22, HYDE PARK GATE, S.W.
_September, 1888._
Has this occurred to you?--how extremely different the whole fate of
English land law would have been if the King's court had not opened
its doors to the under-vassals, to the lowest freeholders. But this
was a startling interference with feudal justice and only compassed by
degrees, in particular by remedies which in theory were but possessory
etc. Now if the lower freehold tenants had not had the assizes, the
line between them and the villein tenants would have been far less
sharp. You hint at all this in chap. IV but might it not be worth a
few more words--for there will be a tendency among your readers to
say _of course_ freeholders had remedies in the King's courts while
really there is no of course in the matter. The point that I should
like emphasized--but perhaps you are coming to this--is that not having
remedies in the King's own court is not equivalent to not having rights.
* * * * *
DOWNING.
_14 Oct. 1888._
I have been picking up my strength and am doing a little work.
Yesterday I got through my inaugural lecture; possibly I may print it
and in that case I will ask you to accept a copy; but it was meant to
be heard and not read and so I allowed myself some exaggerations.
... I am now quite ready to see proofs of your book.... My Introduction
for the manorial rolls is taking shape; it will deal only with the
courts, their powers and procedure. You can I think trust me not to
take an unfair advantage of our correspondence and your kindness--but
if you had rather that I did not see the sheets of your book which deal
with the courts, please say so. I hope to have got this Introduction
written in a month or six weeks.