1, something very like the 'common
form' of later days appears; it appears also in a charter of
A.D. 691-2, K. 32 (i. 35), E. p. 12, of which we have but a
fragmentary copy, and before the end of the eighth century it
appears with some frequency; see e.g. Offa's charter of 774,
K. 123 (i. 150): 'sit autem terra illa libera ab omni
saecularis rei negotio, praeter pontis, arcisve restaurationem
et contra hostes communem expeditionem.'
[964] Occasionally the contrast is expressly drawn, e.g. by
Æthelbald, K. 90 (i. 108): 'ut ab omni tributo vectigalium
operum onerumque _saecularium_ sit libera ... tantum ut Deo
omnipotenti ex eodem agello _aecclesiasticae_ servitutis
famulatum inpendat.'
[965] See above, p. 229.
[966] Privilege of Wihtræd, A.D. 696-716, Haddan and Stubbs, iii.
238: 'Adhuc addimus maiorem libertatem. Inprimis Christi
ecclesiae cum omnibus agris ad eam pertinentibus, similiter
Hrofensi ecclesiae cum suis, caeterisque praedictis omnibus
ecclesiis Dei nostri, subiciantur pro salute animae meae,
meorumque praedecessorum, et pro spe caelestis regni ex hac
die, et deinceps concedimus et donamus ab omnibus
difficultatibus saecularium servitutis, a pastu Regis,
principum, comitum, nec non ab operibus, maioribus minoribusve
gravitatibus: et ab omni debitu vel pulsione regum tensuris
liberos eos esse perpetua libertate statuimus.' See also the
act by which Æthelbald confirmed this privilege in 742, H. &
S. iii. 340, B. i. 233-6. According to one version of this
act, the _trinoda necessitas_ is, according to another it is
not, excepted. The learned editors of the Councils speak of
'the suspicions common to every record that notices the
Privilege of Wihtræd.' We are treading on treacherous ground.
See also the less suspicious Act of Æthelbald, A.D. 749, H. &
S. iii. 386: 'Concedo ut monasteria et aecclesiae a publicis
vectigalibus et ab omnibus operibus oneribusque, auctore Deo,
servientes absoluti maneant, nisi sola quae communiter fruenda
sunt, omnique populo, edicto regis, facienda iubentur, id est,
instructionibus pontium, vel necessariis defensionibus arcium
contra hostes, non sunt renuenda.'
[967] A.D. 1066, Edward the Confessor for Westminster, K. 828 (iv.
191): 'scotfre and gavelfre.'
[968] Kemble, Codex, vol. i. Introduction liii-lvi., collects some
of the best instances. Offa for a valuable consideration frees
certain lands belonging to the church of Worcester from
_pastiones_; 'nec non et trium annorum ad se pertinentes
pastiones, id est sex convivia, libenter concedendo largitus
est': K. 143 (i. 173), B. i. 335.
[969] A.D. 904, K. 1084 (v. 157).
[970] A.D. 826, Egbert for Winchester, K. 1037 (v. 81): 'Volo etiam
ut haec terra libera semper sit ... nullique serviat nisi soli
episcopo Wentano.'
[971] K. 1346 (vi. 205). Compare Fustel de Coulanges, L'Immunité
Mérovingienne, Revue historique, xxiii. 21.
[972] E.g. K. 1117 (v. 231): 'tribus semotis causis a quibus nullus
nostrorum poterit expers fore'; K. v. pp. 259, 283, 334.
[973] To this class belong the foundation charter of Evesham
mentioned above, p. 235, and Offa's charter for St. Albans, K.
161 (i. 195), which Haddan and Stubbs, iii. 469, are unwilling
to decisively reject. Cenwulf's charter for Abingdon, K. 214
(i. 269), H. & S. iii. 556, sets a limit to the amount of
military service that is to be demanded. Æthelstan's charter
for Crediton, recently printed by Napier and Stevenson,
Crawford Charters, p. 5, frees land from the _trinoda
necessitas_.
[974] E.g. K. i. p. 274; ii. pp. 14, 15, 24, 26, 83; v. pp. 53, 62,
81.
[975] Observe how Bede describes a gift made by Oswy in the middle
of the seventh century; Hist. Eccl. iii. 24 (ed. Plummer, i.
178): 'donatis insuper duodecim possessiunculis terrarum in
quibus _ablato studio militiae terrestris_, ad exercendam
militiam caelestem etc.'
[976] The passages in the dooms which mention it are collected in
Schmid, Glossar, s. v. _ángild_. They are discussed by Maurer,
Krit. Ueberschau, ii. 32.
[977] The clauses of immunity which mention the _ángild_ will be
collected in a note at the end of this section.
[978] K. 210 (i. 265); B. i. 497; H. & S. iii. 585. The clause in
question is not found in every copy of the charter. If some
monk is to be accused of tampering with the book, there seems
just as much reason for charging him with having omitted a
clause which limited, as for charging him with inserting a
clause which recognized, the jurisdiction of the church.
[979] These clauses will be discussed in a note at the end of this
section.
[980] A.D. 841, K. 250 (ii. 14): 'Liberabo ab omnibus saecularibus
servitutibus ... regis et principis vel iuniorum eorum, nisi
in confinio reddant rationem contra alium.' Compare K. 117 (i.
144): 'nisi specialiter pretium pro pretio ad terminum.' Also
Leg. Henr. 57 § 1: 'Si inter compares vicinos utrinque sint
querelae, conveniant ad divisas.' Ibid. 57 § 8: 'aliquando in
divisis vel in erthmiotis.' Ibid. 9 § 4: 'Et omnis causa
terminetur, vel hundreto, vel comitatu, vel hallimoto soccam
habentium, vel dominorum curiis, vel divisis parium.' See
above, p. 97.
[981] A.D. 828, K. 223 (i. 287): 'cum furis comprehensione intus et
foris'; A.D. 842, K. 253 (ii. 16) 'ut ... furis comprehensione
... terra secura et immunis ... permaneat'; A.D. 850, K. 1049
(v. 95) a similar form; A.D. 858, K. 281 (ii. 64), a similar
form; A.D. 869, K. 300 (ii. 95), a similar form; A.D. 880, K.
312 (ii. 109): 'cum furis comprehensione.' See Kemble's
remarks, C. D. vol. i. p. xlvi.
[982] Hist. Eng. Law, i. 565.
[983] K. 1084 (v. 157); B. ii. 272: 'Christo concessi ut episcopi
homines tam nobiles quam ignobiles in praefato rure degentes
hoc idem ius in omni haberent dignitate quo regis homines
perfruuntur regalibus fiscis commorantes, et omnia saecularium
rerum iudicia ad usus praesulum exerceantur eodem modo quo
regalium negotiorum discutiuntur iudicia.' Similar words occur
in a confirmation by Edgar, K. 598 (iii. 136), which Kemble
rejects. This contains an English paraphrase of the Latin
text.
[984] Compare K. 821 (iv. 171): 'swa freols on eallan thingan eall
swa thaes cinges agen innland.'
[985] Hist. Eng. Law, i. 570.
[986] Hist. Eng. Law, i. 580.
[987] Few questions in Frankish history have been more warmly
contested than this, whether the immunist had a jurisdiction
within his territory. On the one hand, it has been contended
that there is no evidence older than 840 that he exercised
jurisdiction even as between the inhabitants of that
territory. On the other hand, it has been said that already in
614 he has civil jurisdiction in disputes between these
inhabitants, besides a criminal jurisdiction over them, which
however does not extend to the graver crimes. A few references
will suffice to put the reader in the current of this
discussion; Löning, Geschichte des Deutschen Kirchenrechts,
ii. 731; Brunner, D. R. G. ii. 298; Schröder, D. R. G. 174;
Beauchet, Histoire de l'organisation judiciaire en France, 74;
Beaudoin, Étude sur les origines du regime féodal (Annales de
l'enseignement supérieur de Grenoble, vol. i. p. 43); Fustel
de Coulanges, L'Immunité Mérovingienne (Revue Historique,
xxii. 249, xxiii. I). One of the most disputed points is the
character of the court held by an abbot, which is put before
us by the very ancient Formulae Andecavenses, a collection
attributed to the sixth or, at the latest, to the early years
of the seventh century. It has been asserted and denied that
this abbot of Angers is exercising the powers given to him by
an immunity; some have said that he, or rather his steward, is
merely acting as an arbitrator; Brunner, Forschungen, 665,
explains him as one of the _mediocres iudices_ of decaying
Roman law. On the whole, the balance of learning is inclining
to the opinion that, even in the Merovingian time, there were
great churches and other lords with courts which wielded power
over free men, and that the 'immunities,' even if they were
not intended to create such courts, at all events made them
possible, or, as Fustel says, consecrated them.
[988] Madox, Hist. Exch. i. 109; Bigelow, Placita Anglo-Normannica,
114.
[989] Hist. Eng. Law, i. 224-30.
[990] Nissl, Der Gerichtsstand des Clerus im Fränkischen Reich, 247.
[991] K. 214 (i. 269); 236 (i. 312).
[992] Edw. & Guth. 4; Leg. Henr. II, § 5.
[993] D. B. i. 26.
[994] Chron. de Bello, 26-7: 'Et si forisfacturae Christianitatis
quolibet modo infra leugam contigerint, coram abbate
definiendae referantur. Habeatque ecclesia S. Martini
emendationem forisfacturae; poenitentiam vero reatus sui rei
ab episcopo percipiant.'
[995] Battle Custumals (Camden Soc.), 126: 'Septem hundreda non
habent fossas nisi apud Wy, et ideo habemus ij. denarios:
Archiepiscopus tamen et Prior de novo trahunt homines suos ad
fossas: Abbas de S. Augustino non habet.'
[996] c. 3, X. 5, 37: 'Accepimus ... quod archidiaconi Conventrensis
episcopatus ... in examinatione ignis et aquae triginta
denarios a viro et muliere quaerere praesumunt.'
[997] Cnut II. 12-15.
[998] Hist. Eng. Law, i. 564.
[999] Beaudoin, op. cit. p. 94 ff.
[1000] Æthelstan, II. 2.
[1001] Konrad Maurer, Krit. Ueberschau, ii. 30 ff.
[1002] Æthelstan, II. 3. Observe how in the Latin version 'se
blaford the rihtes wyrne' becomes 'dominus qui rectum
difforciabit.'
[1003] K. Maurer, Krit. Ueberschau, ii. 32, 40, 41. Ine, 22, is of
great importance on account of its antiquity.
[1004] D. B. ii. 18 b: 'inde vocat dominum suum ad tutorem.' See
above, p. 71.
[1005] Leg. Henr. 57, § 8; 82, §§ 4, 5, 6.
[1006] See above, p. 89.
[1007] Æthelstan, VI. (Iudicia Civitatis Lundoniae), 1.
[1008] Æthelred, I. 1, § 7.
[1009] Edgar, I. 2, 3; III. 7; IV. 2, § 8; Æthelred, I. 1; III. 3,
4, 7.
[1010] Æthelred, III. 3, 4.
[1011] Æthelred, III. 7.
[1012] Edgar, IV..= 2, § 11; Æthelred, I. 3.
[1013] D. B. i. 154. See above, p. 92.
[1014] See above, p. 275.
[1015] Northumbrian Priests' Law, Schmid, App. II. 48-9.
[1016] Ibid. 57, 58. See also the texts which give the lord a share
with the bishop in the penalty for neglect to pay tithe, viz.
Edgar, II. 3; Æthelred, VIII. 8; Cnut, I. 8.
[1017] K. 498 (ii. 386).
[1018] See above, p. 100.
[1019] The Archbishop of York, the bishops of Durham, Chester,
Lincoln and (for one manor) Salisbury, the abbots of York,
Peterborough, Ramsey, Croyland, Burton and (for one manor)
Westminster.
[1020] D. B. i. 280 b; i. 337.
§ 4. _Book-land and Loan-land._
[The book and the gift.]
We can not say that from the first the gift of book-land establishes
between the donee and the royal donor any such permanent relation as
that which in later times is called tenure. What the king gives he
apparently gives for good and all. In particular, a gift of land to a
church is 'an out and out gift'; nay more, it is a dedication. Still,
even within the sphere of piety and alms, we sometimes find the notion
that in consequence of the gift the donee should do something for the
donor. Cnut frees the lands of the church of Exeter from all burdens
except military service, bridge-repair and 'assiduous prayers[1021],'
and thus the title by which the churches hold their lands is already
being brought under the rubric _Do ut des_. Turning to the books granted
to laymen, we see that, at all events from the middle of the tenth
century onwards, they usually state a _causa_, or as we might say 'a
consideration,' for the gift. Generally the gift is 'an out and out
gift.' Words are used which expressly tell us that the donee is to enjoy
the land during his life and may on his death give it to whomsoever he
chooses. Nothing is said about his paying rent or about his rendering in
the future any service to the king in return for the land. The
'consideration' that is stated in the instrument is, if we may still use
such modern terms, 'a past consideration.' The land comes rather as a
reward than as a retaining fee. Sometimes indeed the thegn pays money to
the king and is in some sort a buyer of the land, though the king will
take credit for generosity and will talk of giving rather than of
selling[1022]. More often the land comes as a reward to him for
obedience and fidelity or fealty. Already the word _fidelitas_ is in
common use; we have only to render it by _fealty_ and the transaction
between the king and his thegn will be apt to look like an infeudation,
especially when the thegn is described by the foreign term
_vassallus_[1023]. Even the general rule that the king is rewarding a
past, rather than stipulating for a future fealty, is not unbroken. Thus
as early as 801 we find Cenwulf of Mercia and Cuthræd of Kent giving
land to a thegn as a perpetual inheritance 'but so that he shall remain
a faithful servant and unshaken friend to us and our magnates[1024].' So
again, in 946 King Edmund gives land to a faithful _minister_ 'in order
that while I live he may serve me faithful in mind and obedient in deed
and that after my death he may with the same fealty obey whomsoever of
my friends I may choose[1025].' The king, it will be seen, reserves the
right to dispose by will of his thegn's fealty. A continuing relation is
established between the king and his successors in title on the one
hand, the holder of the book-land and his successors in title on the
other.
[Book-land and service.]
However, as already said, the gift supposes that the personal
relationship of lord and thegn already exists between the donor and the
donee before the gift is made. This relationship was established by a
formal ceremony; the thegn swore an oath of fealty, and it is likely
that he bent his knee and bowed his head before his lord[1026]. The
Normans saw their homage in the English commendation[1027]. The fidelity
expected of the thegn is not regarded as a debt incurred by the receipt
of land. And if the king does not usually stipulate for fidelity, still
less does he stipulate for any definite service, in particular for any
definite amount of military service. The land is not to be free of
military service:--this is all that is said. However, to say this is to
say that military service is already a burden on land. Already it is
conceivable--very possibly it is true--that some of the lands of the
churches have been freed even from this burden[1028]. What is more, if
we may believe the Abingdon charters, the ninth century is not far
advanced before the king is occasionally making bargains as to the
amount of military service that the lands of the churches shall render.
Abingdon need send to the host but twelve vassals and twelve
shields[1029]. Likewise we see that on the eve of the Conquest, though
other men who neglected the call to arms might escape with a fine of
forty shillings, it was the rule, at least in Worcestershire, that the
free man who had sake and soke and could 'go with his land whither he
would' forfeited that land if he was guilty of a similar default[1030].
With this we must connect those laws of Cnut which say that the man who
flees in battle, as well as the man who is outlawed, forfeits his
book-land to the king, no matter who may be his lord[1031].
[Military service.]
Such rules when regarded from one point of view may well be called
feudal. Book-land having been derived from, is specially liable to
return to the king. It will return to him if the holder of it be guilty
of shirking his military duty or of other disgraceful crime. To this we
may add that if these rules betray the fact that the holder of this
king-given land may none the less have commended himself and his land to
some other lord against whose claims the king has to legislate, thereby
they disclose a feudalism of the worst, of the centrifugal kind. The
ancient controversy as to whether 'the military tenures' were 'known to
the Anglo-Saxons' is apt to become a battle over words. The old power of
calling out all able-bodied men for defensive warfare was never
abandoned; but it was not abandoned by the Norman and Angevin kings. The
holder of land was not spoken of as holding it by military service; but
it would seem that in the eleventh century the king, save in some
pressing necessity, could only ask for one man's service from every five
hides, and the holder of book-land forfeited that land if he disobeyed a
lawful summons[1032]. Whether a man who will lose land for such a cause
shall be said to hold it by military service is little better than a
question about the meaning of words. At best it is a question about
legal logic. We are asked to make our choice (and yet may doubt whether
our ancestors had made their choice) between the ideas of misdemeanour
and punishment on the one hand and the idea of reentry for breach of
condition on the other.
[Escheat of book-land.]
The same vagueness enshrouds the infancy of the escheat _propter
defectum tenentis_. Already in 825 a king tells how he gave land to one
of his _praefecti_ who died intestate and without an heir, 'and so that
land by the decree of my magnates was restored to me who had before
possessed it[1033].' Here we seem to see the notion that when a gift has
spent itself, when there is no longer any one who can bring himself
within the words of donation, the given land should return to the giver.
In another quarter we may see that when the king makes a gift he does
not utterly abandon all interest in the land that is given. Cenwulf of
Mercia in a charter for Christ Church at Canterbury tells us that King
Egbert gave land to a certain thegn of his who on leaving the country
gave it to the minster; but that Offa annulled this gift and gave away
the land to other thegns, saying that it was unlawful for a thegn to
give away without his lord's witness (_testimonio_) the land given to
him by his lord[1034]. Cenwulf restored the land to the church; but he
took money for it, and he does not say that Offa had acted illegally.
There is much to show that the 'restraint on alienation' is one of the
oldest of the 'incidents of tenure.' Our materials do not enable us to
formulate a general principle, but certain it is that the holders of
book-land, whether they be laymen or ecclesiastics, very generally
obtain the consent of the king when they propose to alienate their land
either _inter vivos_ or by testament. We may not argue from this to any
definite condition annexed to the gift, or to any standing relationship
between the donor and the donee like the 'tenure' of later times. After
all, it is a very natural thought that a reward bestowed by the king
should not be sold or given away. The crosses and stars with which
modern potentates decorate their _fideles_, we do not expect to see
these in the market[1035]. The land that the king has booked to his
thegn is an 'honour' and the giver will expect to be consulted before it
passes into hands that may be unworthy of it. It may be just because the
gift of book-land is made by the king and corroborated by all the powers
of church and state, that the book is conceived as exercising a
continuous sway over the land comprised in it. The book, it has well
been said, is the _lex possessionis_ of that land[1036]. It can make the
land descend this way or that way, and the land will come back to the
king if ever the power of the book be spent. What is more, from the
first we seem to see a germ of our famous English rule that if a gift be
made without 'words of inheritance' the gift will endure only during the
life of the donee:--will endure, we say, for a gift is no mere act done
once for all but a force that endures for a longer or a shorter period.
Certain it is that most of the charters are careful to say that the gift
is not thus to come to an end but is to go on operating despite the
donee's death[1037].
[Alienation of book-land.]