If a freeman take to wife a woman born in Villenage, whilst he so continues bound to the state of Villenage, he shall as a consequence lose his Law, as if he himself were a Villein-born.[155] If there be any children resulting from the connection of a Woman born in Villenage belonging to one person, and a Man born in that state belonging to another, the children shall be proportionably divided between the two Lords.[156] [Footnote 155: From the extreme brevity and quaintness of the original, it is a matter of some doubt, what the true meaning of the passage is. Lord Littleton gives the passage thus. “We are told by Glanville, that in his time, if a freeman married a woman born in Villenage _and who actually lived in that state_, he lost thereby the benefit of the Law (that is all the legal rights of a freeman,) and was considered as a Villein by birth, during the lifetime of his wife, on account of her Villenage.” This, however, is at best but a loose paraphrase of Glanville. His Lordship was aware of it, and to confirm his representation of what is said, as he terms it, so _indistinctly_ by Glanville, he refers to Bracton, fol. 5. Mr. Reeves makes this severe penalty upon the Husband to arise, not from the wife _living_ in a state of Villenage, but her _holding property in Villenage_. The fact is, the text expresses neither Lord Littleton’s Explanation, nor that given by Mr. Reeves. I do not flatter myself to have succeeded better. In Britton’s time, the wife was enfranchised during the coverture. (78. b.) Vide Co. Litt. 123. a. and 137. b. and Mr. Hargrave’s notes thereon.] [Footnote 156: “This,” exclaims Lord Littleton, “was absolutely putting children upon the same foot as cattle, or other stock on a farm, without the regard that is due to the inherent freedom and dignity of human nature.” (3 Hist. Hen. 2. p. 191.)] Book VI. OF DOWER.[157] [Footnote 157: On the subject of the present Book in general, see Bracton fol. 92 et seq. and Fleta L. 5. c. 23. et seq.] CHAP. I.