orevenCnut。106*ButdoesthismeanthattheactualprivilegesofthetenurewereextantinSaxontimes？Surelynot。Suchthingsasfreedomfromcommontaxation，exemptionfromtoll，separatejurisdiction，certainlyexistedinbehalfoftheking’sdemesnesbeforetheConquest，butthereisnointimationwhateverthattheking’stenantsenjoyedanypeculiarrightorprotectionastotheirholdingsandservices。The’littlewritofright’andthe’Monstraverunt’areasNorman，inawidesenseoftheword，asthefreedomfromservingonassizesorsendingrepresentativestoparliament。ButalthoughthereisnodoubtthatthistenuregrewupanddevelopedseveralofitspeculiaritiesaftertheConquest，ithadtofallbackonSaxontimesforitssubstance，107*whichmaybedescribedinfewwords-legalprotectionofthepeasantry。
TheinfluenceofNormanlawyerswasexercisedinshapingoutcertainactionablerights，theeffectofconquestwastonarrowtoaparticularclassaprotectionoriginallyconferredbroadly，andtheactionofSaxontraditionwastosupplyageneralstockoffreedomandindependentright，fromwhichtheprivilegedconditionofNormantimescoulddrawitsnourishment，ifImayputitinthatway。ItwouldbeidlenowtodiscussinwhatproportiontheSaxoninfluenceonthesideoffreedomhastobeexplainedbytheinfluxofmenwhohadbeenoriginallyownersoftheirlands，andwhatmaybeassignedtothecontractualcharacterofSaxontenant-right。ThissubjectmustbelefttillwecometoexaminetheevidencesuppliedbySaxonsourcesofinformation。MypresentpointisthattheancientdemesnetenureoftheConquestisaremnantoftheconditionofthingsbeforetheConquest。108*
ItmaywellbeaskedwhythedestructiveeffectsofNormanvictorywerearrestedonancientdemesnesoil？Wasnotthekingaslikelytoexercisehisdiscretioninrespectofthepeasantryasanyfeudallord，andisitlikelythathewouldhavelethimselfbefetteredbyconsiderationsandobligationswhichdidnotbindhissubjects？Inviewofsuchquestionsoneistemptedtotreattheprotectionofthetenantsontheancientdemesnemerelyasapeculiarboongrantedtothepeoplewhomthekinghadtogiveaway。Ineednotsaythatsuchaninterpretationwouldbeentirelywrong。IhopeIhavebeenabletomakeoutconvincinglythatlegalprotectiongivenagainstprivatelordsonmanorswhichhadbeenalienatedwasonlyanoutgrowthfromthatcertaintyofconditionwhichwasallowedontheking’sownlands。Iwilljustaddnowthatoneverystrikingfactoughttobenoticedinthisconnexion；certaintyoftenureandserviceislimitedtooneparticularclassinthemanor，althoughthatclassisthemostnumerousone。Ifthisprivilegecameintobeingmerelybythefixationofstatusatthetimewhenamanorpassedfromthecrown，thestateofthevillainpurewouldhavegotfixedinthesamewayasthatofthevillainsocman。Butitdidnot，andsoonecannotshirkthedifficultquestion，Whatgaverisetothepeculiarprotectionagainstthelordwhenthelordhappenedtobeking？
Ithinkthatthreeconsiderationsopenthewayoutofthedifficulty。Tobeginwith，thekingwasdecidedlyconsideredastheonegreatsafeguardofSaxontraditionandtheonedefenderagainstNormanencroachments。hehadconstantlytohearthecryabout’thelawsofEdwardtheConfessor，’andalthoughtheclaimmaybeconsideredasaveryvagueoneingeneralmatters，itbecamesubstantiatedinthiscaseoftenureandservicesbytheDomesdayrecord。Thenagain，theproportionoffreeownerswhohadlapsedintoterritorialdependencemusthavebeenmuchgreaterontheking’slandthananywhereelse；itwasquiteusualtodescribeanallodialownerfromthefeudalpointofviewasholdingunderthekinginaparticularway，andvillainsocagewasonlyoneofseveralkindsofsocageafterall。Last，butnotleast，theprotectionagainstexactionswasinrealitydirectednotagainstthekingpersonallybutagainsthisofficers，andthekingpersonallywasquitelikelytobenefitbyitalmostasmuchashismen。Itamountedafterallonlytoarecognitionofdefinitecustomsingeneral，toaspecialjudicialorganisationofthemanorwhichmadeitlessdependentuponthesteward，andtothefacilitiesaffordedforcomplaintandrevisionofjudgments。Astothislastitmustbenotedthattheking’smenwerenaturallyenoughinabetterpositionthantherestoftheEnglishpeasantry；thecurseofvillainagewasthatmanorialcourtswereindependentofsuperiororganisationasfarasthelowertenantswereconcerned。Butcourtsinroyalmanorsweretheking’scourtsafterall，andassuchtheycouldhardlybeseveredfromthehighertribunalsheldintheking’sname。
Imaybeallowedtosumuptheconclusionsofthischapterunderthefollowingheads：——