Wemaystartwiththeobservation，thatprivilegedvillainsorvillainsocmenarenottheonlypeopletobefoundonthesoiloftheancientdemesne。Therearefreetenantsthereandpurevillainstoo。(84*)Freesocageisoftenmentionedinthesemanors，anditisfrequentlypleadedinordertogetatrialtransferredtotheCommonLawCourts。Whenthequestionisraisedwhetheratenementisfreeorvillainsocage，thefactthatithasbeenconveyedbyfeoffmentandcharteristreated，ashasjustbeenpointedout，asestablishingitsfreeholdcharacterandsubjectingittotheordinarycommonlawprocedure。(85*)Ontheotherhand，registersandextentsofancientdemesnemanorssometimestreatseparatelyof’nativi’or’villani’asdistinguishedfromtheregularcustomarytenants，anddescribetheirservicesasbeingparticularlybase。(86*)Intrialsitisquiteacommonthingforalord，whenaccusedofhavingalteredtheservices，topleadthattheplaintiffswerehisvillainstobetreatedatwill。Attemptsweremadeinsuchcasestotakeadvantageofthegeneralterm’menofancientdemesne，’andtoarguethatallthepopulationonthecrownmanorsmustbeofthesamecondition，thedifferenceofrankapplyingonlytotheamountandthekindofservices，butnottotheircertainty，whichoughttobetakenforgranted。(87*)Butstrictlyandlegallythelord’spleawasundoubtedlygood：thecourtsadmittedit，andwhenitwasputforwardproceededtoexaminethequestionoffactwhetherthelordhadbeenactuallyseisedofcertainorofuncertainservices。(88*)Itisofconsiderableimportancetonotethatthedifferencebetweenvillainspureandvillainsprivilegedwassometimesconnectedwiththedistinctionbetweenthelord’sdemesneandthetenant’slandinthemanor。(89*)Thedemesneproperwasfrankfeeinthehandsofthelord，andcouldbeusedbyhimathispleasure。Ifhechosetograntitawaytovillainsinpurevillainage，theholdingsthusformedcouldhavenoclaimtorankasprivilegedland。Itwasassumedthatsomesuchholdingshadbeenformedattheverybeginning，asitwere，thatisatatimebeyondmemoryofman，buttenementsatwillcouldbecreatedatalatertimeonapprovedwasteoronsoilthathadescheatedtothelordandinthiswaypassedthroughhisdemesne。(90*)Oneofthereasonsoflaterconfusionmustbelookedforinthefactthatthepurevillainholdingsgraduallygottoberecognisedatlawascopyholdorbasecustomarytenures。Theywerethusbroughtdangerouslyneartoancientdemesnesocage，whichwasoriginallynothingbutbasecustomarytenure。Theveryfactofcopyholdthusgainingonvillainsocagemayhavepushedthislastontowardsfreehold。AlreadytheOldNaturaBreviumdoesnotknowexactlyhowtomakedistinctions。Itspeaksofthreespeciesofsocagefree，ancientdemesne，andbase。
Thelineissoondrawnbetweenthefirsttwo，butthethirdkindissaidtobeheldbyuncertainservices，andsuedbywritof’Monstraverunt’insteadofhavingthewritsofrightand’Monstraverunt’ofancientdemesnesocage。(91*)Probablywhatismeantisaspeciesofcopyholdwhichisnotsocage，andthewritof’Monstraverunt’attributedtoitmayperhapsbetheplaintorpetitionwhichistheinitialmoveinasuitfortheprotectionofcopyholdinthemanorialcourt。
InthetimeofHenryIIIandoftheEdwardsthenatureofancientdemesnetenurewasbetterunderstood。Atthecloseofthethirteenthcenturythelawyersdistinguishthreekindsofmen-free，villains，andsocmen。(92*)Inordertobequiteaccuratepeoplespokeofvillainsocmenorlittlesocage(93*)inoppositiontofree。Butevenatthattimetherewereseveralconfusingfeaturesaboutthecase。Thecertaintyofconditionmadethetenureofthevillainsocmensolikeafreeholdthatitwasoftentreatedassuchinthemanorialdocuments。IntheStoneleighRegisterthepeculiarnatureofsocageinancientdemesneisdescribedfullyandclearly。Itisdistinguishedinsomanywordsfromtenancyatwill，andadetaileddescriptionofconveyancebysurrenderincontrastwithconveyancebycharterseemstogivethenecessarymaterialforthedistinctionbetweenitandfreehold。(94*)Butstillthefundamentalnotionoffreemenholdinginvillainagegetslostsightof。Onlysomeofthecottiersaresaidtoholdinvillainage。Themoreimportanttenants，thesocmenholdingvirgatesandhalf-virgates，arenotonlycurrentlydescribedasfreeholdersintheRegister，buttheyareenteredassuchontheWarwickshireHundredRoll。(95*)Theterm’parvasokemanria’isappliedintheStoneleighRegisteronlytoafewsubordinateholdingswhichareundoubtedlyabovethelevelofpurevillainage，butcannotbedefinitelydistinguishedfromtheotherkindsofsocageintheRegister。
Thismayserveasanindicationofthetendencyofmanorialcommunitiestoconsiderprivilegedvillainageasafreetenure，butlegalpleadingsanddecisionswerealsocrestingconfusionforanotherreason，becausetheytended，ashasbeensaid，toconsiderthewholebodyofmenontheancientdemesneinonelumpasitwere。Thecourtsveryoftenappliedastheonetestoftenureandservicethequestionwhetherapersonwasadescendantbybloodofmenofancientdemesneorastranger。(96*)Inconnexionwiththisthecourtrollstestifytotheparticularcaretakentocontrolanyintrusionofstrangersintotheboundariesofaprivilegedmanor。(97*)Thiswasdoneprimarilyintheinterestsofthelord，butthetenantryalsoseemtohavesometimesbeenjealousoftheirprerogatives，(98*)anditisonlyinthecourseofthefourteenthcenturythattheybegintoopentheirgatestostrangers，’adventicii。’(99*)Howeverthismaybe，thepracticeofdrawingthelinebetweennativestockandstrangersundoubtedlycountenancedtheideathatallthetenantsofnativestockwerealike，andinthiswaytendedtoconfusethedistinctionbetweenfreeholders，purevillains，andvillainsocmen。
Thecourtsmadeseveralattemptstoinsistonafirmclassification，butsomeofthesewereconceivedinsuchanunhappyspiritthattheyactuallyembroiledmatters。Theconductoftheking’sjudgeswasespeciallymisdirectedinonefamouscasewhichcameupseveraltimesbeforethecourtsduringthethirteenthcentury。ThetenantsofTavistockinDevonshirewereseekingprotectionagainsttheirlords，andappealingtotherightofancientdemesne。ThecasewasdebatedtwoorthreetimesduringHenryIII’sreign，andin1279judgmentwasgivenagainsttheplaintiffsbyanimposingquorum，asmanyaseightjudgeswiththeChiefJusticeRalphHenghamattheirhead。ItwasconcededthatTavistockwasancientdemesne，buttheclaimantswereheldtobevillainsandnotvillainsocmen，andthisonthegroundthattheDomesdaydescriptiondidnotmentionsocmen，butonlyvillains。(100*)Itseemsstrangetodisputeadecisiongivenwithsuchsolemnitybymenwhoweremuchbetterplacedtoknowaboutthesethingsthanweare，buttheredoesnotseemtobeanypossibledoubtthatHenghamandhiscompanionswereentirelywrong。Theirdecisionisincontradictionwithalmostalltherecordedcases；itwasalwaysassumedthatthestiffDomesdayterminologywasquiteinsufficienttoshowwhetheramanwasapurevillainorafreemanholdinginvillainage，whichlastwouldbethevillainsocmaninancientdemesne。IfHengham’sdoctrinehadbeentakenasabasisfordecisioninthesecases，noancientdemesnetenancywouldhavebeenrecognisedatalloutoftheDanelawcounties，thatisinfarthegreaterpartofEngland，asDomesdaynevermentionssocmenthereatall。IntheDanelawcounties，ontheotherhand，theprivilegewouldhavebeenofnouse，asthosewhowerecalledsocmentherewerefreeholdersprotectedwithoutanyreferencetoancientdemesne。
AltogethertheattempttomakeDomesdayservethepurposeofestablishingthemodeoftenureforthethirteenthcenturymustbecalledamisdirectedone。Itwasquitesingular，asthecourtsgenerallywentbackuponDomesdayonlywiththeobjectoffindingoutwhetheraparticularmanorhadbeenvestedinthecrownatthetimeoftheConquestornot。ItshouldbenotedthatBractonconsideredthecasefromaverydifferentpointofview，asonemayjudgebythenotehejotteddownonthemarginofhisNote-bookagainstatrialof1237-8。Hesays：’NotadevillanisHenricideTracydeTawystokequinunquamfueruntinmanuDominiRegisnecantecessorumsuorumetloquebanturdetemporeRegisEdwardicoramW。deWiltona。’(101*)Wilton’sdecisionmusthavebeengroundedontheassumptionthattheancestorsoftheclaimantswerestrangerstothemanor，orelsethatthemanorhadneverformedpartoftheancientdemesne。Thiswould，ofcourse，beindirectcontradictiontotheopinionthattheTavistocktenantsweredescendedfromtheking’sbornvillains。
IcannothelpthinkingthatHengham’sdecisionmayhavebeenpromptedeitherbypartialitytowardsthelordofthemanororbyanill-consideredwishtocompresstherightofancientdemesnewithinthenarrowestboundspossible。Inanycasethistrialdeservesattentionbyreasonoftheeminentauthoritiesengagedindrawingupthejudgment，andasillustratingthedifficultieswhichsurroundthepointsatissueandleadtoconfusionbothinthedecisionsandinthetreatmentofthembylawwriters。InordertogainfirmgroundwemustcertainlygobackagaintothefundamentalpropositionslaiddownwithgreatclearnessbyBracton。Itwasnotallthetenantsonancientdemesnesoilthathadarighttoappealtoitspeculiarprivileges-somehadprotectionatCommonLawandsomehadnoprotectionatall。Butthegreatmajorityofthetenantsenjoyedspecialrights，andthesemenofancientdemesnewereconsideredtobefreebybloodandholdinginvillainage。Ifthebookshadnotnoticedtheirpersonalfreedominsomanywords，itwouldhavebeenprovedbythefactthattheywerealwayscapableofleavingtheirtenementsandgoingawayatpleasure。
Bractondoesnotrestricthimselftothisstatementofthecase；headdsafewlinestogiveahistoricalexplanationofit。
’AtthetimeoftheConquest，’sayshe，’therewerefreemenholdingtheirlandsfreely，andbyfreeservicesorfreecustoms。
Whentheywereejectedbystrongerpeople，theycamebackandreceivedthesamelandstobeheldinvillainageandbyvillainservices，whichwerespecifiedandcertain。’(102*)
Thepassageisamostinterestingone，butitcallsforsomecomment。HowisitthatthespecialcaseofancientdemesnegetswidenedintoageneraldescriptionoftheperturbationsconsequentupontheConquest？Forageneraldescriptionitis；bythe’strongerfolk，’the’potentiores，’arecertainlynotmeantthekingandhisofficersonly。Ontheotherhand，howcanitbesaidofanybuttheancientdemesnetenantsthattheyresumedtheirholdingsbycertainthoughbaseservices？Thewordingisundoubtedlyandunfortunatelyrathercarelessinthismostimportantpassage，stillthemainpositionswhichBractonintendedtoconveyarenotaffectedbyhisratherclumsywayofstatingthem。Ancientdemesnetenure，notwithstandingitspeculiarities，isonespeciesofamodeofholdingwhichwaslargelyrepresentedeverywhere，namelyofthestatusoffreemenholdinginvillainage；thisconditionhadbeenstronglyaffectedifnotactuallyproducedbytheConquest。ItisinterestingtocomparethedescriptionoftheConquest，asgivenatgreaterlengthbutinalooserway，intheDialogusdeScaccario。ItisstatedtherethatthosewhohadactuallyfoughtagainsttheConquerorweredeprivedoftheirlandsforeverafter。ThosewhoforsomereasonhadnotactuallyjoinedinthecontestweresufferedtoholdtheirlandsunderNormanlords，butwithnoclaimtohereditarysuccession。Theiroccupationbeinguncertain，theirlordsveryoftendeprivedthemoftheirlandsandtheyhadnomeanstoprocurerestitution。Theircomplaintsgaverisetoadiscussionofthematterbeforetheking，anditwasheldthatnothingcouldbeclaimedbythesepeoplebywayofsuccessionfromthetimeprecedingtheConquest，andthatactionablerightscouldoriginateonlyindeedsgrantedbytheNormanlords。(103*)
TheDialogusascomparedwithBractonlaysmoststressontheoppositesideofthepicture；thedisabilitiesofpersonsholdingatwillaresetforthnotonlyasaconsequenceofthestateofthingsfollowingconquestdefacto，butastheresultofalegalreconsiderationofthefacts。Asaclassificationoftenuresthepassagewouldnotbecomplete，ofcourse，sinceneithertheimportantspeciesoffreesocagerecognisedbyDomesdaynortheancientdemesnetenureappears。Itisonlythecontrastbetweenvillainageandholdingbycharterthatcomesoutstrongly。ButinonewaytheDialogusreinforcesBracton，ifImaybeallowedtousetheexpression：forittracesbacktheformationofaveryimportantkindofvillainagetotheConquest，andconnectstheattemptsofpersonsentangledintoittoobtainprotectionwiththeiroriginalrightsbeforetheConquest。
Revertingnowtothequestionofancientdemesne，weshallhavetoconsiderwhatlightthesestatementsthrowontheoriginofthetenure。IhavenoticedseveraltimesthatancientdemesnesocagewasconnectedinprinciplewiththeconditionofthingsinSaxontimes，immediatelybeforetheConquest。Thecourtshadtoimposelimitationsinordertocontrolevidence；thewholeinstitutionwasinawaycreatedbylimitation，becauseitrestricteditselftotheT。R。E。ofDomesdayastheonlyacceptabletestofSaxoncondition。But，notwithstandingallthesefeaturesimposedbytherequirementsofprocedure，ancientdemesnedrewitsorigindistinctlyfrompre-Conquestconditions。
ThemanorsformingitaretakenasthemanorsofSt。
Edward。(104*)thetenants，whenevertheywanttomakeasolemnclaim，setforththeirrightsfromthetimeofSt。Edward，(105*)
