vill3-第19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！

here　is　no　call　now　to　explain　the　reasons　which　induced　both　landlords　and　peasants　to　exchange　labour　for　money…rents。　I　have　only　to　say　now　that　the　same　remark　which　applied　to　the　passage　from　produce　'farms'　to　labour　holds　good　as　to　the　passage　from　labour　to　money　payments。　There　is　no　break　between　the　arrangements。　In　a　general　way　the　money　assessment　follows；　of　course；　as　the　third　mode　of　settling　the　relation　between　lord　and　tenant；　and　we　may　say　that　rentals　are　as　much　the　rule　from　the　fourteenth　century　downwards　as　custumals　are　the　rule　in　the　thirteenth　and　earlier　centuries。　But　if　we　take　up　the　Domesday　of　St。　Paul's　of　1222；　or　the　Glastonbury　inquest　of　1189；　or　even　the　Burton　Cartulary　of　the　early　twelfth　century；　in　every　one　of　these　documents　we　shall　find　a　great　number　of　rent…paying　tenants；（101*）　and　even　a　greater　number　of　people　fluctuating；　as　it　were；　between　labour　and　rent。　In　some　cases　peasants　passed　directly　from　the　obligation　of　supplying　produce　to　the　payment　of　corresponding　rents　in　money。　The　gradual　exemption　from　labour　is　even　more　apparent　in　the　records。　It　is　characteristic　that　the　first　move　is　generally　a　substitution　of　the　money　arrangement　with　the　tacit　or　even　the　expressed　provision　that　the　assessment　is　not　to　be　considered　as　permanent　and　binding。（102*）　It　remains　at　the　pleasure　of　the　lord　to　go　back　to　the　duties　in　kind。　But　although　such　a　retrogressive　movement　actually　takes　place　in　some　few　cases；　the　general　spread　of　money　payments　is　hardly　arrested　by　these　exceptional　instances。（103*）　　　　　One　more　subject　remains　to　be　discussed。　Is　there　in　the　surveys　any　marked　difference　between　different　classes　of　the　peasantry　in　point　of　rural　duties？　　　　　An　examination　of　the　surveys　will　show　at　once　that　the　free　and　the　servile　holdings　differ　very　materially　as　to　services；　quite　apart　from　their　contrast；　in　point　of　legal　protection　and　of　casual　exactions　such　as　marriage　fines；　heriots；　and　the　like。　The　difference　may　be　either　in　the　kind　of　duties　or　in　their　quantity。　Both　may　be　traced　in　the　records。　If　we　take　first　the　diversities　in　point　of　quality　we　shall　notice　that　on　many　occasions　the　free　tenants　are　subjected　to　an　imposition　on　the　same　occasion　as　the　unfree；　but　their　mode　of　acquitting　themselves　of　it　is　slightly　different　　they　have；　for　instance；　to　bring　eggs　when　the　villains　bring　hens。　The　object　cannot　be　to　make　the　burden　lighter；　it　amounts　to　much　the　same；　and　so　the　aim　must　have　been　to　keep　up　the　distinctions　between　the　two　classes。　It　is　very　common　to　require　the　free　tenants　to　act　as　overseers　of　work　to　be　performed　by　the　rest　of　the　peasantry。　They　have　to　go　about　or　ride　about　with　rods　and　to　keep　the　villains　in　order。　Such　an　obligation　is　especially　frequent　on　the　boon…days　（precariae）；　when　almost　all　the　population　of　the　village　is　driven　to　work　on　the　field　of　the　lord。　Sometimes　free　householders；　who　have　dependent　people　resident　under　them；　are　liberated　from　certain　payments；　and　it　may　be　conjectured　that　the　reason　is　to　be　found　in　the　fact　that　they　have　to　superintend　work　performed　by　their　labourers　or　inferior　tenants。（104*）　All　such　points　are　of　small　importance；　however；　when　compared　with　the　general　opposition　of　which　I　have　been　speaking　several　times。　The　free　and　the　servile　holdings　are　chiefly　distinguished　by　the　fact　that　the　first　pay　rent　and　the　last　perform　labour。　　　　　Whenever　we　come　to　examine　closely　the　reason　underlying　the　cases　when　the　classification　into　servile　and　free　is　adopted；　we　find　that　it　generally　resolves　itself　into　a　contrast　between　those　who　have　to　serve；　in　the　original　sense　of　the　term；　and　those　who　are　exempted　from　actual　labour…service。　Being　dependent　nevertheless；　these　last　have　to　pay　rent。　I　need　not　repeat　that　I　am　speaking　of　main　distinctions　and　not　of　the　various　details　bound　up　with　them。　In　order　to　understand　thoroughly　the　nature　of　such　diversities；　let　us　take　up　a　very　elaborate　description　of　duties　to　be　performed　by　the　peasants　in　the　manor　of　Wye；　Kent；　belonging　to　the　Abbey　of　Battle。（105*）　Of　the　sixty…one　yokes　it　contains　thirty　are　servile；　twenty…nine　are　free；　and　two　occupy　an　inter　mediate　position。　The　duties　of　the　two　chief　classes　of　tenants　differ　in　many　respects。　The　servile　people　have　to　pay　rent　and　so　have　the　free；　but　while　the　first　contribute　to　make　up　a　general　payment　of　six　pounds；　each　yoke　being　assessed　at　seven　shillings　and　five…pence；　the　free　people　have　to　pay　as　much　as　twenty…three　shillings　and　seven…pence　per　yoke。　Both　sets　have　to　perform　ploughings；　reapings；　and　carriage　duties；　but　the　burden　of　the　servile　portion　is　so　much　greater　in　regard　to　the　carriage…work；　that　the　corresponding　yokes　sometimes　get　their　very　name　from　it；　they　are　juga　averagiantia；　while　the　free　households　are　merely　bound　to　help　a　few　times　during　the　summer。　Every　servile　holding　has　a　certain　number　of　acres　of　wood　assigned　to　it；　or　else　corresponding　rights　in　the　common　wood；　while　the　free　tenants　have　to　settle　separately　with　the　lord　of　the　manor。　And　lastly；　the　relief　for　every　unfree　yoke　is　fixed　at　forty　pence；　and　for　every　free　one　is　equal　to　the　annual　rent。　This　comparison　of　duties　shows　that　the　peasants　called　free　were　by　no　means　subjected　to　very　light　burdens：　in　fact　it　looks　almost　as　if　they　were　more　heavily　taxed　than　the　rest。　Still　they　were　exempted　from　the　most　unpopular　and　inconvenient　labour　services。　　　　　Altogether；　the　study　of　rural　work　and　rents　leads　to　the　same　conclusion　as　the　analysis　of　the　legal　characteristics　of　villainage。　The　period　from　the　Conquest　onwards　may　be　divided　into　two　stages。　In　later　times；　that　is　from　the　close　of　the　thirteenth　century　downwards；　the　division　between　the　two　great　classes　of　tenants　and　tenements；　a　contrast　strictly　legal；　is　regulated　by　the　material　test　of　the　certainty　or　uncertainty　of　the　service　due；　and　the　formal　test　of　the　mode　of　conveyance。　In　earlier　times　the　classification　depends　primarily　on　the　economic　relation　between　the　manorial　centre　and　the　tributary　household；　labour　is　deemed　servile；　rent　held　to　be　free。　It　is　only　by　keeping　these　two　periods　clearly　distinct；　that　one　is　enabled　to　combine　the　seemingly　conflicting　facts　in　our　surveys。　If　we　look　at　the　most　ancient　of　these　documents；　we　shall　have　to　admit　that　a　rent…paying　holding　is　free；　nevertheless　it　would　be　wrong　to　infer　that　when　commutation　became　more　or　less　general；　classification　was　settled　in　the　same　way。　A　servile　tenement　no　longer　became　free　because　rent　was　taken　instead　of　labour；　it　was　still　held　'at　the　will　of　the　lord；'　and　conveyed　by　surrender　and　admittance。　When　all　holdings　were　fast　exchanging　labour　for　rent；　the　old　notions　had　been　surrendered　and　a　new　basis　for　classification　found　in　those　legal　incidents　just　mentioned。　The　development　of　copyhold　belongs　to　the　later　period；　copyhold　being　mostly　a　rent…paying　servile　tenure。　Again；　if　we　turn　to　the　earlier　epoch　we　shall　have　to　remember　that　the　contrast　between　labour　and　rent　is　not　to　be　taken　merely　as　a　result　of　commutation。　Local　distinctions　are　fitted　on　to　it　in　a　way　which　cannot　be　explained　by　the　mere　assumption　that　every　settlement　of　a　rent　appeared　in　the　place　of　an　original　labour　obligation。　The　contrast　is　primordial；　as　one　may　say；　and　based　on　the　fact　that　the　labour　of　a　subject　appears　directly　subservient　to　the　wants　and　arrangements　of　the　superior　household；　while　the　payment　of　rent　severs。　the　connexion　for　a　time　and　leaves　each　body　to　move。　In　its　own　direction　till　the　day　when　the　tributary　has　to　pay　again。　　　　　There　can　be　no　doubt　also　that　the　more　ancient　surveys　disclose　a　difference　in　point　of　quantity　between　free　and　servile　holdings；　and　this　again　is　a　strong　argument　for　the　belief　that　free　socage　must　not　be　considered　merely　as　an　emancipated　servile　tenancy。　Where　there　has　been　commutation　we　must　suppose　that　the　labour　services　cannot　have　been　more　valuable　than　the　money　rent　into　which　they　were　changed。　The　free　rent　into　which　labour　becomes　converted　is　nothing　but　the　price　paid　for　the　services　surrendered　by　the　lord。　It　must　have　stood　higher；　if　anything；　than　the　real　value　of　the　labour　exchanged；　because　the　exchange　entailed　a　diminution　of　power　besides　the　giving　up　of　an　economic　commodity。　No　matter　that　ultimately　the　quit…rents　turned　out　to　the　disadvantage　of　the　lord；　inasmuch　as　the　buying　strength　of　money　grew　less　and　less。　This　was　the　result　of　a　very　long　process；　and　could　not　be　foreseen　at　the　time　when　the　commutation　equivalents　were　settled。　And　so　we　may　safely　lay　down　the　general　rule；　that　when　there　is　a　conspicuous　difference　between　the　burdens　of　assessment　of　free　and　unfree　tenants；　such　a　difference　excludes　the　idea　that　one　class　is　only　an　emancipated　portion　of　the　other；　and　supposes　that　it　was　from　the　first　a　socially　privileged　one。　The　Peterborough　Black　Book；　which；　along　with　the　Burton　Cartulary；　presents　the　most　curious　instance　of　an　early　survey；　describes　the　services　of　socmen　on　the