with a portion of his own land, sufficient for easy or even wealthy subsistence; but this will not make him fully a free man, give him his full position in the πολιτευμα or polity, and place him on a level with the free inhabitants of the Mark. Till periods very late in comparison with that which is assumed in the course of this argument, a similar principle prevails in our legislation upon this subject. Glanville says, “It is also to be observed that a man may enfranchise his serf in respect of the persons of himself or his heirs, but not in respect of others. For if any one, having once been a serf, and afterwards having attained to freedom in this manner, should be produced in court against a third party to support a cause, or for the purpose of making any law of the land, he may justly be removed therefrom, if his birth in villenage should be objected to and proved against him in the court, even though the serf so enfranchised should have come to be promoted unto a knight’s degree[409].” ----- Footnote 409: Lib. v. cap. 5. ----- Later still, liberty seems considered as a privilege the value of which might be diminished by its extension; and Fleta gives as a reason why the lord is bound to pursue his fugitive serf, “lest by _negligence_ of the lords, serfs should prevail to assert their own freedom[410].” ----- Footnote 410: Lib. i. cap. 7, § 7, 8. ----- On consideration therefore of all the facts, we must conclude that where full and complete manumission was intended, the transaction could only be completed in the presence and with the co-operation of the community, whereby all claims besides those of the manumitting lord would be formally estopped for the future. And this would be nearly equivalent to the admission (rare indeed) of a metic or other stranger to the full rights of citizenship at Athens, which could hardly have effect without a ψήφισμα or deliberate vote of the whole people[411]. Accordingly even in the laws of William the Conqueror and Henry the First we find evidence that the completest publicity was given to formal manumissions[412]; and it is not unreasonable to believe that this refers back to a time when such publicity may have consisted in the presentation of the serf before the assembled folcmót, and their expressed or implied assent to the solemn act. ----- Footnote 411: