Nowthisisbynomeansatriflefromthepointofviewoflegalanalysis。Thegrandandpettyjuriesofthecommonlawaremeansofinformation，andnothingmore。Theyformnopartofthetribunal，strictlyspeaking；thecourtisconstitutedbythejudges，thelawyerscommissionedbytheking，whoadoptthismethodininvestigatingthefactsbeforethem，becauseaknowledgeofthefactsatissue，andanunderstandingoflocalconditionssurroundingthem，issupposedtoresidenaturallyinthecountrywherethefactshavetakenplace。(54*)Historicallytheinstitutionisevolvedfromexaminationsofwitnessesandexperts，andhasbranchedoffinFranceintothecloseformalismofinquisitorialprocess。Themanorialjury，ontheotherhand，representsthecourt，andinterchangeswithit。(55*)Forthisreason，wemayspeakdirectlyofthecourtinsteadoftreatingofitsdelegates。Andiftheverdictofthecourtistaken，itisnotonaccountofthechanceknowledge，thepresumableacquaintanceofthesuitorswithfactsandconditions，butasalivingremembranceofwhattookplacebeforethissamecourt，orasare-assertionofitspowerofregulatingthelegalstandingofthecommunity。Theverdictofthesuitorsisonlyanotherformoftheentryontherolls，andbotharemeansofsecuringthecontinuityofaninstitutionandnotmerelyofprovidinginformationtooutsiders。Ofcourse，claimsmaynotbealwaysreducedtosuchelementaryformsthattheycanbedecidedbyamerereferencetomemory，thememoryoftheconstitutedbodyofthecourt。Acertainamountofreasoningandinferencemaybeinvolvedintheirsettlement，asetofjuridicaldoctrinesisnecessarytoprovidethegeneralprinciplesofsuchreasoning。
Andinbothrespectsthemanorialcourtiscalledupontoact。Itisconsideredastherepositaryoflegallore，andtheexponentofitsapplications。Thismeansthatthecourtis，whatitsnameimplies，atribunalandnotasetofprivatepersonscalledupontoassistajudgebytheirknowledgeoflegaldetailsormaterialfacts。(56*)
Thewholeexpositionbringsusbacktoapointofprimaryimportance。Thetitlebywhichlandisheldaccordingtomanorialcustomisderivedfromcommunalauthorityquiteasmuchasfromthelord’sgrant。Withoutsteppingoutofthefeudalevidenceintohistoricalinquiry，wefindthatcivilarrangementsofthepeasantryarebasedonactsperformedthroughtheagencyofthesteward，andbeforethemanorialcourt，whichhasavoiceinthematterandvouchesforitsvalidityandremembrance。The’fullcourt’isnoticedintherecordsasquiteasnecessaryanelementintheconveyancingbusinessasthelordandhissteward，althoughthelegal。theoryofmoderntimeshasaffectedtotakeintoaccountonlytheselatter。(57*)Indeed，itisthepartassumedbythecourtwhichappearsasthedistinctive，ifnotthemoreimportantfactor。Afeoffmentoflandmadeonthebasisoffreetenureproceedsfromthegrantorinthesamewayasagrantontheconditionsofbasetenure；freeholdcomesfromthelord，aswellascopyhold。Butcopyholdisnecessarilytransferredincourt，whilefreeholdisnot。Andifwespeakofthepresentmentofoffencesthroughtherepresentativesoftownships，asofthepracticeofcommunalaccusation，evensowehavetocallthetitlebywhichcopyholdtenureiscreatedaclaimbasedoncommunaltestimony。
Allthepointsnoticedintherollsofmanorsheldatcommonlawaretobefoundonthesoilofancientdemesne，buttheyarestatedmoredefinitelythere，andtherightsofthepeasantpopulationareassertedwithgreaterenergy。Ourpreviousanalysisoftheconditionofancientdemesnehasledustotheconclusion，thatitpresentsacrystallisationofthemanorialcommunityinanearlierstageofdevelopmentthanintheordinarymanor，butthattheconstitutiveelementsinbothcasesareexactlythesame。Forthisreason，everyquestionarisinginregardtotheusualarrangementsoughttobeexaminedinthelightoftheevidencethatcomesfromtheancientdemesne。
Wehaveseenthatitwouldbeimpossibletomaintainthatoriginallythestewardwastheonlyjudgeofthemanorialtribunal；thewholecourtwithitsfreeandunfreesuitorsparticipatesmateriallyintheadministrationofjustice，anditsofficeisextendedtoquestionsoflawaswellastoissuesoffact。Ontheotherhand，itwasclearthatthestewardandthelordwerealreadypreparingthepositionwhichtheyultimatelyassumedinlegaltheory，thatintheexerciseoftheirfunctionstheywerebeginningtomonopolisethepowerofultimatedecisionandtorestrictthecourttothedutyofpreliminarypresentment。
Thesamepartiesareinpresenceinthecourtofancientdemesne，buttherightofthesuitorshasbeensummedupbylegaltheoryinquitetheoppositedirection。Thesuitorsaresaidtobethejudgesthere；legaldogmatismhassetupitshardandfastdefinitions，anddrawnitsuncompromisingconclusionsasifallthehistoricalfactshadalwaysbeenarrayedagainsteachotherwithoutthepossibilityofcommonoriginsandgradualdevelopment。Isitnecessarytosaythatthehistoricalrealitywasveryfarfrompresentingthatneatopposition？Theancientdemesnesuitorsarevillainsinthemain，thoughprivilegedinmanyrespects，andthelordandstewardarenotalwaysplayingsuchasubordinatepartthatonemaynotnoticethetransitiontothestateofthingsthatexistsincommonlawmanors。Itiscurious，anyhow，thatlaterjurisprudencewasdriventosetupastotheancientdemesnecourtarulewhichrunsexactlyparalleltothecelebratedtheorythattheremustbeapluralityoffreetenantstoconstituteamanor。Cokeexpressesitinthefollowingway：’Therecannotbeancientdemesneunlessthereisacourtandsuitors。Soiftherebebutonesuitor，forthatthesuitorsarethejudges，andthereforethedemandantmustsueatcommonlaw，therebeingafailureofjusticewithinthemanor。’(58*)Weshallhavetospeakofthisruleagainwhentreatingofclassesinregardtomanorialorganisation。Butletusnotice，evennow，thatinthisviewoftheancientdemesnecourtthesuitorsareconsideredasthecardinalelementofitsconstitution。Thesamenotionmaybefoundalreadyintrialsofthefourteenthandevenofthethirteenthcentury。AcuriouscaseisreportedintheYearBooksof11/12Edw。HerbertofSt。QuentynbroughtawritoffalsejudgmentagainstJohnofBatteleyandhiswife，thejudgmenthavingbeengiveninthecourtofCookham，anancientdemesnemanor。Thesuitors，orsuit-holdersastheywerecalledthere，sentuptheirrecordtotheKing’sBench，andmanythingswerebroughtforwardagainsttheconductofthecasebythecounselfortheplaintiff，thedefendanttryingtoshieldhimselfbypleadingthecustomofthemanortoaccountforallunusualpractices。Thejudgesfind，however，thatonepointatleastcannotbedefendedonthatground。Thesuitorsawardeddefaultagainsttheplaintiffbecausehehadnotappearedinpersonbeforethem，andhadsentanattorney，whohadbeenadmittedbythestewardaloneandnotinfullcourt。Stonor，C。J。，remarks，’thatitisagainstlawthatthepersonwhoholdsthecourtisnotsufferedtorecordanattorneyforapleawhichwillbediscussedbeforehim。’Thecounselfortheplaintiffoffertoprovethatthecustomofthemanordidnotexcludeanattorneyappointedbeforethesteward，onconditionthatthestewardshouldtellittothesuitorsinthenextcourtafterreceivinghim。Thecaseisinteresting，notmerelybecauseitexhibitsthesuit-holdersintheundisputedpositionofjudges，butalsobecauseitshowsthedifficultiescreatedbythepresenceofthesecondelementofthemanorialsystem，theseignorialelement，whichwouldneitherfitexactlyintoanentirelycommunalorganisationnorbeoustedfromit。Thedifficultystandsquiteonthesamelinewiththatwhichmeetsusinthecommonlawmanor，wheretheelementofthecommunalassessorshasbeenultimatelysuppressedandconjuredaway，asitwere，bylegaltheory。Theresultsarecontradictory，butonthesameline，asI
say。Andthemorewegobackintime，themorewefindthatbothelements，thelordandthecommunity，areequallynecessarytotheconstitutionofthecourt。Inthethirteenthcenturywefindalreadythatthemanorialbailiffsaremaderesponsibleforthejudgmentalongwiththesuitorsandevenbeforethem。(61*)
Therollsofancientdemesnemanorspresentaconsiderablevarietyoftypes，shadingofffromanalmostcompleteindependenceofthesuitorstoformswhicharenotverydifferentfromthoseofcommonlawmanors。Stoneleighmaybetakenasagoodspecimenofthefirstclass。
Themanorwasdividedintosixhamlets，andeveryoneoftheseconsistedofeightvirgatesoflandwhichwereoriginallyheldbysinglesocmen；althoughtheregularityofthearrangementseemstohavebeenbrokenupverysooninconsequenceofincreaseofpopulation，extensionofthecultivatedarea，andthesaleofsmallparcelsoftheholdings。ThesocmenmetancientlytoholdcourtsinaplacecalledMotstowehill，andafterwardsinahousewhichwasbuiltforthepurposebytheAbbot。ThewayinwhichtheRegisterspeaksoftheadmissionofasocmantohisholdingisverycharacteristic：’Everyheirsucceedingtohisfatheroughttobeadmittedtothesuccessioninhisfifteenthyear，andlethimpayrelieftothelord，thatis，paytwicehisrent。Andhewillgivejudgmentswithhispeersthesocmen；andbecomereeveforthecollectionofthelord’srevenue，andanswertowritsanddoeverythingelseasifhewasoffullageatcommonlaw。’ThedutyandrighttogivejudgmentintheCourtofStoneleighisemphaticallystatedonseveraloccasions，andaltogetherthejurisdictionalindependenceofthecourtandofitssuitorsissetbeforeusinthesmallestbutalwayssignificantdetails。Ifsomebodyisbringingaroyalclosewritofrightdirectedtothebailiffsofthemanoritcannotbeopenedunlessinfullcourt。Whenthebailiffhastosummonanybodybyorderofthecourthetakestwosocmentowitnessthesummons。Wheneveratrialisterminatedeitherbysomeone’sdefaultinmakinghislaworbynon-defencethecostsaretobetaxedbythecourt。Thealienationoflandandadmittanceofstrangersareallowedonlyupontheexpressconsentofthecourt。Inoneword，everyoftheStoneleighRegistershowsacloselyandpowerfullyorganisedcommunity，ofwhichthelordismerelyapresident。
TherollsofKing’sRiptonarenotlessexplicitinthisrespect。Peoplearefinedforsellinglandwithoutthelicenceofthecourt，forsellingit’outsidethecourt。’(63*)Thejudgmentdependsentirelyontheverdictgivenbythecommunityofsuitorsoritsrepresentativesthejurors。Whenthepartiesrelyonsomeformerdecision，arrangement，orstatementoflaw，theyappealtotherollsofthecourt，which，ashasbeensaidalready，presentnothingelsebuttherecordedjurisprudenceofthebodyofsuitors。(64*)Theextentofthelegalself-governmentofthislittlecommunitymaybewellseenintherecordofatrialinwhichtheAbbotofRamsey，thelordofthemanor，isimpleadeduponalittlewritofrightbyoneofhistenants。(65*)Butitishardlynecessarytodwellonsonormalanevent。Ishouldliketotakeupforoncetheoppositestandpoint，andtoshowthatintheseverycommunitiesontheancientdemesneelementsareapparentwhichhavethrivedanddevelopedinordinarymanorstosuchanextentastoobscuretheirself-government。IntheRollsofKing’sRiptonwemighteasilynoticeanumberofinstancesinwhichtheinfluenceofthelordmakesitselffeltdirectlyorindirectlythroughthemeansofhissteward。Wecome，forinstance，onthefollowingformsofpleading：Anactionofdowerisbrought，andthedefendantsaskthatthelawsandcustomshithertousedinthecourtshouldbeobservedinregardtothem——theyhavearighttothreesummonses，threedistraints，andthreeessoins，andiftheymakedefaultafterthat，thelandoughttobetakenintothelord’shand，when，butonlyifitisnotrepleviedinthecourseoffifteendays，itwillbelostforgoodandall。Allthesedemandsaregrantedbythesteward，withwhomthedecision，atleastformally，rests。(66*)Again，whenwehearthatthewholecourtcravesleavetodeferitsjudgmenttillthenextmeeting，itisclearthatitrestswiththestewardtograntthisrequestWemayfindnowandthenaconsiderationfortheinterestsofthelordwhichtranscendsthelimitsofmereformalright，asinacasewhereacertainMargeryasksthecourt，withoutanywritofrightorformalaction，thataninquestmaybeheldastoapartofhermessuagewhichisdetainedinthehandsoftheAbbot，althoughsheperformstheservicedueforit。Theinquestisheld，andapparentlyendsinherfavour，butsheisdirectedatthesametimetogoandspeakwiththelordaboutthematter。Ultimatelyshegetswhatshewantsafterthisprivateinterview。(68*)Theproceedingsareirregularandinteresting：theusualformsofactionaredisregarded；averdictisgiven，butthematerialdecisionisleftwiththelord，andistobesoughtforbyprivateintercession。Quiteclosetothisentrywefindaninstancewhichisinflagrantcontradictionwithsuchaconsideratetreatmentofallparties。Thejurorsofthecourtarecalledupontodecideaquestionoftestamentandsuccession。Theysaythatnoneofthemwaspresentwhenthetestamentwasmade，andthattheyknownothingaboutit，andwillsaynothingaboutit。’Andsoleavingtheirbusinessundone，andingreatcontemptofthelordandofhisbailiffs，theyleavethecourt。Andthereforeitisorderedthatthebailiffsdocausetobeleviedasumof40stotheuseofthelordfromthepropertyofthesaidjurorsbydistresscontinuedfromdayto。day。’(69*)Thiscasemaystandasagoodexamplebothofthesturdyself-willwhichthepeasantryoccasionallyassertedintheirdealingswiththelord，andoftheopportunitiesthatthelordhadofassertinghissuperiorityinaveryhigh-handedmanner。
Butweneednoteventurntoanyegregiousinstancesinwhichthelord’spoweristhusdisplayed。Theusualformsofsurrenderaretheretoshowthat，asregardsorigins，wehavethesamethinghereasinordinarymanors，althoughthepeculiaritiesoftheancientdemesnehavebroughtforwardthefeaturesofcommunalorganisationinaverymarkedway，andhaveheldtheelementoflordshipincheck。
