Leg. Æðelr. v. § 2; vi. § 9. Cnut, Leg. Sec. § 3. Footnote 402: The Romans used to slay their infirm and useless serfs, or expose them in an island of the Tiber. Claudius made several regulations in their favour. “Cum quidam aegra et affecta mancipia in insulam Aesculapii taedio medendi exponerent, omnes, qui exponerentur, liberos esse sanxit, nec redire in ditionem domini, si convaluissent; quod si quis necare mallet quem quam exponere, caedis crimine teneri.” Suet. in Claud. 25. Footnote 403: See _supra_, p. 38, note 1. Footnote 404: Thorpe, A. S. Laws, i. 432, and a later edition by Dr. H. Leo of Halle, 1842. Footnote 405: This is the _Robot_ of Slavonic countries, the _Operatio_ of our Norman law; a mere labour-rent, necessary in countries where there is no accumulated capital, and wealth (for want of markets) consists only in land, and limbs wherewith to till it. Footnote 406: Cod. Dip. No. 1079. Footnote 407: The compounds of _bǽrde_ cannot denote anything but a permanent condition or quality: they are nearly equivalent to the compounds of _cund_, excepting that they are necessarily _personal_. Footnote 408: Thorpe, Analecta. ----- Servitude ceased by voluntary or compulsory manumission on the part of the lord; the latter case being that where the services of the slave were forfeited through the misconduct of the master. And as loss of liberty must be considered in the main as a consequence of the public law, understood in the general, and expressed in the particular case, so must it I think be asserted, that _at first_ emancipation depended in some degree upon the popular will as well as the mercy or caprice of private individuals. It is no doubt true, that at a period when what we now call crimes were rather considered in the light of civil injuries, for which satisfaction was due to the parties injured, it might seem reasonable to leave the latter in possession of the power to assess the minimum, at least, of his own satisfaction: to allow him to decide how long a period of servitude he would content himself with, if he chose to renounce the right he possessed of claiming an endless one; or lastly, to reward good and faithful service by cancelling the consequences of an earlier wrong. But emancipation has two very different effects: it not only relieves the serf from personal burthens and disabilities, but it restores or introduces a citizen to political and public rights. In a state of society where landed possession and the exercise of such rights are inseparable, a grave difficulty arises, viz. how can provision be made for the newly emancipated, and now free man? If the community will consent, and possess the means, to create a new free Hide for his occupation, of course the matter can be managed; but this consent renders the emancipation in reality the act of the state, not of the manumittor. Or the lord on restoring freedom to his serf may endow him