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 ******* 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 ******* 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 merely as a peculiar boon granted to the people whom the king had to give away. I need not say that such an interpretation would be entirely wrong. I hope I have been able to make out convincingly that legal protection given against private lords on manors which had been alienated was only an outgrowth from that certainty of condition which was allowed on the king's own lands. I will just add now that one very striking fact ought to be noticed in this connexion; certainty of tenure and service is limited to one particular class in the manor, although that class is the most numerous one. If this privilege came into being merely by the fixation of status at the time when a manor passed from the crown, the state of the villain pure would have got fixed in the same way as that of the villain socman. But it did not, and so one cannot shirk the difficult question, What gave rise to the peculiar protection against the lord when the lord happened to be king?
I think that three considerations open the way out of the difficulty. To begin with, the king was decidedly considered as the one great safeguard of Saxon tradition and the one defender against Norman encroachments. he had constantly to hear the cry about 'the laws of Edward the Confessor,' and although the claim may be considered as a very vague one in general matters, it became substantiated in this case of tenure and services by the Domesday record. Then again, the proportion of free owners who had lapsed into territorial dependence must have been much greater on the king's land than anywhere else; it was quite usual to describe an allodial owner from the feudal point of view as holding under the king in a particular way, and villain socage was only one of several kinds of socage after all. Last, but not least, the protection against exactions was in reality directed not against the king personally but against his officers, and the king personally was quite likely to benefit by it almost as much as his men. It amounted after all only to a recognition of definite customs in general, to a special judicial organisation of the manor which made it less dependent upon the steward, and to the facilities afforded for complaint and revision of judgments. As to this last it must be noted that the king's men were naturally enough in a better position than the rest of the English peasantry; the curse of villainage was that manorial courts were independent of superior organisation as far as the lower tenants were concerned. But courts in royal manors were the king's courts after all, and as such they could hardly be severed from the higher tribunals held in the king's name.
I may be allowed to sum up the conclusions of this chapter under the following heads: --1. The law of ancient demesne is primarily developed in regard to the manors in the king's own hand.
2. The special protection granted to villain socmen in ancient demesne is a consequence of a certainty of condition as much recognised in manors which the king still holds as in those which he has alienated.
3. This certainty of condition is derived from the Conquest as the connecting link between the Norman and the Saxon periods.
NOTES:
1. Bracton, 209; cf 7 and 200. Britton, ii. 13.
2. Bracton, 209: 'Villenagium privilegiatum... tenetur de Rege a Conquestu Angliae.' Cf. Blackstone, Law Tracts, ii. 128.
3. Madox, History of the Exchequer, i. 704: 'Tallagium dominiorum et escaetarum et custodiarum.'
4. Bract. Note-book, 1237 (the prior of St. Swithin denies a manor to be ancient demesne): '... per cc annos ante conquestum Anglie [terre] date fuerunt priori et conventui et ab aliis quam regibus.'
5. Y.B. Trin. 49 Edw. III, pl. 8 (Fitzherbert, Abr. Monstraver.
4): "... touts les demesnes qui fuerent en la maine Seint E. sont aunciens demesne, mesque ils fuerent aliens a estraunge mains quant le liver de Domesday se fist, come il avient del manor de Totenham qui fut en autre maine a temps de Domesday fait, come en le dit livers fait mencion, que il fuit adonques al Counte de Cestre.'
6. Very curious pleadings occurred in 1323. Y.B. 15 Edw. II, p.
