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。