theyareexemptedfromthejurisdictionofthesheriff，12*anddonotserveonjuriesandassizesbeforetheking’sjustices；13*theyarefreefromtollinallmarketsandcustom-houses。14*Last，butnotleast，theydonotgettaxedwiththecountryatlarge，andforthisreasontheyhaveoriginallynorepresentativesinparliamentwhenparliamentformsitself。Ontheotherhand，theyareliabletobetallagedbythekingwithoutconsentofparliament，byvirtueofhisprivaterightasopposedtohispoliticalright。15*Thislastprivilegegaverisetoaveryabnormalstateofthings，whenancientdemesnelandhadpassedfromthecrowntoasubject。Therulewas，thatthenewlordcouldnottallagehistenantsunlessinconsequenceofaroyalwrit，andthenonlyatthesametimeandinthesameproportionasthekingtallagedthedemesnesremaininginhishand。16*Thiswasanimportantlimitationofthelord’spower，andaconsequenceofthewishtoguardagainstencroachmentsandarbitraryacts。Butitwasatthesametimeacuriousperversionofsovereignty：——thepersonlivingonlandofthisdescriptioncouldnotbetaxedwiththecounty，17*andifhewastaxedwiththedemesnes，hislordreceivedthetax，andnotthesovereign。Ineednotsaythatallthisgotrightedintime，buttheanomalousconditiondescribeddidexistoriginally。
Therearetracesofadifferentviewbywhichthepowerofimposingtallagewouldhavebeenvestedexclusivelyintheking，evenwhenthemanortobetaxedwasonethathadpassedoutofhishand。18*Butthegeneralruleuptothefourteenthcenturywasundoubtedlytorelinquishtheproceedstotheholderofthemanor。Suchtreatmentiseminentlycharacteristicoftheconceptionwhichliesatthebottomofthewholeinstitutionofancientdemesne。Itisundoubtedlybasedontheprivateprivilegeofroyalty。Allthenumerousexceptionsandexemptionsfrompublicliabilitiesanddutiesflowfromonesource：thekingdoesnotwanthislandandhismentobesubjectedtoanyvexatiousburdenswhichwouldlessentheirpowerofyieldingincome。19*
Oncefencedinbyroyalprivilege，theancientdemesnemanorkeepsupitsprivateimmunity，eventhoughitceasestoberoyal。
Andthisisthesecondfact，withwhichonehastoreckon。Iftheprivilegedvillainageofancientdemesneisfoundedonthesamecausesasvillainagepureandsimple，thedistinguishingelementof’privilege’issuppliedtoitbytheprivateinterestoftheking。Thisseemsobviousenough，butitmustbeinsistedupon，becauseitguardsagainstanyconstructionwhichwouldpickoutoneparticularsetofrights，oroneparticularkindofrelationsascharacteristicoftheinstitution。Legalpracticeandlatertheoryconcernedthemselvesmostlywithpeculiaritiesofprocedure，andwiththeeventualityofasubjectowningthemanor。Butthepeculiarmodesoflitigationappropriatetotheancientdemesnemustnotbedisconnectedfromotherimmunities，andtheownershipofaprivatelordistobeconsideredonlyasengraftedontheoriginalrightoftheking。Withthispreliminarycaution，wemayproceedtoanexaminationofthosefeatureswhichareundoubtedlyentitledtoattractmostattention，namely，thespecialprocedure，whichisputinactionwhenquestionsariseinanywayconnectedwiththesoilofancientdemesne。
Bractonsays，thatinsuchcasestheusualassizesandactionsdonotlie，andthe’littlewritofrightclose’mustbeused’accordingtothecustomofthemanor。’Thewritisa’littleandaclose’one，becauseitisdirectedbythekingtothebailiffsofthemanorandnottothejusticesortothesheriff。20*
Itdoesnotconcernfreeholdestate，butonlylandofbasethoughprivilegedtenure。Anactionforfreeholdalsomaybebeguninamanorialcourt，butinthatcasethewritwillbe’thewritofrightpatent’andnot’thelittlewritofrightclose。’21*
Theexclusionofthetenantsfromthepubliccourtsisaself-evidentconsequenceoftheirbasecondition；infact，pleadingancientdemesneinbarofanactionis，inlegalsubstance，thesamethingaspleadingvillainage。22*Ofcourse，anoutletwasprovidedbythemanorialwritinthiscase，andtherewasnosuchoutletforvillainsoutsidetheancientdemesne；butastotheoriginaljurisdictionincommonlawcourts，jurisdictionthatisinthefirstinstance，thepositionwasidentical。Thoughlegallyself-evident，thismatterisoftenspeciallynoticed，andsometimesstressislaidonpeculiaritiesofprocedure，suchastheinapplicabilityoftheduelandthegrandassize23*inlandtoancientdemesne，peculiaritieswhich，however，arenotuniversallyfound，24*andwhich，eveniftheywereuniversallyfound，wouldstandasconsequenceandnotascause。Thismaybeaccountedforbytheobservationthatthelegalprotectionbestowedonthisparticularclassofholdings，notwithstandingitslimitations，actuallyimpartedtothemsomethingofthenatureoffreehold，andledtoagreatconfusionofattributesandprinciples。Indeed，thedifficultyofkeepingwithinthelinesofprivileged’villainage’isclearlyillustratedbythefactthatthe’littlewrit，’withallitsrestrictions，andquiteapartfromanycontentionwiththelord，recognisesthetenantinancientdemesneascapableofindependentaction。
Villains，ormenholdinginvillainage，havenowrit，eithermanorialorextra-manorial，fortheprotectionorrecoveryoftheirholdings，andtheexistenceofsuchanactionforvillainsocmenisinitselfalimitationofthepoweroflordandsteward，evenwhentheyarenopartiestothecase。Andsothedistinctionbetweenfreeholdandancientdemesnevillainageisnarrowedtoadistinctionofjurisdictionandprocedure。Thisissomuchthecasethatif，byamereslipasitwere，atenementinancientdemesnehasbeenoncerecoveredbyanassizeofnoveldisseisin，theexclusiveuseofthe’littlewrit’isbroken，andassizeswilleverliehereafter，thatis，thetenementcanbesuedforas’freehold’incommonlawcourts。25*Surelythiscouldhappenonlybecausethetenureinancientdemesne，althoughakindofvillainage，closelyresembledfreehold。
Onehasprimarilytolookforanexplanationofthesegreatprivilegestomanors，whichhadbeengrantedbythekingtoprivatelords。Onsuchlandsthe’littlewrit’laybothwhen’villainsocmen’werepleadingagainsteachother，26*andwhenasocmanwasopposedtohislordasaplaintiff。27*Thislasteventualityis，ofcourse，themoststrikingandimportantone。
Thereweresomedisputesandsomemistakesinpracticeastotheoperationoftherule。Thejudgesweremuchexercisedoverthequestionwhetheranactionwastobeallowedagainstthelordintheking’scourt。Thedifficultywas，thatthecontendingpartieshaddifferentestatesintheland，theonebeingpossessedofthecustomarytenancyinancientdemesne，andtheotherofthefrankfee。Thereareauthoritativefourteenth-centurydecisionstotheeffectthat，insuchanaction，thetenanthadtheoptionbetweengoingtothecourtatWestminsterortotheancientdemesnejurisdiction。28*
Themainfactremains，thataprivilegedvillainhad’personamstandiinjudicio’againsthislord，andactuallycouldbeaplaintiffagainsthim。Courtrollsofancientdemesnemanorsfrequentlyexhibitthecuriouscaseofamanoriallordwhoissummonedtoappear，distrained，admittedtoplead，andsubjectedtojudgmentbyhisowncourt。29*AndasIsaid，onelooksnaturallytosuchinstancesofegregiousindependence，inordertoexplaintheaffinitybetweenprivilegedvillainageandfreehold。Theexplanationwouldbeinsufficient，however，andthisfortwosimplereasons。Thepassageofthemanorintothehandsofasubjectonlymodifiestheinstitutionofancientdemesne，butdoesnotconstituteit；the’littlewritofright’
isbynomeansframedtosuittheexceptionalcaseofacontentionbetweenlordandtenant；itsobjectisalsotoprotectthetenantsagainsteachotherinawaywhichisoutofthequestionwhereordinaryvillainageisconcerned。Thetworeasonsconverge，asitwere，inthefactthatthe’littlewritofright’
issuableinallancientdemesnemanorswithoutexception，thatitappliesquiteasmuchtothosewhichremaininthecrownastothosewhichhavebeenalienatedfromit。30*Andthisleadsustoaveryimportantdeduction。Iftheaffinityofprivilegedvillainageandfreeholdisconnectedwiththe’littlewritofright’assuch，andnotmerelywithaparticularapplicationofit，ifthelittlewritofrightisframedforallthemanorsofancientdemesnealike，theaffinityofprivilegedvillainageandfreeholdistobetracedtothegeneralconditionoftheking’smanorsinancientdemesne。31*
Althoughthetenantsinancientdemesneareadmittedtousethe’littlewritofright’only，theircourtmadeitgoalongway；andinfact，alloralmostalltherealactionsofthecommonlawhadtheirparallelinitsjurisdiction。Thedemandant，whenappearingincourt，madeaprotestationtosueinthenatureofawritofmortd’ancestororofdower32*orthelike，andtheprocedurevariedaccordingly，sometimesfollowingverycloselythelinesoftheprocedureinthehighcourts，andsometimesexhibitingtenaciouslocalusageorarchaicarrangements。33*
Actionsastopersonalestatecouldbepleadedwithoutwrit，andasforthecrownpleastheywerereservedtothehighcourts。34*Buteveninactionsregardingthesoilaremovaltotheselatterwasnotexcluded。35*Evocationtoahighercourtfollowednaturallyifthemanorialcourtrefusedjusticeandsuchremovalmadethelandfrankfee。36*Theproceedingsinancientdemesnecouldbechallenged，andthereuponawritoffalsejudgmentbroughtthecaseunderthecognizanceofthecourtsofcommonlaw。Ifonexaminationanerrorwasfound，thesentenceofthelowertribunalwasquashedandthecasehadtoproceedinthehigher。37*instancesofexaminationandrevisionarefrequentinourrecords。38*Theexaminationoftheproceedingsbythejusticeswasbynomeansaneasymatter，becausetheywereconstantlyconfrontedbyappealstothecustomofthemanorandcounterappealstotheprinciplesofthecommonlawofEngland。
Itwasverydifficulttoadjusttheseconflictingelementswithnicety。Astothepointoffact，whetheranallegedcustomwasreallyinusageornot，thejusticeshadagoodstandinggroundfordecision。Theyasked，asarule，whetherprecedentscouldbeadducedandprovedastotheusage；39*theyallowedagreatlatitudeforthepeculiaritiesofcustomarylaw；butthedifficultywasthatalinehadtobedrawnsomewhere。40*Thisprocedureofrevisiononthewholeisquiteasimportantamanifestationofthefreeholdqualitiesofprivilegedvillainageaspleadingbywrit。Menholdinginpurevillainagealsohadamanorialcourttogotoandtopleadin，butitsjudicialorganisationproceededentirelyfromthewillandpowerofthelord，anditendedwherehiswillandpowerended；therewasnohighercourtandnorevisionforsuchmen。Thewritoffalsejudgmentinrespectoftenementsinancientdemesneshowsconclusivelythatthepeculiarprocedureprovidedfortheprivilegedvillainswasonlyaninstanceandavariationofthegenerallawoftheland，maintainingactionablerightsoffreepersons。Andbeitagainnoted，thattherewasnosortofdifferenceastorevisionbetweenthosemanorswhichwereintheactualpossessionofthecrownandthosewhichwereoutofit。41*Revisionandreversalwereprovidednotasacomplementtothelegalprotectionofthetenantagainstthelord，butasaconsequenceofthatindependentpositionofthetenantasapersonwhohasrightsagainstallmenwhichismanifestedintheparvumbreve。42*Itisnotwithoutinteresttonoticeinthisconnexionthattheparvumbreveissometimesintroducedinthelawbooks，notasarestrictionputuponthetenant，norastheoutcomeofvillainage，butasaboonwhichprovidesthetenantwithaplainformofprocedurecloseathandinsteadofthecostlyandintricateprocessbeforethejustices。43*
Ifprotectionagainstthelordhadbeentheonlyobjectoftheprocedureincasesofancientdemesne，onedoesnotseewhythereshouldbea’littlewrit’atall，astherewasaremedyagainstthelord’sencroachmentsinthewritof’Monstraverunt，’45*pleadedbeforetheking’sjustices。Asitis，thecaseofdisseisinbythelord，towhomthemanorhadcomefromthecrown，wastreatedsimplyasaninstanceofdisseisin，andbroughtundertheoperationofthewritofright，whilethe’Monstraverunt’wasrestrictedtoexactionofincreasedservicesandchangeofcustoms。46*Thelatterwritwasaverypeculiarone，infactquiteunlikeanyotherwrit。Thecommon-lawrulethateachtenantinseveraltyhastopleadforhimselfdidnotapplytoit；alljoinforsavingofcharges，albeittheybeseveraltenants。46*Whatismore，onetenantcouldsuefortherestandhisrecoveryprofitedthemall；ontheotherhand，ifmanyhadjoinedinthewritandsomediedorwithdrew，thewritdidnotabateforthisreason，andevenifbutoneremainedableandwillingtosuehecouldproceedwiththewrit。47*Theseexceptionalfeatureswereevidentlymeanttofacilitatetheactionofhumblepeopleagainstapowerfulmagnate。48*Butitseemstomethatthedeviationfromtherulesgoverningwritsatcommonlawistobeexplainednotonlybythegeneralaimofthewrit，butalsobyitsorigin。
Informitwassimplyaninjunctiononaplaint。Whenforsomereasonrightcouldnotbeobtainedbythemeansaffordedbythecommonlaw，theinjuredpartyhadtoapplytothekingbypetition。Oneofthemostcommoncaseswaswhenredresswassoughtforsomeactofthekinghimselforofhisofficers，whentheconsequentinjunctiontothecommonlawcourtsortotheExchequertoexaminethecaseinvariablybeganwiththeidenticalformulawhichgaveitsnametothewritbywhichprivilegedvillainscomplainedofanincreaseofservices；monstravitormonstraveruntN。N。；exparteN。N。ostensumest：——thesearetheopeningwordsoftheking’sinjunctionsconsequentuponthehumbleremonstrationsofhisaggrievedsubjects。49*Again，wefindthattheapplicationforthewritbyprivilegedvillainsisactuallydescribedasaplaint。50*Insomecasesitwouldbedifficulttotellonthefaceoftheinitiatorydocument，whetherwehavetodowitha’brevedemonstraverunt’tocoercethemanoriallord，orwithanextraordinarymeasuretakenbythekingwithaviewtosettlinghisowninterests。51*
Andthisbringsmetothemainpoint。Althoughthewritunderdiscussionseemsatfirstsighttomeettherequirementofthespecialcaseofmanorsalienatedfromthecrown，oncloserinspectionitturnsouttobeavariationofthepeculiarprocessemployedtoinsistuponarightagainstthecrown。Paralleltothe’Monstraverunt’againstalordintheCommonPleaswehavethe’Monstraverunt’againsttheking’sbailiffintheExchequer。
Thefollowingmandateforinstanceisenrolledintheeventfulyear1265：’MonstraveruntRegihominescastrisuideBramburetSchotonequodHenricusSpringconstabulariuscastrideBramburinjustedistringiteosadfaciendumaliaserviciaetaliasconsuetudinesquamfacereconsueverunttemporibuspredecessorumRegisettemporesuo。Ideomandatumestvicecomitiquodvenireetc。predictumHenricumadiePascheinxvdiesadrespondendumRegietpredictishominibusdepredictaterraetbreveetc。’52*