Sometimes they were allowed to share in the profits connected with their charges. The swine-herd of Glastonbury Abbey， for instance， received one sucking-pig a year， the interior parts of the best pig， and the tails of all the others which were slaughtered in the abbey.(27*) The chief scullion (scutellarius)had a right to all remnants of viands， -- but not of game， -- to the feathers and the bowels of geese.(28*) Again， all the household and workmen constantly employed had certain quantities of food， drink， and clothing assigned to them.(29*) Of one of the Glastonbury clerks we hear that he received one portion (liberacio) as a monk and a second as a servant， and that by reason of this last he was bound to provide the monastery with a goldsmith.(30*)Those of the foremen and labourers of estates who did not belong to the immediate following of the lord and did not live in his central court received a gratification of another kind. They were liberated from the labour and payments which they would have otherwise rendered from their tenements.(31*) The performance of the specific duties of administration took the place of the ordinary rural work or rent， and in this way the service of the lord was feudalised on the same principle as the king's service -- it was indissolubly connected with land-holding.
In manorial extents we come constantly across such exempted tenements conceded without any rural obligations or with the reservation of a very small rent. It is important to notice， that such exemptions， though temporary and casual at first， were ultimately consolidated by custom and even confirmed by charters.
A whole species of free tenements， and a numerous one， goes back to such privileges and exemptions granted to servants.(32*) And so this class of people， in the formation of which unfree elements are so clearly apparent， became one of the sources in the development of free society. Such importance and success are to be explained， of course， by the influence of this class in the administration and economic management of the estates belonging to the secular and ecclesiastical aristocracy. It is very difficult at the present time to realise the responsibility and strength of this element. We live in a time of free contract， credit， highly mobilised currency， easy means of communication， and powerful political organisation. There is no necessity for creating a standing class of society for the purpose of mediating between lord and subject， between the military order and the industrial order. Every feature of the medieval system which tended to disconnect adjoining localities， to cut up the country into a series of isolated units， contributed at the same time to raise a class which acted as a kind of nervous system， connecting the different parts with a common centre and establishing rational intercourse and hierarchical relations. The libertini had to fu1fil kindred functions in the ancient world， but their importance was hardly so great as that of medieval sergeants or ministeriales. We may get some notion of what that position was by looking at the personal influence and endowments of the chief servants in a great household of the thirteenth century. The first cook and the gatekeeper of a celebrated abbey were real magnates who held their offices by hereditary succession， and were enfeoffed with considerable estates.(33*) In Glastonbury five cooks shared in the kitchen-fee.(34*) The head of the cellar， the gatekeeper， and the chief shepherd enter into agreements in regard to extensive plots of land.(35*) They appear as entirely free to dispose of such property， and at every step we find in the cartularies of Glastonbury Abbey proofs of the existence of a numerous and powerful 'sergeant' class. John of Norwood， Abbot of Bury St. Edmund's， had to resort to a regular coup d'閠at in order to displace the privileged families which had got hold of the offices and treated them as hereditary property.(36*) In fact the great 'sergeants' ended by hampering their lords more than serving them. And the same fact of the rise of a 'ministerial' class may be noticed on every single estate， although it is not so prominent there as in the great centres of feudal life. The whole arrangement was broken by the substitution of the 'cash nexus' for more ancient kinds of economic relationship， and by the spread of free agreements： it is not difficult to see that both these facts acted strongly in favour of driving out hereditary and customary obligations.
We have considered the relative position of the unfree holdings， of the domanial land around which they were grouped， and of the class which had to put the whole machinery of the manor into action. But incidentally we had several times to notice a set of men and tenements which stood in a peculiar relation to the arrangement we have been describing： there were in almost every manor some free tenants and some free tenements that could not be considered as belonging to the regular fabric of the whole. they had to pay rents or even to perform labour services， but their obligations were subsidiary to the work of the customary tenants on which the husbandry of the manorial demesne leaned for support. From the economic point of view we can see no inherent necessity for the connexion of these particular free tenements with that particular manorial unit. The rent， large or small， could have been sent directly to the lord's household， or paid in some other manor without any perceptible alteration in favour of either party； the work， if there was such to perform， was without exception of a rather trifling kind， and could have been easily dispensed with and commuted for money.
