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*Inordertobequiteaccuratepeoplespokeofvillainsocmenorlittlesocage93*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*