orbyspecialprivilegeswhichhaveexemptedcertainsharesinthelandfromageneralschemeofvillainage；or，lastly，bytheexistenceoffreeholdsasnormalfactorsintheancientvillagecommunity。
Letustestthesevarioussuppositionsbythefactsrecordedinoursurveys。Atfirstsightitmayseempossibletoaccountforthefreeholdvirgatesbyreferencetotheprocesswhichconverted’workland’into’molland。’Wehaveseenabovethatifalordbegantodemandmoneyinsteadofwork，theresultmight，insomecases，betheevolutionofnewtenureswhichgraduallylosttheirvillaincharacterandbecamerecognisedasgenuinefreeholds。Andnodoubtoneconsiderableclassofcasescanbeexplainedbythisprocess。Butagreatmanyinstancesseemtocallforsomeotherexplanation。Tobeginwith，themereacceptanceofrentinlieuoflabourdidnotmakethetenementafreehold；serviletenementswerefrequentlyputadcensum，70*
anditseemsdifficulttobelievethatmanylordsallowedacommutationoflabourforrenttohavetheeffectofturningvillainageintofreehold。Anotherdifficultyisfoundontheoppositeside。Whatforcekeptthesharestogetherwhentheyhadbecomefree？Whydidtheynotaccumulateanddisperseaccordingtothechancesoffreedevelopment？Itmaybethoughtthatcustom，andexpressconditionsoffeoffment，musthaveactedagainstdisruption。Idonotdenythepossibility，butIsaythatitisnoteasytoexplaintheverywidelydiffusedphenomenonoffreeshareholdingbyacommutationwhichtendedtobreakupthesharesandtomakethemuselessforthepurposesofassessment。
StillIgrantthattheseconsiderations，thoughtheyshouldhavesomeweight，arenotdecisive，andIinsistchieflyonthefollowingargument。
Thepeculiartraitwhichdistinguishes’molland’isthetransitionfromlabourservicetomoneyrent，andtherentisundoubtedlyconsideredasanequivalentfortherighttolabourserviceswhichthelordabandons。Itmustbeadmittedthatinsomecasesthelordmayhavetakenlessthantherealequivalentinordertogetsuchaconvenientcommodityasmoney，orbecauseforsomereasonoranotherhewasinneedofcurrentcoin。StillIamnotafraidtosaythat，inageneralway，commutationsupposesanexchangeagainstanequivalent。Indeedthedemandformoneyrentswasconsideredratherasincreasingthanasdecreasingtheburdenincumbentonthepeasantry。71*Now，althoughitwouldbepreposteroustotryandmakeoutineverysinglecasewhethertherentofthefreevirgateisanadequateequivalentforvillainservicesornot，thereisaverysufficientnumberofinstancesinwhicharoughreckoningmaybemadewithoutfearofgoingmuchastray。72*Andifweattemptsuchareckoningweshallbestruckbythenumberofcasesinwhichtherentofthefreevirgatefallsconsiderablyshortofwhatityieldedbythevirgateofthevillain。WehaveseenthatinRavenston，Bedfordshire，thevillainserviceisvaluedateightshillingspervirgate，andthatthefreeassessmentamountsonlytofourshillings。InThriplow，Cambridgeshire，thevillainsperformlabourdutiesvaluedat9s。4d。perbovate，thefreeholdersareassessedvariously；butthereisacertainnumberamongthemwhichforms，asitwere，thestockofthatclass，andtheiraveragerentis5s。6d。perbovate。73*InTyringham，Buckinghamshire，thevillainholdingiscomputedatsixacresandonerood，anditsserviceatfiveshillings；thefreevirgateshavealikenumberofacresandpayvariousrents，butalmostwithoutexceptionlessthanthevillains。74*InCroxton，Cambridgeshire，therearecustomerswithtwentyacres，andotherswithtenacres；thefirsthavetopaytenshillingsandtoassistatfourboonworks。Thefreeholdersarepossessedofplotsofirregularsize，andtheirrentisalsoirregular；butontheaveragemuchlowerthanthatofthecustomers。75*Letitbenotedthatthecustomarytenantshavecommutedtheirlabourservicesintomoneypayments，and。infact，theyaretobeconsideredasmolmeninthefirststageofdevelopment。Still，theirpaymentsarecomputedonadifferentscalefromthoseofthefree。