theyareexemptedfromthejurisdictionofthesheriff，(12*)anddonotserveonjuriesandassizesbeforetheking’sjustices；(13*)theyarefreefromtollinallmarketsandcustom-houses。(14*)Last，butnotleast，theydonotgettaxedwiththecountryatlarge，andforthisreasontheyhaveoriginallynorepresentativesinparliamentwhenparliamentformsitself。Ontheotherhand，theyareliabletobetallagedbythekingwithoutconsentofparliament，byvirtueofhisprivaterightasopposedtohispoliticalright。(15*)Thislastprivilegegaverisetoaveryabnormalstateofthings，whenancientdemesnelandhadpassedfromthecrowntoasubject。Therulewas，thatthenewlordcouldnottallagehistenantsunlessinconsequenceofaroyalwrit，andthenonlyatthesametimeandinthesameproportionasthekingtallagedthedemesnesremaininginhishand。(16*)Thiswasanimportantlimitationofthelord’spower，andaconsequenceofthewishtoguardagainstencroachmentsandarbitraryacts。Butitwasatthesametimeacuriousperversionofsovereignty：——thepersonlivingonlandofthisdescriptioncouldnotbetaxedwiththecounty，(17*)andifhewastaxedwiththedemesnes，hislordreceivedthetax，andnotthesovereign。Ineednotsaythatallthisgotrightedintime，buttheanomalousconditiondescribeddidexistoriginally。
Therearetracesofadifferentviewbywhichthepowerofimposingtallagewouldhavebeenvestedexclusivelyintheking，evenwhenthemanortobetaxedwasonethathadpassedoutofhishand。(18*)Butthegeneralruleuptothefourteenthcenturywasundoubtedlytorelinquishtheproceedstotheholderofthemanor。Suchtreatmentiseminentlycharacteristicoftheconceptionwhichliesatthebottomofthewholeinstitutionofancientdemesne。Itisundoubtedlybasedontheprivateprivilegeofroyalty。Allthenumerousexceptionsandexemptionsfrompublicliabilitiesanddutiesflowfromonesource：thekingdoesnotwanthislandandhismentobesubjectedtoanyvexatiousburdenswhichwouldlessentheirpowerofyieldingincome。(19*)
Oncefencedinbyroyalprivilege，theancientdemesnemanorkeepsupitsprivateimmunity，eventhoughitceasestoberoyal。
Andthisisthesecondfact，withwhichonehastoreckon。Iftheprivilegedvillainageofancientdemesneisfoundedonthesamecausesasvillainagepureandsimple，thedistinguishingelementof’privilege’issuppliedtoitbytheprivateinterestoftheking。Thisseemsobviousenough，butitmustbeinsistedupon，becauseitguardsagainstanyconstructionwhichwouldpickoutoneparticularsetofrights，oroneparticularkindofrelationsascharacteristicoftheinstitution。Legalpracticeandlatertheoryconcernedthemselvesmostlywithpeculiaritiesofprocedure，andwiththeeventualityofasubjectowningthemanor。Butthepeculiarmodesoflitigationappropriatetotheancientdemesnemustnotbedisconnectedfromotherimmunities，andtheownershipofaprivatelordistobeconsideredonlyasengraftedontheoriginalrightoftheking。Withthispreliminarycaution，wemayproceedtoanexaminationofthosefeatureswhichareundoubtedlyentitledtoattractmostattention，namely，thespecialprocedure，whichisputinactionwhenquestionsariseinanywayconnectedwiththesoilofancientdemesne。
Bractonsays，thatinsuchcasestheusualassizesandactionsdonotlie，andthe’littlewritofrightclose’mustbeused’accordingtothecustomofthemanor。’Thewritisa’littleandaclose’one，becauseitisdirectedbythekingtothebailiffsofthemanorandnottothejusticesortothesheriff。(20*)
Itdoesnotconcernfreeholdestate，butonlylandofbasethoughprivilegedtenure。Anactionforfreeholdalsomaybebeguninamanorialcourt，butinthatcasethewritwillbe’thewritofrightpatent’andnot’thelittlewritofrightclose。’(21*)
Theexclusionofthetenantsfromthepubliccourtsisaself-evidentconsequenceoftheirbasecondition；infact，pleadingancientdemesneinbarofanactionis，inlegalsubstance，thesamethingaspleadingvillainage。(22*)Ofcourse，anoutletwasprovidedbythemanorialwritinthiscase，andtherewasnosuchoutletforvillainsoutsidetheancientdemesne；butastotheoriginaljurisdictionincommonlawcourts，jurisdictionthatisinthefirstinstance，thepositionwasidentical。Thoughlegallyself-evident，thismatterisoftenspeciallynoticed，andsometimesstressislaidonpeculiaritiesofprocedure，suchastheinapplicabilityoftheduelandthegrandassize(23*)inlandtoancientdemesne，peculiaritieswhich，however，arenotuniversallyfound，(24*)andwhich，eveniftheywereuniversallyfound，wouldstandasconsequenceandnotascause。Thismaybeaccountedforbytheobservationthatthelegalprotectionbestowedonthisparticularclassofholdings，notwithstandingitslimitations，actuallyimpartedtothemsomethingofthenatureoffreehold，andledtoagreatconfusionofattributesandprinciples。Indeed，thedifficultyofkeepingwithinthelinesofprivileged’villainage’isclearlyillustratedbythefactthatthe’littlewrit，’withallitsrestrictions，andquiteapartfromanycontentionwiththelord，recognisesthetenantinancientdemesneascapableofindependentaction。
Villains，ormenholdinginvillainage，havenowrit，eithermanorialorextra-manorial，fortheprotectionorrecoveryoftheirholdings，andtheexistenceofsuchanactionforvillainsocmenisinitselfalimitationofthepoweroflordandsteward，evenwhentheyarenopartiestothecase。Andsothedistinctionbetweenfreeholdandancientdemesnevillainageisnarrowedtoadistinctionofjurisdictionandprocedure。Thisissomuchthecasethatif，byamereslipasitwere，atenementinancientdemesnehasbeenoncerecoveredbyanassizeofnoveldisseisin，theexclusiveuseofthe’littlewrit’isbroken，andassizeswilleverliehereafter，thatis，thetenementcanbesuedforas’freehold’incommonlawcourts。(25*)Surelythiscouldhappenonlybecausethetenureinancientdemesne，althoughakindofvillainage，closelyresembledfreehold。
Onehasprimarilytolookforanexplanationofthesegreatprivilegestomanors，whichhadbeengrantedbythekingtoprivatelords。Onsuchlandsthe’littlewrit’laybothwhen’villainsocmen’werepleadingagainsteachother，(26*)andwhenasocmanwasopposedtohislordasaplaintiff。(27*)Thislasteventualityis，ofcourse，themoststrikingandimportantone。
Thereweresomedisputesandsomemistakesinpracticeastotheoperationoftherule。Thejudgesweremuchexercisedoverthequestionwhetheranactionwastobeallowedagainstthelordintheking’scourt。Thedifficultywas，thatthecontendingpartieshaddifferentestatesintheland，theonebeingpossessedofthecustomarytenancyinancientdemesne，andtheotherofthefrankfee。Thereareauthoritativefourteenth-centurydecisionstotheeffectthat，insuchanaction，thetenanthadtheoptionbetweengoingtothecourtatWestminsterortotheancientdemesnejurisdiction。(28*)
Themainfactremains，thataprivilegedvillainhad’personamstandiinjudicio’againsthislord，andactuallycouldbeaplaintiffagainsthim。Courtrollsofancientdemesnemanorsfrequentlyexhibitthecuriouscaseofamanoriallordwhoissummonedtoappear，distrained，admittedtoplead，andsubjectedtojudgmentbyhisowncourt。(29*)AndasIsaid，onelooksnaturallytosuchinstancesofegregiousindependence，inordertoexplaintheaffinitybetweenprivilegedvillainageandfreehold。Theexplanationwouldbeinsufficient，however，andthisfortwosimplereasons。Thepassageofthemanorintothehandsofasubjectonlymodifiestheinstitutionofancientdemesne，butdoesnotconstituteit；the’littlewritofright’
isbynomeansframedtosuittheexceptionalcaseofacontentionbetweenlordandtenant；itsobjectisalsotoprotectthetenantsagainsteachotherinawaywhichisoutofthequestionwhereordinaryvillainageisconcerned。Thetworeasonsconverge，asitwere，inthefactthatthe’littlewritofright’
issuableinallancientdemesnemanorswithoutexception，thatitappliesquiteasmuchtothosewhichremaininthecrownastothosewhichhavebeenalienatedfromit。(30*)Andthisleadsustoaveryimportantdeduction。Iftheaffinityofprivilegedvillainageandfreeholdisconnectedwiththe’littlewritofright’assuch，andnotmerelywithaparticularapplicationofit，ifthelittlewritofrightisframedforallthemanorsofancientdemesnealike，theaffinityofprivilegedvillainageandfreeholdistobetracedtothegeneralconditionoftheking’smanorsinancientdemesne。(31*)
Althoughthetenantsinancientdemesneareadmittedtousethe’littlewritofright’only，theircourtmadeitgoalongway；andinfact，alloralmostalltherealactionsofthecommonlawhadtheirparallelinitsjurisdiction。Thedemandant，whenappearingincourt，madeaprotestationtosueinthenatureofawritofmortd’ancestororofdower(32*)orthelike，andtheprocedurevariedaccordingly，sometimesfollowingverycloselythelinesoftheprocedureinthehighcourts，andsometimesexhibitingtenaciouslocalusageorarchaicarrangements。(33*)
Actionsastopersonalestatecouldbepleadedwithoutwrit，andasforthecrownpleastheywerereservedtothehighcourts。(34*)Buteveninactionsregardingthesoilaremovaltotheselatterwasnotexcluded。(35*)Evocationtoahighercourtfollowednaturallyifthemanorialcourtrefusedjusticeandsuchremovalmadethelandfrankfee。(36*)Theproceedingsinancientdemesnecouldbechallenged，andthereuponawritoffalsejudgmentbroughtthecaseunderthecognizanceofthecourtsofcommonlaw。Ifonexaminationanerrorwasfound，thesentenceofthelowertribunalwasquashedandthecasehadtoproceedinthehigher。(37*)instancesofexaminationandrevisionarefrequentinourrecords。(38*)Theexaminationoftheproceedingsbythejusticeswasbynomeansaneasymatter，becausetheywereconstantlyconfrontedbyappealstothecustomofthemanorandcounterappealstotheprinciplesofthecommonlawofEngland。
Itwasverydifficulttoadjusttheseconflictingelementswithnicety。Astothepointoffact，whetheranallegedcustomwasreallyinusageornot，thejusticeshadagoodstandinggroundfordecision。Theyasked，asarule，whetherprecedentscouldbeadducedandprovedastotheusage；(39*)theyallowedagreatlatitudeforthepeculiaritiesofcustomarylaw；butthedifficultywasthatalinehadtobedrawnsomewhere。(40*)Thisprocedureofrevisiononthewholeisquiteasimportantamanifestationofthefreeholdqualitiesofprivilegedvillainageaspleadingbywrit。Menholdinginpurevillainagealsohadamanorialcourttogotoandtopleadin，butitsjudicialorganisationproceededentirelyfromthewillandpowerofthelord，anditendedwherehiswillandpowerended；therewasnohighercourtandnorevisionforsuchmen。Thewritoffalsejudgmentinrespectoftenementsinancientdemesneshowsconclusivelythatthepeculiarprocedureprovidedfortheprivilegedvillainswasonlyaninstanceandavariationofthegenerallawoftheland，maintainingactionablerightsoffreepersons。Andbeitagainnoted，thattherewasnosortofdifferenceastorevisionbetweenthosemanorswhichwereintheactualpossessionofthecrownandthosewhichwereoutofit。(41*)Revisionandreversalwereprovidednotasacomplementtothelegalprotectionofthetenantagainstthelord，butasaconsequenceofthatindependentpositionofthetenantasapersonwhohasrightsagainstallmenwhichismanifestedintheparvumbreve。(42*)Itisnotwithoutinteresttonoticeinthisconnexionthattheparvumbreveissometimesintroducedinthelawbooks，notasarestrictionputuponthetenant，norastheoutcomeofvillainage，butasaboonwhichprovidesthetenantwithaplainformofprocedurecloseathandinsteadofthecostlyandintricateprocessbeforethejustices。(43*)
Ifprotectionagainstthelordhadbeentheonlyobjectoftheprocedureincasesofancientdemesne，onedoesnotseewhythereshouldbea’littlewrit’atall，astherewasaremedyagainstthelord’sencroachmentsinthewritof’Monstraverunt，’(45*)pleadedbeforetheking’sjustices。Asitis，thecaseofdisseisinbythelord，towhomthemanorhadcomefromthecrown，wastreatedsimplyasaninstanceofdisseisin，andbroughtundertheoperationofthewritofright，whilethe’Monstraverunt’wasrestrictedtoexactionofincreasedservicesandchangeofcustoms。(46*)Thelatterwritwasaverypeculiarone，infactquiteunlikeanyotherwrit。Thecommon-lawrulethateachtenantinseveraltyhastopleadforhimselfdidnotapplytoit；alljoinforsavingofcharges，albeittheybeseveraltenants。(46*)Whatismore，onetenantcouldsuefortherestandhisrecoveryprofitedthemall；ontheotherhand，ifmanyhadjoinedinthewritandsomediedorwithdrew，thewritdidnotabateforthisreason，andevenifbutoneremainedableandwillingtosuehecouldproceedwiththewrit。(47*)Theseexceptionalfeatureswereevidentlymeanttofacilitatetheactionofhumblepeopleagainstapowerfulmagnate。(48*)Butitseemstomethatthedeviationfromtherulesgoverningwritsatcommonlawistobeexplainednotonlybythegeneralaimofthewrit，butalsobyitsorigin。
Informitwassimplyaninjunctiononaplaint。Whenforsomereasonrightcouldnotbeobtainedbythemeansaffordedbythecommonlaw，theinjuredpartyhadtoapplytothekingbypetition。Oneofthemostcommoncaseswaswhenredresswassoughtforsomeactofthekinghimselforofhisofficers，whentheconsequentinjunctiontothecommonlawcourtsortotheExchequertoexaminethecaseinvariablybeganwiththeidenticalformulawhichgaveitsnametothewritbywhichprivilegedvillainscomplainedofanincreaseofservices；monstravitormonstraveruntN。N。；exparteN。N。ostensumest：——thesearetheopeningwordsoftheking’sinjunctionsconsequentuponthehumbleremonstrationsofhisaggrievedsubjects。(49*)Again，wefindthattheapplicationforthewritbyprivilegedvillainsisactuallydescribedasaplaint。(50*)Insomecasesitwouldbedifficulttotellonthefaceoftheinitiatorydocument，whetherwehavetodowitha’brevedemonstraverunt’tocoercethemanoriallord，orwithanextraordinarymeasuretakenbythekingwithaviewtosettlinghisowninterests。(51*)
Andthisbringsmetothemainpoint。Althoughthewritunderdiscussionseemsatfirstsighttomeettherequirementofthespecialcaseofmanorsalienatedfromthecrown，oncloserinspectionitturnsouttobeavariationofthepeculiarprocessemployedtoinsistuponarightagainstthecrown。Paralleltothe’Monstraverunt’againstalordintheCommonPleaswehavethe’Monstraverunt’againsttheking’sbailiffintheExchequer。
Thefollowingmandateforinstanceisenrolledintheeventfulyear1265：’MonstraveruntRegihominescastrisuideBramburetSchotonequodHenricusSpringconstabulariuscastrideBramburinjustedistringiteosadfaciendumaliaserviciaetaliasconsuetudinesquamfacereconsueverunttemporibuspredecessorumRegisettemporesuo。Ideomandatumestvicecomitiquodvenireetc。predictumHenricumadiePascheinxvdiesadrespondendumRegietpredictishominibusdepredictaterraetbreveetc。’(52*)
