uch　better　placed　to　know　about　these　things　than　we　are；　but　there　does　not　seem　to　be　any　possible　doubt　that　Hengham　and　his　companions　were　entirely　wrong。　Their　decision　is　in　contradiction　with　almost　all　the　recorded　cases；　it　was　always　assumed　that　the　stiff　Domesday　terminology　was　quite　insufficient　to　show　whether　a　man　was　a　pure　villain　or　a　free　man　holding　in　villainage；　which　last　would　be　the　villain　socman　in　ancient　demesne。　If　Hengham's　doctrine　had　been　taken　as　a　basis　for　decision　in　these　cases；　no　ancient　demesne　tenancy　would　have　been　recognised　at　all　out　of　the　Danelaw　counties；　that　is　in　far　the　greater　part　of　England；　as　Domesday　never　mentions　socmen　there　at　all。　In　the　Danelaw　counties；　on　the　other　hand；　the　privilege　would　have　been　of　no　use；　as　those　who　were　called　socmen　there　were　freeholders　protected　without　any　reference　to　ancient　demesne。　Altogether　the　attempt　to　make　Domesday　serve　the　purpose　of　establishing　the　mode　of　tenure　for　the　thirteenth　century　must　be　called　a　misdirected　one。　It　was　quite　singular；　as　the　courts　generally　went　back　upon　Domesday　only　with　the　object　of　finding　out　whether　a　particular　manor　had　been　vested　in　the　crown　at　the　time　of　the　Conquest　or　not。　It　should　be　noted　that　Bracton　considered　the　case　from　a　very　different　point　of　view；　as　one　may　judge　by　the　note　he　jotted　down　on　the　margin　of　his　Note…book　against　a　trial　of　1237…8。　He　says：　'Nota　de　villanis　Henrici　de　Tracy　de　Tawystoke　qui　nunquam　fuerunt　in　manu　Domini　Regis　nec　antecessorum　suorum　et　loquebantur　de　tempore　Regis　Edwardi　coram　W。　de　Wiltona。'（101*）　Wilton's　decision　must　have　been　grounded　on　the　assumption　that　the　ancestors　of　the　claimants　were　strangers　to　the　manor；　or　else　that　the　manor　had　never　formed　part　of　the　ancient　demesne。　This　would；　of　course；　be　in　direct　contradiction　to　the　opinion　that　the　Tavistock　tenants　were　descended　from　the　king's　born　villains。　　　　　I　cannot　help　thinking　that　Hengham's　decision　may　have　been　prompted　either　by　partiality　towards　the　lord　of　the　manor　or　by　an　ill…considered　wish　to　compress　the　right　of　ancient　demesne　within　the　narrowest　bounds　possible。　In　any　case　this　trial　deserves　attention　by　reason　of　the　eminent　authorities　engaged　in　drawing　up　the　judgment；　and　as　illustrating　the　difficulties　which　surround　the　points　at　issue　and　lead　to　confusion　both　in　the　decisions　and　in　the　treatment　of　them　by　law　writers。　In　order　to　gain　firm　ground　we　must　certainly　go　back　again　to　the　fundamental　propositions　laid　down　with　great　clearness　by　Bracton。　It　was　not　all　the　tenants　on　ancient　demesne　soil　that　had　a　right　to　appeal　to　its　peculiar　privileges…some　had　protection　at　Common　Law　and　some　had　no　protection　at　all。　But　the　great　majority　of　the　tenants　enjoyed　special　rights；　and　these　men　of　ancient　demesne　were　considered　to　be　free　by　blood　and　holding　in　villainage。　If　the　books　had　not　noticed　their　personal　freedom　in　so　many　words；　it　would　have　been　proved　by　the　fact　that　they　were　always　capable　of　leaving　their　tenements　and　going　away　at　pleasure。　　　　　Bracton　does　not　restrict　himself　to　this　statement　of　the　case；　he　adds　a　few　lines　to　give　a　historical　explanation　of　it。　'At　the　time　of　the　Conquest；'　says　he；　'there　were　free　men　holding　their　lands　freely；　and　by　free　services　or　free　customs。　When　they　were　ejected　by　stronger　people；　they　came　back　and　received　the　same　lands　to　be　held　in　villainage　and　by　villain　services；　which　were　specified　and　certain。'（102*）　　　　　The　passage　is　a　most　interesting　one；　but　it　calls　for　some　comment。　How　is　it　that　the　special　case　of　ancient　demesne　gets　widened　into　a　general　description　of　the　perturbations　consequent　upon　the　Conquest？　For　a　general　description　it　is；　by　the　'stronger　folk；'　the　'potentiores；'　are　certainly　not　meant　the　king　and　his　officers　only。　On　the　other　hand；　how　can　it　be　said　of　any　but　the　ancient　demesne　tenants　that　they　resumed　their　holdings　by　certain　though　base　services？　The　wording　is　undoubtedly　and　unfortunately　rather　careless　in　this　most　important　passage；　still　the　main　positions　which　Bracton　intended　to　convey　are　not　affected　by　his　rather　clumsy　way　of　stating　them。　Ancient　demesne　tenure；　notwithstanding　its　peculiarities；　is　one　species　of　a　mode　of　holding　which　was　largely　represented　everywhere；　namely　of　the　status　of　free　men　holding　in　villainage；　this　condition　had　been　strongly　affected　if　not　actually　produced　by　the　Conquest。　It　is　interesting　to　compare　the　description　of　the　Conquest；　as　given　at　greater　length　but　in　a　looser　way；　in　the　Dialogus　de　Scaccario。　It　is　stated　there　that　those　who　had　actually　fought　against　the　Conqueror　were　deprived　of　their　lands　for　ever　after。　Those　who　for　some　reason　had　not　actually　joined　in　the　contest　were　suffered　to　hold　their　lands　under　Norman　lords；　but　with　no　claim　to　hereditary　succession。　Their　occupation　being　uncertain；　their　lords　very　often　deprived　them　of　their　lands　and　they　had　no　means　to　procure　restitution。　Their　complaints　gave　rise　to　a　discussion　of　the　matter　before　the　king；　and　it　was　held　that　nothing　could　be　claimed　by　these　people　by　way　of　succession　from　the　time　preceding　the　Conquest；　and　that　actionable　rights　could　originate　only　in　deeds　granted　by　the　Norman　lords。（103*）　The　Dialogus　as　compared　with　Bracton　lays　most　stress　on　the　opposite　side　of　the　picture；　the　disabilities　of　persons　holding　at　will　are　set　forth　not　only　as　a　consequence　of　the　state　of　things　following　conquest　de　facto；　but　as　the　result　of　a　legal　reconsideration　of　the　facts。　As　a　classification　of　tenures　the　passage　would　not　be　complete；　of　course；　since　neither　the　important　species　of　free　socage　recognised　by　Domesday　nor　the　ancient　demesne　tenure　appears。　It　is　only　the　contrast　between　villainage　and　holding　by　charter　that　comes　out　strongly。　But　in　one　way　the　Dialogus　reinforces　Bracton；　if　I　may　be　allowed　to　use　the　expression：　for　it　traces　back　the　formation　of　a　very　important　kind　of　villainage　to　the　Conquest；　and　connects　the　attempts　of　persons　entangled　into　it　to　obtain　protection　with　their　original　rights　before　the　Conquest。　　　　　Reverting　now　to　the　question　of　ancient　demesne；　we　shall　have　to　consider　what　light　these　statements　throw　on　the　origin　of　the　tenure。　I　have　noticed　several　times　that　ancient　demesne　socage　was　connected　in　principle　with　the　condition　of　things　in　Saxon　times；　immediately　before　the　Conquest。　The　courts　had　to　impose　limitations　in　order　to　control　evidence；　the　whole　institution　was　in　a　way　created　by　limitation；　because　it　restricted　itself　to　the　T。R。E。　of　Domesday　as　the　only　acceptable　test　of　Saxon　condition。　But；　notwithstanding　all　these　features　imposed　by　the　requirements　of　procedure；　ancient　demesne　drew　its　origin　distinctly　from　pre…Conquest　conditions。　The　manors　forming　it　are　taken　as　the　manors　of　St。　Edward。（104*）　the　tenants；　whenever　they　want　to　make　a　solemn　claim；　set　forth　their　rights　from　the　time　of　St。　Edward；（105*）　or　even　Cnut。（106*）　But　does　this　mean　that　the　actual　privileges　of　the　tenure　were　extant　in　Saxon　times？　Surely　not。　Such　things　as　freedom　from　common　taxation；　exemption　from　toll；　separate　jurisdiction；　certainly　existed　in　behalf　of　the　king's　demesnes　before　the　Conquest；　but　there　is　no　intimation　whatever　that　the　king's　tenants　enjoyed　any　peculiar　right　or　protection　as　to　their　holdings　and　services。　The　'little　writ　of　right'　and　the　'Monstraverunt'　are　as　Norman；　in　a　wide　sense　of　the　word；　as　the　freedom　from　serving　on　assizes　or　sending　representatives　to　parliament。　But　although　there　is　no　doubt　that　this　tenure　grew　up　and　developed　several　of　its　peculiarities　after　the　Conquest；　it　had　to　fall　back　on　Saxon　times　for　its　substance；（107*）　which　may　be　described　in　few　words…legal　protection　of　the　peasantry。　The　influence　of　Norman　lawyers　was　exercised　in　shaping　out　certain　actionable　rights；　the　effect　of　conquest　was　to　narrow　to　a　particular　class　a　protection　originally　conferred　broadly；　and　the　action　of　Saxon　tradition　was　to　supply　a　general　stock　of　freedom　and　independent　right；　from　which　the　privileged　condition　of　Norman　times　could　draw　its　nourishment；　if　I　may　put　it　in　that　way。　It　would　be　idle　now　to　discuss　in　what　proportion　the　Saxon　influence　on　the　side　of　freedom　has　to　be　explained　by　the　influx　of　men　who　had　been　originally　owners　of　their　lands；　and　what　may　be　assigned　to　the　contractual　character　of　Saxon　tenant…right。　This　subject　must　be　left　till　we　come　to　examine　the　evidence　supplied　by　Saxon　sources　of　information。　My　present　point　is　that　the　ancient　demesne　tenure　of　the　Conquest　is　a　remnant　of　the　condition　of　things　before　the　Conquest。（108*）　　　　　It　may　well　be　asked　why　the　destructive　effects　of　Norman　victory　were　arrested　on　ancient　demesne　soil？　Was　not　the　king　as　likely　to　exercise　his　discretion　in　respect　of　the　peasantry　as　any　feudal　lord；　and　is　it　likely　that　he　would　have　let　himself　be　fettered　by　considerations　and　obligations　which　did　not　bind　his　subjects？　In　view　of　such　questions　one　is　tempted　to　treat　the　protection　of　the　tenants　on　the　ancient　demesne　mer