He discusses the legal position of any knight (_miles_) or other freeman (_liber homo_) losing his status by engaging in commerce in order to make money.[207] This does not prove that rich townsmen were ranked with the _villani_ of the rural districts; but it does raise a serious doubt whether in the strict legal language of feudal charters the words _liberi homines_ would be interpreted by contemporary lawyers as including the trading classes. Such doubts are strengthened by a narrow scrutiny of those passages of the Charter in which the term occurs. In chapter 34 the _liber homo_ is, apparently, assumed to be a landowner with a private manorial jurisdiction of which he may be deprived. In other words, he is the holder of a freehold estate of some extent—a great barony or, at the least, a manor. In this part of the Charter the “freeman” is clearly a county gentleman. ----- Footnote 207: _Dialogus_, II. xiii. c. Is the “freeman” of chapter 1 something different? The question must be considered an open one; but much might be said in favour of the opinion that “freeman” as used in the Charter is synonymous with “freeholder”; and that therefore only a limited class could, as grantees or the heirs of such, make good a _legal_ claim to share in the liberties secured by Magna Carta.[208] ----- Footnote 208: In addition to its appearance in the two places mentioned in the text, the word “freeman” appears in five other chapters, namely 15, 20, 27, 30, and 39. The three last instances throw no light on the meaning of the word, since the context of each would be satisfied either with a broader or with a narrower interpretation. It is different, however, with chapter 15, where the freemen are necessarily the feudal tenants of a mesne lord—that is, freeholders; and with chapter 20, where, in the matter of amercement, the freeman is distinctly contrasted with the _villanus_. Further, where men of servile birth are clearly meant, they are described generally as _probi homines_ (_e.g._ in chapters 20, 29, and 48), and in one place, chapter 26, as _legales homines_. Chapter 44 mentions _homines_ without any qualification. It seems safe to infer that the Great Charter never spoke of “freemen” when it meant to include the ordinary peasantry or villagers. In chapter 39 of the re-issue of 1217, _liber homo_ is clearly used as synonymous with “freeholder.” -----