the　affinity　of　privileged　villainage　and　freehold　is　to　be　traced　to　the　general　condition　of　the　king's　manors　in　ancient　demesne。（31*）　　　　　Although　the　tenants　in　ancient　demesne　are　admitted　to　use　the　'little　writ　of　right'　only；　their　court　made　it　go　a　long　way；　and　in　fact；　all　or　almost　all　the　real　actions　of　the　common　law　had　their　parallel　in　its　jurisdiction。　The　demandant；　when　appearing　in　court；　made　a　protestation　to　sue　in　the　nature　of　a　writ　of　mort　d'ancestor　or　of　dower（32*）　or　the　like；　and　the　procedure　varied　accordingly；　sometimes　following　very　closely　the　lines　of　the　procedure　in　the　high　courts；　and　sometimes　exhibiting　tenacious　local　usage　or　archaic　arrangements。（33*）　　　　　Actions　as　to　personal　estate　could　be　pleaded　without　writ；　and　as　for　the　crown　pleas　they　were　reserved　to　the　high　courts。（34*）　But　even　in　actions　regarding　the　soil　a　removal　to　these　latter　was　not　excluded。（35*）　Evocation　to　a　higher　court　followed　naturally　if　the　manorial　court　refused　justice　and　such　removal　made　the　land　frank　fee。（36*）　The　proceedings　in　ancient　demesne　could　be　challenged；　and　thereupon　a　writ　of　false　judgment　brought　the　case　under　the　cognizance　of　the　courts　of　common　law。　If　on　examination　an　error　was　found；　the　sentence　of　the　lower　tribunal　was　quashed　and　the　case　had　to　proceed　in　the　higher。（37*）　instances　of　examination　and　revision　are　frequent　in　our　records。（38*）　The　examination　of　the　proceedings　by　the　justices　was　by　no　means　an　easy　matter；　because　they　were　constantly　confronted　by　appeals　to　the　custom　of　the　manor　and　counter　appeals　to　the　principles　of　the　common　law　of　England。　It　was　very　difficult　to　adjust　these　conflicting　elements　with　nicety。　As　to　the　point　of　fact；　whether　an　alleged　custom　was　really　in　usage　or　not；　the　justices　had　a　good　standing　ground　for　decision。　They　asked；　as　a　rule；　whether　precedents　could　be　adduced　and　proved　as　to　the　usage；（39*）　they　allowed　a　great　latitude　for　the　peculiarities　of　customary　law；　but　the　difficulty　was　that　a　line　had　to　be　drawn　somewhere。（40*）　This　procedure　of　revision　on　the　whole　is　quite　as　important　a　manifestation　of　the　freehold　qualities　of　privileged　villainage　as　pleading　by　writ。　Men　holding　in　pure　villainage　also　had　a　manorial　court　to　go　to　and　to　plead　in；　but　its　judicial　organisation　proceeded　entirely　from　the　will　and　power　of　the　lord；　and　it　ended　where　his　will　and　power　ended；　there　was　no　higher　court　and　no　revision　for　such　men。　The　writ　of　false　judgment　in　respect　of　tenements　in　ancient　demesne　shows　conclusively　that　the　peculiar　procedure　provided　for　the　privileged　villains　was　only　an　instance　and　a　variation　of　the　general　law　of　the　land；　maintaining　actionable　rights　of　free　persons。　And　be　it　again　noted；　that　there　was　no　sort　of　difference　as　to　revision　between　those　manors　which　were　in　the　actual　possession　of　the　crown　and　those　which　were　out　of　it。（41*）　Revision　and　reversal　were　provided　not　as　a　complement　to　the　legal　protection　of　the　tenant　against　the　lord；　but　as　a　consequence　of　that　independent　position　of　the　tenant　as　a　person　who　has　rights　against　all　men　which　is　manifested　in　the　parvum　breve。（42*）　It　is　not　without　interest　to　notice　in　this　connexion　that　the　parvum　breve　is　sometimes　introduced　in　the　law　books；　not　as　a　restriction　put　upon　the　tenant；　nor　as　the　outcome　of　villainage；　but　as　a　boon　which　provides　the　tenant　with　a　plain　form　of　procedure　close　at　hand　instead　of　the　costly　and　intricate　process　before　the　justices。（43*）　　　　　If　protection　against　the　lord　had　been　the　only　object　of　the　procedure　in　cases　of　ancient　demesne；　one　does　not　see　why　there　should　be　a　'little　writ'　at　all；　as　there　was　a　remedy　against　the　lord's　encroachments　in　the　writ　of　'Monstraverunt；'（45*）　pleaded　before　the　king's　justices。　As　it　is；　the　case　of　disseisin　by　the　lord；　to　whom　the　manor　had　come　from　the　crown；　was　treated　simply　as　an　instance　of　disseisin；　and　brought　under　the　operation　of　the　writ　of　right；　while　the　'Monstraverunt'　was　restricted　to　exaction　of　increased　services　and　change　of　customs。（46*）　The　latter　writ　was　a　very　peculiar　one；　in　fact　quite　unlike　any　other　writ。　The　common…law　rule　that　each　tenant　in　severalty　has　to　plead　for　himself　did　not　apply　to　it；　all　join　for　saving　of　charges；　albeit　they　be　several　tenants。（46*）　What　is　more；　one　tenant　could　sue　for　the　rest　and　his　recovery　profited　them　all；　on　the　other　hand；　if　many　had　joined　in　the　writ　and　some　died　or　withdrew；　the　writ　did　not　abate　for　this　reason；　and　even　if　but　one　remained　able　and　willing　to　sue　he　could　proceed　with　the　writ。（47*）　These　exceptional　features　were　evidently　meant　to　facilitate　the　action　of　humble　people　against　a　powerful　magnate。（48*）　But　it　seems　to　me　that　the　deviation　from　the　rules　governing　writs　at　common　law　is　to　be　explained　not　only　by　the　general　aim　of　the　writ；　but　also　by　its　origin。　　　　　In　form　it　was　simply　an　injunction　on　a　plaint。　When　for　some　reason　right　could　not　be　obtained　by　the　means　afforded　by　the　common　law；　the　injured　party　had　to　apply　to　the　king　by　petition。　One　of　the　most　common　cases　was　when　redress　was　sought　for　some　act　of　the　king　himself　or　of　his　officers；　when　the　consequent　injunction　to　the　common　law　courts　or　to　the　Exchequer　to　examine　the　case　invariably　began　with　the　identical　formula　which　gave　its　name　to　the　writ　by　which　privileged　villains　complained　of　an　increase　of　services；　monstravit　or　mons　traverunt　N。　N。；　ex　parte　N。　N。　ostensum　est：　　these　are　the　opening　words　of　the　king's　injunctions　consequent　upon　the　humble　remonstrations　of　his　aggrieved　subjects。（49*）　Again；　we　find　that　the　application　for　the　writ　by　privileged　villains　is　actually　described　as　a　plaint。（50*）　In　some　cases　it　would　be　difficult　to　tell　on　the　face　of　the　initiatory　document；　whether　we　have　to　do　with　a　'breve　de　monstraverunt'　to　coerce　the　manorial　lord；　or　with　an　extraordinary　measure　taken　by　the　king　with　a　view　to　settling　his　own　interests。（51*）　　　　　And　this　brings　me　to　the　main　point。　Although　the　writ　under　discussion　seems　at　first　sight　to　meet　the　requirement　of　the　special　case　of　manors　alienated　from　the　crown；　on　closer　inspection　it　turns　out　to　be　a　variation　of　the　peculiar　process　employed　to　insist　upon　a　right　against　the　crown。　Parallel　to　the　'Monstraverunt'　against　a　lord　in　the　Common　Pleas　we　have　the　'Monstraverunt'　against　the　king's　bailiff　in　the　Exchequer。　The　following　mandate　for　instance　is　enrolled　in　the　eventful　year　1265：　'Monstraverunt　Regi　homines　castri　sui　de　Brambur　et　Schotone　quod　Henricus　Spring　constabularius　castri　de　Brambur　injuste　distringit　eos　ad　faciendum　alia　servicia　et　alias　consuetudines　quam　facere　consueverunt　temporibus　predecessorum　Regis　et　tempore　suo。　Ideo　mandatum　est　vicecomiti　quod　venire　etc。　predictum　Henricum　a　die　Pasche　in　xv　dies　ad　respondendum　Regi　et　predictis　hominibus　de　predicta　terra　et　breve　etc。'（52*）　There　is　not　much　to　choose　between　this　and　the　enrolment　of　a　'breve　de　monstraverunt'　in　the　usual　sense　beyond　the　fact　that　it　is　entered　on　a　Roll　of　Exchequer　Memoranda。　In　1292　a　mandate　of　King　Edward　I　to　the　Barons　of　the　Exchequer　is　entered　in　behalf　of　the　men　of　Costeseye　in　Norfolk　who　complained　of　divers　grievances　against　Athelwald　of　Crea；　the　bailiff　of　the　manor。　The　petition　itself　is　enrolled　also；　and　it　sets　forth；　that　whereas　the　poor　men　of　the　king　of　the　base　tenure　in　the　manor　of　Costeseye　held　by　certain　usages；　from　a　time　of　which　memory　runs　no　higher；　as　well　under　the　counts　of　Brittany　as　under　the　kings　to　whom　the　manor　was　forfeited；　now　bailiff　Athelwald　distrains　them　to　do　other　services　which　ought　to　be　performed　by　pure　villains。　They　could　sell　and　lease　their　lands　in　the　fields　at　pleasure；　and　he　seizes　lands　which　have　been　sold　in　this　way　and　amerces　them　for　selling；　besides　this　he　makes　them　serve　as　reeves　and　collectors；　and　the　bailiff　of　the　late　Queen　Eleanor　tallaged　them　from　year　to　year　to　pay　twenty　marks；　which　they　were　not　bound　to　do；　because　they　are　no　villains　to　be　tallaged　high　and　low。（53*）　Such　is　the　substance　of　this　remarkable　document；　to　which　I　shall　have　to　refer　again　in　other　connexions。　What　I　wish　to　establish　now　is；　that　we　have　on　the　king's　own　possessions　the　exact　counterpart　of　the　'breve　de　monstraverunt。'　The　instances　adduced　are　perhaps　the　more　characteristic　because　the　petitioners　had　not　even　the　strict　privilege　of　ancient　demesne　to　lean　upon；　as　one　of　the　cases　comes　from　Northumberland；　which　is　not　mentioned　in　Domesday；　and　the　other　concerns　tenants　of　the　honour　of　Richmond。　　　　　There　can　be　no　doubt　that　the　tenantry　on　the　ancient　demesne　had　even　better　reasons　for　appealing　to　immemorial　usage；　and　certainly　they　knew　how　to　urge　their　grievances。　We　may　take　as　an　instance　the　notice　of　a　trial　consequent　upon　a　complaint　of　the　men　of　Bray　against　the　Constable　of　Windsor。　Bray　was　ancient　demesne　and　the　king's　tenants　complained　that　they　were　distrained　to　do　other　services　than　they　were　used　to　do。　The　judgment　was　in　their　favour。（54*）　　　　　The　chief　point　is　that　the　writ　of　'Monstrav