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. TO HENRY SIDGWICK. THE WEST LODGE, DOWNING COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE. _11 Dec. 1888._