It is to be presumed that a tenant of folcland was permitted to let the same,—upon condition no doubt that he conveyed no estate superior to his own. The holders must have been allowed to place poor settlers upon their estates, whose rents and services, in labour and kind, would be important to their own subsistence. Of course in bócland no limitation could be thought of; it was the absolute, inheritable property of the purchaser, and he could in general dispose of it as freely as if it were alod itself. But there seems no reason to doubt that much the same course was adopted in both descriptions of estate; the folcland being held beyond question for term of life, at every period of which our history takes cognizance, whatever may have been the case at first. A portion called the inland, or _dominium_, _demesne_, was reserved for the lord’s homestead, house and farms, and the dwellings of his serfs, esnes, læts, and other unfree and poor dependents. This was cultivated for him by their industry, and he repaid their services by protection, food, clothing, and small perquisites, all of which now pass under the general name of wages[559]. On the upland and in the forests, sometimes his own, sometimes subject only to his rights of common, they tended his sheep, oxen and steeds at the fold, or his swine in the mast, lying out during the appointed season of the year[560], or within the circuit of his own inclosures they exercised such simple manufactures as the necessities of the household required. The spinner and weaver, the glove- or shoemaker, the smith and carpenter, were all parts of the family. The butter and cheese, bread and bacon, were made at home; the beer was brewed and the honey collected by the household. The remainder of the land the owner leased on various conditions to men who had no land; demanding in return for that commodity, indispensable in a country which has not yet learnt to manufacture, rents paid in kind, in labour, and even in money. This labour-rent, yet called _robot_ in Slavonic countries, as well as the other dues, naturally varied in various districts, partly with the importance of land[561], to the cultivator, and the value of its produce to the owner. And at last political motives may have had some weight, when the number and condition of a man’s dependents might affect his own influence and position in the state: but in general we shall be justified in saying that land was very valuable, and the conditions on which it was to be obtained harsh and onerous[562]. Such land, whether in large or in small portions, whether leased on long or short terms, large or small rents, was called by the common name of Lǽn, or loan[563]. It was considered to be lent; and where the lǽn was on folcland, it is obvious that no certain time could be assigned, and that the after-tenant could have only a tenancy at will. In any case it was reasonable that misconduct in the holder, which