the husband of the bride, and remained in the train of their lord, after the death of the lady whom they had to serve personally. The number of the _samurai_ who changed masters in this manner, was not naturally large, but they contributed none the less toward the diminishing of the differences in the social life of the various territories. Generally, however, it was found very difficult for any _samurai_ to leave his master for the purpose of enlisting in the service of some other _daimyo_. As the _samurai_ had been bound to their lord the _daimyo_, not only publicly as his officials and warriors, but privately as his domestics, they were not allowed to emigrate freely from their lord's territory. Nevertheless, the legal status of the _samurai_ versus the _daimyo_ had never been the relation of slave and master. No _daimyo_ had absolute control over the person of his _samurai_, in other words, his sway was far from what might have been called full proprietorship. Against injustice on the part of a _daimyo_, his _samurai_ had the actual right of appealing to the Shogunate at the risk of suffering a heavy penalty for his affronting his lord by so doing. It was also possible to alienate himself from the service of his master by giving sufficient reasons for it. If he had no reason to do so, then he could abscond, and the extradition of such a deserter was hardly ever rigorously pressed. And if such a vagrant _samurai_ or _ronin_ was found to be a capable warrior or a man of talent in some other line, he could find a position very easily under the _daimyo_ of his adopted territory. In such and like ways the _samurai_ of the Tokugawa period made interterritorial migration more freely than we imagine.