on; the
redemption of irksome services was a conspicuous manifestation of
this policy.[74]

This paragraph contains several suggestions which are shown to be
misleading by a study of the extracts from the original sources
embodied in the essay of whose preface it forms a part. It is true
that the cultural policy of William of Wykeham was an extravagant one,
and that he was in need of money when the system of tenure was being
revolutionized on his estates; but it is misleading to interpret the
changes which took place as measures for the prompt conversion into
cash of the episcopal revenues. No radical changes in the system of
payment were necessary in order to secure cash, for the system of
selling surplus services to the villains had become established
decades before the time of this bishop, and no formal commutation of
services was necessary in order to convert the labor dues of the
villains into payments in money. The bulk of the services were not
performed, even before commutation, and the lord received money for
the services not used on the demesne. The essential feature of the
changes which took place was a reduction in the amount paid--a
reduction which the bishop must have resisted so far as he dared, just
as other landowners must have resisted the reductions which their
tenants forced them to make at a time when they were in need of money.
The commutation of services was incidental, and was only a slight
modification of the system formerly in use, but, whether services were
commuted or were in part excused, the result was a lessening of the
burden borne by the tenant, and the reduction of the rent received by
the lord.

It is true, as Professor Vinogradoff states, that there were powerful
tendencies in the life of the peasants which made for this result. In
fact no initiative in selling services--at these rates--could have
come from the side of the landowners. The change was forced upon them.
Unless they compromised with their tenants and reduced their rents
they soon found vacant tenements on their hands which no one could be
compelled to take. The amount of land which was finally leased at low
rents because the former holders had died or run away and no one could
be forced to take it at the old rents is evidence of the reluctance
with which landowners accepted the situation and of their inability to
resist the change in the end.

But it is not true that the most comprehensive of these tendenci