This is the great difference between property and a mere _possessio_. The _possessio_ was given by the prætor in the edict by which one was called upon to take it; the prætorian right of inheritance rests wholly and entirely upon this ground: the prætor gives _possessionem bonorum secundum tabulas_. Property, one might leave by will as one liked; but possession (occupancy) one could only transfer to another by a sale before witnesses according to a fair arrangement, and he who had received it, proved the legal acceptance, and armed himself with his _interdictum possessorium_; he had witnesses of his having got possession _neque vi, neque clam, neque precario_. But how was it when the possessor died? By his will he could utterly disinherit his children, and leave what he had in property to the most unworthy person, without the prætor in the earlier times being able to interfere; but the prætor could do so when the tenure was that of possession, and as being the source of possession, he decided in the latter case according to a principle quite different from that which applied to the former, as the chancellor of England does in Equity. Even those who entertain unfavourable views of the _Plebes_ and the tribunes, as for instance Livy and Dionysius, cannot deny that the patricians were _usurpatores agri publici_; yet these might according to the letter of the law rightly make their claims, and it is moreover not impossible that they appeared to have been perfectly honest. It is in general a great result of historical research, that one learns to judge fairly, and can see that there are good men in the most opposite parties; that the distinctions of party do not constitute the worth of man. Thus it was with regard to the patricians. When Livy and Dionysius, although against the _Plebes_, state that the _ager publicus_ had been occupied _per injuriam_ ὑπὸ τῶν ἀναιδεστάτων πατρικίων, their remarks are unjust; a fact which can only be understood by going back to the origin of the matter.