vill3-第11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！

r　times　does　normally　enjoy　these　rights　which　in　after　time　were　described　as　'appendant'　to　his　freehold；　and　it　is　well　worth　while　to　ask　whether　behind　the　general　assumptions　of　feudal　theory　there　do　not　lie　certain　data　which；　on　the　one　hand；　prepare　and　explain　later　terminology；　and　are　connected；　on　the　other；　with　the　historical　antecedents　of　the　feudal　system。　　　　　A　little　reflection　will　show　that　the　divisions　of　later　law　did　not　spring　into　being　merely　as　results　of　legal　reasoning　and　casuistry。　indeed；　from　a　lawyer's　point　of　view；　nothing　can　be　more　imperfect　than　a　classification　which　starts　from　three　or　four　principles　of　division　seemingly　not　connected　with　each　other。　Common　appendant　belongs　to　a　place　anciently　arable；　common　appurtenant　may　belong　to　land　of　any　kind；　the　first　is　designed　for　certain　beasts；　the　second　for　certain　others；　one　is　bound　up　with　freehold；　the　other　may　go　with　copyhold；　in　one　case　the　right　proceeds　from　common　law；　in　the　other　from　'specialty。'　One　may　reasonably　ask　why　a　person　sending　a　cow　to　the　open　fields　or　to　the　waste　from　a　freehold　tenement　can　claim　common　appendant；　and　his　neighbour　sending　a　cow　to　the　same　fields　from　a　copyhold　has　only　common　appurtenant。　Or　again；　why　does　a　plot　of　arable　reclaimed　from　the　waste　confer　common　appurtenant；　and　ancient　arable　common　appendant？　Or　again；　why　are　the　goats　or　the　swine　of　a　tenement　sent　to　pasture　by　virtue　of　common　appurtenant；　and　the　cows　and　horses　by　virtue　of　common　appendant？　And；　above　all；　what　have　the　several　restrictions　and　definitions　to　do　with　each　other？　Such　a　series　of　contrasted　attributes　defies　any　attempt　to　simplify　the　rules　of　the　case　according　to　any　clearly　defined　principle：　it　seems　a　strange　growth　in　which　original　and　later　elements；　important　and　secondary　features；　are　capriciously　brought　together。　　　　　In　order　to　explain　these　phenomena　we　have　to　look　to　earlier　and　not　to　later　law。　What　seems　arbitrary　and　discordant　in　modern　times；　appears　clear　and　consistent　in　the　original　structure　of　the　manor。　　　　　The　older　divisions　may　not　be　so　definitely　drawn　and　so　developed　as　the　later；　but　they　have　the　advantage　of　being　based　on　fundamental　differences　of　fact。　Even　when　the　names　and　terms　do　not　appear　well　settled；　the　subject…matter　arranges　itself　according　to　some　natural　contrasts；　and　it　is　perhaps　by　too　exclusive　study　of　names　and　terms　that　Mr。　Scrutton　has　been　prevented　from　duly　appreciating　the　difference　in　substance。　He　says　of　the　end　of　the　thirteenth　century：　'In　the　reports　about　this　time　it　seems　generally　to　be。　assumed　that　if　the　commoner　cannot　show　an　especialte　or　special　grant　or　title；　he　must　show　〃fraunc　tenement　en　la　ville　a　ques　commune　est　appendant。〃　Thus　we　have　the　question：　　〃Coment　clamez　vous　commune？　Com　appendant；　ou　par　especialte；'　while　Hengham；　J。　says：　'prescription　de　terre　est　assez　bon　especialte〃'　（p。　50）。　This　is　really　the　essence　of　all　the　rules　regarding　common　of　pasture；　and；　what　is　more；　the　contrast　follows　directly　from　arrangements　which　did　not　come　into　use　in　the　fourteenth　century；　but　were　in　full　work　at　the　time　of　Bracton　and　long　before　it。　What　is　called　in　later　law　common　appendant；　appears　as　the　normal　adjunct　to　the　holding；　that　is；　to　a　share　in　the　system　of　village　husbandry。　If　a　bovate　is　granted　to　a　person；　so　much　of　the　rights　of　pasture　as　belongs　to　every　bovate　in　the　village　is　presumed　to　be　granted　with　the　arable。　'　So　much　as　belongs　to　every　bovate　in　the　village；　'this　means；　that　the　common　depends　in　this　case　on　a　general　arrangement　of　the　pasture　in　the　village。　Such　an　arrangement　exists　in　every　place；　it　is　regulated　by　custom　and　by　the　decisions　of　the　manorial　court　or　halimote；　it　extends　equally　over　the　free　and　over　the　unfree　land；　over　the　waste；　the　moor　and　wood；　and　over　the　fallow。　It　admits　a　certain　number　and　certain　kinds　of　beasts；　and　excludes　others。　Only　because　such　a　general　arrangement　is　supposed　to　exist；　is　the　right　to　com　mon　treated　in　so　vague　a　manner；　the　documents　present；　in　truth；　only　a　reference　to　relations　which　are　substantiated　in　the　husbandry　system　of　the　manor。　But　the　right　of　common　may　exceed　these　lines　in　many　ways：　it　may　be　joined　to　a　tenement　which　lies　outside　the　manorial　system；　or　a　plot　freshly　reclaimed　from　the　waste；　or　to　a　holding　belonging　to　some　other　manor。　It　may　admit　a　greater　number　and　other　kinds　of　beasts　than　those　which　were　held　commonable　in　the　usual　course　of　manorial　husbandry。　In　such　cases　the　right　to　pasture　had　to　proceed　from　some　special　agreement　or　grant；　and；　of　course；　had　to　be　based　on　something　different　from　the　ordinary　reference　to　the　existing　system　of　common　husbandry。　If　there　was　no　deed　to　go　by；　such　a　right　could　only　be　established　by　long　use。　　　　　I　think　that　all　this　must　follow　necessarily　as　soon　as　the　main　fact　is　admitted；　that　common　is　normally　the　right　to　pasture　of　a　shareholder　of　the　manor。　The　objection　may　be　raised；　that　such　a　priori　reasoning　is　not　sufficient　in　the　case；　because　the　documents　do　not　countenance　it　by　their　classification。　Would　the　objection　be　fair？　Hardly；　if　one　does　not　insist　on　finding　in　Bracton　the　identical　terms　used　in　Coke　upon　Littleton。　It　is　true　that　Bracton　speaks　of　common　in　general；　and　not　of　common　appendant；　appurtenant；　and　in　gross；　but　the　right　of　common　which　he　treats　as　normal　appears　to　be　very　peculiar　on　a　closer　examination　of　his　rules。　It　is　praedial　and　not　personal；　to　begin　with；　it　is　always　thought　of　as　belonging　to　a　tenement。（18*）　What　is　more；　it　cannot　belong　to　a　tenement　reclaimed　from　the　waste；（19*）　and　in　this　way　the　requirement　of　'ancient　arable'　is　established；　that　is；　the　pasture　is　considered　as　one　of　the　rights　conceded　to　the　original　shares　of　a　manorial　community。　The　use　of　the　open　field　outside　the　time　of　reasonable　defence　（20*）　is　primarily　meant；　and　the　common　pasture　appears　from　this　point　of　view　as　one　of　the　stages　in　the　process　of　common　farming。　To　make　up　the　whole；　the　right　to　common　is　defined　by　a　'quantum　pertinet。'（21*）　which　has　a　sense　only　in　connexion　with　the　admeasurement　of　claims　effected　by　the　internal　organisation　of　the　manor。　Such　is　evidently　the　normal　arrangement　presupposed　by　Bracton's　description；　and　his　only　fault　is；　that　he　does　not　distinguish　with　clearness　between　the　consequences　of　the　normal　arrangement；　and　of　grants　or　usurpations　which　supplement　and　modify　it。　It　must　be　remembered　that　he　only　gives　the　substantive　law　about　common　rights　in　the　course　of　a　discussion　of　the　pleadings　in　actions　'quo　jure'　and　assizes　of　pasture。　If　we　compare　with　Bracton's　text　the　rules　and　decisions　laid　down　in　the　legal　practice　of　the　thirteenth　century；　we　shall　find　that　the　same　facts　are　implied　by　them。　They　all　suppose　a　contrast　between　'intrinsec'　and　'forinsec'　claims　to　common；　that　is　between　the　rights　of　those　who　are　members　of　the　manorial　group；　and　the　rights；　if　any；　of　those　who　are　outside　it；　and　again　a　contrast　between　the　normal　rights　of　commoners　and　any　more　extensive　rights　acquired　by　special　grant　or　agreement。　Only　the　freeholders　are　protected　in　the　enjoyment　of　their　commons；　only　the　freeholders　are　protected　in　the　enjoyment　of　their　tenements；　but　their　claims　are　based　on　arrangements　in　which　the　unfree　land　participates　in　everything　with　the　free。　It　may　be　added　that　litigation　mostly　arises　from　the　adjustment　of　'forinsec'　claims　under　the　writ　'Quo　jure。'　The　intercommoning　between　neighbours　gives　rise　to　a　good　many　disputes；　and　is　much　too　frequent　to　be　considered；　as　it　was　by　later　law；　a　mere　'excuse　for　trespassing。'（22*）　This　common　'pur　cause　de　vicinage'　may　be　a　relic　of　a　time　when　adjoining　villages　formed　a　part　of　a　higher　unit　of　some　kind；　of　the　Mark；　of　a　hundred；　for　example。　It　may　be　explained　also　by　the　difficulty　of　setting　definite　boundaries　in　wide　tracts　of　moor　and　forest。　However　this　may　be；　its　constant　occurrence　forms　another　germ　of　a　necessary　contrast　between　the　two　classes　which　afterwards　developed　into　common　appendant　and　common　appurtenant。　It　could　not　be　brought　under　the　same　rules　as　those　which　flowed　from　the　internal　arrangement　of　the　manor。　A　special　difficulty　attended　it　as　to　admeasurement：　the　customary　treatment　of　other　holdings　could　not　in　this　case　serve　as　a　standard。　The　very　laxity　of　the　principle　naturally　gave　occasion　to　very　different　interpretations　and　deductions。　And　so　we　are　justified　in　saying；　that　the　chief　distinctions　of　later　law　are　to　be　found　in　their　substance　in　the　thirteenth　century；　and　that　although　a　good　deal　of　confusion　occurs　in　details；　the　earlier　documents　give　even　better　clues　than　the　later　to　the　reasons　which　led　to　the　well…known　classification。　　　　　Common　appendant；　if　we　may　use　the　modern　term　for　the　sake　of　brevity；　is　indissolubly　connected　with　the　system　of　husbandry　followed　by　the　village　community。　A　very　noticeable　feature　of　it　is；　that；　in　one　sense；　it　towers　over　the　lord　of　the　manor　as　well　as　over　the　tenants。　Of　course；　legally　t