‘It is one of the signs, good or bad, of the present times, that your sex will not, like their mothers and grandmothers, be satisfied with being told the fact, but will be told why.
‘Now the “why” of this is just as follows: The Norman Conquest upset a great many Saxon titles to estates, but not all. And on the voidance of a Norman who had no title but his own right hand, the Saxon would try to recover, and, I suppose, not unfrequently succeeded, by reason of being on the spot and putting on the Norman’s shoes while they were warm. Hence endless litigations, because the more distant Norman kin inherited at least this much—contempt for a Saxon.
‘By A.D. 1179 things began to settle down and Norman and Saxon to be amalgamated, and it was then, or perhaps rather later, agreed, in the High Courts, that in questions of title you should not go behind the above date.
‘Now this is not inconsistent with what you may have read in Selden, vol. ii. I have not read it, but I offer this solution—that it (i.e., Selden, vol. ii.) does not mean to speak of manorial law in respect of the High Court of Justice of the Realm, but of the intra-manorial regulations of court leets and court barons.
‘Yours sincerely,
‘JOHN SLATER.’
THE END.
Elliot Stock, 62, Paternoster Row, London.
