vill3-第10部分

快捷操作: 按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页 按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页 按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部! 如果本书没有阅读完，想下次继续接着阅读，可使用上方 "收藏到我的浏览器" 功能 和 "加入书签" 功能！

d；　but　it　is　reduced　to　a　minimum　as　it　were；　has　not　settled　down　to　constant　occupation；　and　assumes　its　definite　shape　under　the　influence　of　the　idea　of　equal　apportionment。　Of　course；　by　the　side　of　these　communal　meadows　we　frequently　find　others　that　were　owned　in　severalty。　　　　　Land　for　pasture　also　occurs　in　private　hands　and　in　severalty；　but　such　cases　are　much　rarer。（3*）　Sometimes　the　pasture　gets　separated　and　put　under　'defence'　for　one　part　of　the　year；　and　merges　into　communal　ownership　afterwards。（4*）　But　in　the　vast　majority　of　cases　the　pasture　is　used　in　common；　and　none　of　the　tenants　has　a　right　to　fence　it　in　or　to　appropriate　it　for　his　own　exclusive　benefit。　It　ought　to　be　noted；　that　the　right　to　send　one's　cattle　to　the　pasture　on　the　waste；　the　moors；　or　in　the　woods　of　a　manor　appears　regularly　and　intimately　connected　with　the　right　to　depasture　one's　cattle　on　the　open　fields　of　the　village。（5*）　Both　form　only　different　modes　of　using　communal　soil。　As　in　the　case　of　arable　and　meadow　the　undivided　use　cannot　be　maintained　and　gets　replaced　by　a　system　of　equalised　shares　or　holdings；　so　in　the　case　of　pasture　the　faculty　of　sending　out　any　number　of　beasts　retires　before　the　equalisation　of　shares　according　to　certain　modes　of　'stinting'　the　common。　We　find　as　an　important　manorial　arrangement　the　custom　to　'apportion'　the　rights　of　common　to　the　tenements；　that　is　to　decide　in　the　manorial　Court；　mostly　according　to　verdicts　of　juries；　how　many　head　of　cattle；　and　of　what　particular　kind；　may　be　sent　to　the　divers　pasture…grounds　of　the　village　by　the　several　holdings。　From　time　to　time　these　regulations　are　revised。　One　of　the　Glastonbury　Surveys　contains；　for　instance；　the　following　description　from　the　45th　year　of　Henry　III。　Each　hide　may　send　to　the　common　eighteen　oxen；　sixteen　cows；　one　bull；　the　offspring　of　the　cows　of　two　years；　two　hundred　sheep　with　four　rams；　as　well　as　their　offspring　of　one　year；　four　horses　and　their　offspring　of　one　year；　twenty　swine　and　their　offspring　of　one　year。（6*）　According　to　a　common　rule　the　only　cattle　allowed　to　use　the　village　pasture　was　that　which　was　constantly　kept　in　the　village；　levant　e　couchant　en　le　maner。　In　order　to　guard　against　the　fraudulent　practice　of　bringing　over　strange　cattle　and　thus　making　money　at　the　expense　of　the　township；　it　was　required　sometimes　that　the　commonable　cattle　should　have　wintered　in　the　manor。（7*）　　　　　These　last　rules　seem　at　first　sight　difficult　of　explanation：　one　does　not　see　in　what　way　the　bringing　in　of　strange　cattle　could　damage　the　peasantry　of　the　village；　as　nobody　could　drive　more　than　a　certain　number　of　beasts　to　the　common；　and　as　the　overburdening　of　it　depended　entirely　on　the　excess　of　this　number；　and　not　on　the　origin　of　the　beasts。　And　so　one　has　to　look　to　something　else　besides　the　apprehension　that　the　common　would　get　overburdened；　in　order　to　find　a　suitable　explanation　of　the　rule。　An　explanation　is　readily　supplied　by　the　notion　that　the　use　of　the　common　was　closely　connected　with　the　holding。　Strange　cattle　had　nothing　to　do　with　the　holding；　and　were　to　be　kept　off　from　the　land　of　the　community。　it　is　as　representatives　of　a　community　whose　territory　has　been　invaded　that　the　individual　commoners　have　cause　to　complain。　In　fact；　the　common　pasture；　as　well　as　the　meadows；　were　thought　of　merely　as　a　portion　of　the　holding。　The　arrangements　did　not　admit　of　the　same　certainty　or　rather　of　the　same　kind　of　determination　as　the　division　of　the　arable；　but　the　main　idea　which　regulated　the　latter　was　by　no　means　cut　short　in　its　operation；　if　one　may　say　so：　it　was　not　bound　up　with　the　exact　measurement　of　arable　acres。　The　holding　was　the　necessary　agricultural　outfit　of　a　peasant　family；　and　of　this　outfit　the　means　of　feeding　the　cattle　were　quite　as　important　a　part　as　the　means　of　raising　crops。　It　is　only　inaccurately　that　we　have　been　speaking　of　a　virgate　of　30　acres；　and　of　a　ploughland　of　180　or　160。　The　true　expression　would　be　to　speak　of　a　virgate　of　30　acres　of　arable　and　the　corresponding　rights　to　pasture　and　other　common　uses。　And　the　records；　when　they　want　to　give　something　like　a　full　description；　do　not　omit　to　mention　the　'pertinencia；'　the　necessary　adjuncts　of　the　arable。　The　term　is　rather　a　vague　one；　quite　in　keeping　with　the　rights　which；　though　tangible　enough；　cannot　be　cut　to　so　certain　a　pattern　as　in　the　case　of　arable。（8*）　And　for　this　reason　the　laxer　right　had　to　conform　to　the　stricter　one；　and　came　to　be　considered　as　appendant　to　it。　　　　　We　have　considered　till　now　the　different　aspects　assumed　by　common　of　pasture；　when　it　arises　within　the　manor；　and　as　a　consequence　of　the　arrangement　of　its　holdings。　But　this　is　not　the　only　way　in　which　common　of　pasture　may　arise。　It　may　originate　in　an　express　and　special　grant　by　the　lord　either　to　a　tenant　or　to　a　stranger。（9*）　it　may　also　proceed　from　continuous　use　from　time　beyond　legal　memory。（10*）　it　must　have　been　difficult　in　many　cases　to　prevent　strangers　from　establishing　such　a　claim　by　reason　of　long　occupation　in　some　part　of　a　widely　stretching　moor　or　wood　pasture。（11*）　It　was　not　less　difficult　in　such　cases　to　draw　exact　boundaries　between　adjoining　communities；　and　we　find　that　large　tracts　of　country　are　used　as　a　common　pasture…ground　by　two　villages；　and　even　by　more。（12*）　Neighbours　deem　it　often　advantageous　to　establish　a　certain　reciprocity　in　this　respect。（13*）　By　special　agreement　or　by　tacit　allowance　lords　and　tenants　intercommon　on　each　other's　lands：　this　practice　extends　mostly　to　the　waste　only；　but　in　some　cases　the　arable　and　meadow　are　included　after　the　removal　of　the　crop　and　of　the　hay。　The　procedure　of　the　writ　'quo　jure'　was　partly　directed　to　regulate　these　rights　and　to　prevent　people　from　encroaching　wantonly　upon　their　neighbours。（14*）　When　land　held　in　one　fee　or　one　manor　was　broken　up　for　some　reason　into　smaller　units；　the　rights　of　pasture　were　commonly　kept　up　according　to　the　old　arrangements。（15*）　　　　　These　different　modes　of　treating　the　pasture　present　rather　an　incongruous　medley；　and　may　be　classified　in　several　ways　and　deduced　from　divers　sources。　　　　　The　chief　distinctions　of　modern　law　are　well　known：　'Common　Appendant　is　the　right　which　every　freehold　tenant　of　the　manor　possesses；　to　depasture　his　commonable　cattle；　levant　and　couchant　on　his　freehold　tenement　anciently　arable；　on　the　wastes　of　the　manor；　and　originally　on　all　（common）　pasture　in　the　manor。　Common　appurtenant　on　the　other　hand　is　against　common　right；　becoming　appurtenant　to　land　either　by　long　user　or　by　grant　express　or　implied。　Thus　it　covers　a　right　to　common　with　animals　that　are　not　commonable；　such　as　pigs；　donkeys；　goats；　and　geese；　or　a　right　to　common　claimed　for　land　not　anciently　arable；　such　as　pasture；　or　land　reclaimed　from　the　waste　within　the　time　of　legal　memory；　or　for　land　that　is　not　freehold；　but　copyhold。'（16*）　Common　in　gross　is　a　personal　right　to　common　pasture　in　opposition　to　the　praedial　rights。　Mr　Scrutton　has　shown　from　the　Year　Books　that　these　terms　and　distinctions　emerge　gradually　during　the　fourteenth　century；　and　appear　substantially　settled　only　in　Littleton's　treatise。　Bracton　and　his　followers；　Fleta　and　Britton；　do　not　know　them。　These　are　important　facts；　but　they　hardly　warrant　the　inferences　which　have　been　drawn　from　them。　The　subject　has　been　in　dispute　in　connexion　with　discussions　as　to　the　free　village　community。　Joshua　Williams；　in　his　Rights　of　Common；（17*）　had　assumed　common　appendant　to　originate　in　ancient　customary　right　bestowed　by　the　village　community　and　not　by　the　lord's　grant；　Scrutton　argues　that　such　a　right　is　not　recognised　by　the　documents。　He　lays　stress　on　the　fact；　that　Bracton　speaks　only　of　two　modes　of　acquiring　common；　namely；　express　grant　by　the　lord；　and　long　usage　understood　as　constant　sufferance　on　the　part　of　the　lord　amounting　to　an　express　grant。　But　this　is　only　another　way　of　saying　that　Bracton's　exposition　is　based　on　feudal　notions；　that　his　land　law　is　constructed　on　the　principle　'nulle　terre　sans　seigneur；'　and　that　every　tenement；　as　well　as　every　right　to　common；　is　considered　in　theory　as　granted　by　the　lord　of　the　manor。　It　may　be　admitted　that　Bracton　does　not　recognise　just　that　kind　of　title　which　later　lawyers　knew　as　appendancy；　does　not　recognise　that　a　man　can　claim　common　by　showing　merely　that　he　is　a　freeholder　of　the　manor。　Unless　he　relies　on　long　continued　user；　he　must　rely　upon　grant　or　feoffment。　But　the　distinction　between　saying　'I　claim　common　because　I　am　a　freeholder　of　the　manor'　and　saying　'I　claim　common　because　I　or　my　ancestors　have　been　enfeoffed　of　a　freehold　tenement　of　the　manor　and　the　right　of　common　passed　by　the　feoffment；'　though　it　may　be　of　juristic　interest　and　even　of　some　practical　importance　as　regulating　the　burden　of　proof　and　giving　rise　to　canons　for　the　interpretation　of　deeds；　is　still　a　superficial　distinction　which　does　not　penetrate　deeply　into　the　substance　of　the　law。　On　the　whole　we　find　that　the　freeholder　of　Bracton's　time　and　of　earlier　times　does　normally　enjoy　these　rights　which　in　after　time　were　described　as　'appendant'　to　his　fr