vill3-第29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！

　wide　one；　much　wider　than　the　subject　immediately　in　hand；　but　it　is　connected　with　that　subject　and　some　of　the　material　for　its　solution　must　be　taken　up　in　the　course　of　our　present　inquiry。　　　　　I　have　been　constantly　mentioning　the　assessment　of　free　tenements；　their　rents　and　their　labour　services。　The　question　of　their　weight　as　compared　with　villain　services　has　been　discussed；　but　I　have　not　hitherto　taken　heed　of　the　varying　and　irregular　character　of　these　rents　and　services。　But　the　variety　and　irregularity　are　worthy　of　special　notice。　One　of　the　most　fundamental　differences　between　the　free　and　servile　systems　is　to　be　found　in　this　quarter。　The　villains　are　equalised　not　only　as　regards　their　shares　in　the　fields；　but　also　as　regards　their　duties　towards　the　lord；　indeed；　both　facts　appear　as　the　two　sides　of　one　thing。　The　virgate　of　the　villain　is　quite　as　much；　if　not　more；　a　unit　of　assessment　as　it　is　a　share　of　the　soil。　Matters　look　more　complex　in　the　case　of　free　land。　As　I　have　said　before；　there　are　instances　in　which　the　free　people　are　not　only　possessed　of　equal　shares　but　also　are　rented　in　proportion　to　those　shares。　In　much　the　greater　number　of　instances；　however　；　there　is　no　such　proportion。　All　may　hold　virgates；　but　one　will　pay　more　and　the　other　less；　one　will　perform　labour　duties；　and　the　other　not；　one　will　pay　in　money；　and　the　other　bring　a　chicken；　or　a　pound　of　pepper；　or　a　flower。　Whatever　we　may　think　of　the　gradual　changes　which　have　distorted　conditions　that　were　originally　meant　to　be　equal；　it　is　impossible　to　get　rid　of　the　fact　that；　in　regard　to　free　tenements；　equal　shares　do　not　imply　equal　duties　or　even　duties　of　one　and　the　same　kind。　　　　　One　of　two　things；　either　the　shares　exist　only　as　a　survival　of　the　servile　arrangement　out　of　which　the　free　tenements　may　have　grown；　or　else　they　exist　primarily　for　the　purpose　not　of　assessing　duties　but　of　apportioning　claims。　In　stating　these　possibilities　I　must　repeat　what　I　said　before；　that　it　would　be　quite　wrong　to　bring　all　the　observed　phenomena　under　one　head。　I　do　not　intend　in　the　least　to　deny　that　the　freer　play　of　economic　and　legal　forces　within　the　range　of　free　ownership　must　have　produced　combinations　infinitely　more　varying；　irregular　and　complicated　than　those　which　are　to　be　found　in　villainage。　A　large　margin　must　be　allowed　for　such　modifications　which　dispersed　and　altered　the　duties　that　were　originally　proportioned　to　shares。　But　a　few　simple　questions　will　serve　to　show　that　other　elements　must　be　brought　into　the　reckoning。　Why　should　the　disruptive　tendency　operate　so　much　more　against　proportionate　assessment　than　against　the　distribution　into　shares　itself；　in　other　words；　why　are　equal　tenements　so　much　commoner　than　equal　rents？　If　shareholding　and　equal　rents　were　indissolubly　connected　as　the　two　sides　of　one　thing；　or　even　as　cause　and　effect；　why　should　one　hold　its　ground　when　the　other　had　disappeared；　and　how　could　the　dependent　element　remain　widely　active　when　the　principal　one　had　lost　its　meaning？　If　the　discrepancies　between　rent　and　shares　had　been　casual；　we　might　try　to　explain　them　entirely　by　later　modifications。　But　these　discrepancies　are　a　standing　feature　of　the　surveys；　and　it　seems　to　me　that　we　can　hardly　escape　the　inference　that　shareholding　has　its　raison　d'etre　quite　apart　from　the　duties　owed　to　the　lord；　and　in　this　case　we　have　to　look　to　the　communal　arrangement　of　proprietary　rights　for　its　explanation；　it　was　a　means　of　giving　to　every　man　his　due。　If　this　principle　is　granted；　all　the　observable　facts　fall　into　their　right　places。　One　can　easily　imagine　how　free　holdings　came　to　exist　within　the　village　community　in　spite　of　their　loose　connexion　with　the　manor。　In　regard　to　duties；　they　were　practically　outside　the　community；　not　so　as　to　proprietary　rights　and　the　agricultural　arrangements　proceeding　from　them；　for　example　such　arrangements　as　affected　the　rotation　of　crops；　the　use　of　commons　and　fallow　pasture；　the　setting　up　of　hedges；　the　repair　of　dykes；　etc。　There　is　no　real　contradiction　between　the　facts；　that　in　relation　to　the　lord　every　free　shareholder　was；　as　it　were；　bound　by　a　separate　and　private　agreement；　while　in　relation　to　the　village　he　had　to　conform　to　communal　rule。　　　　　This　last　remark　may　require　some　further　development。　The　striking　differences　between　the　duties　of　the　several　freeholders　of　one　manor　seem　to　show　that　these　people　were　not　enfeoffed　by　the　lord　at　the　same　time　and　under　the　same　conditions。　If　A　is　in　every　respect　a　fellow　of　B；　and　still　has　to　pay　twice　as　much　as　B；　it　is　clear　that　his　relation　to　the　lord　has　been　settled　under　different　circumstances　from　those　which　governed　the　settlement　of　B's　position。　Now；　from　the　point　of　view　of　later　law　this　meant　that　the　two　freeholds　were　created　each　by　a　special　feoffment。　But　this　would　be　a　very　formal　and　inadequate　way　of　considering　the　case。　Very　often　the　differences　might　be　produced　by　subsequent　arrangements　which；　though　not　giving　rise　to　new　title；　destroyed　the　original　uniformity　of　condition。　Often　again　we　may　suspect　that　the　relation　between　lord　and　tenant　had　its　origin　not　really　in　a　gift　of　land　made　by　the　former　to　the　latter　but　in　a　submission　made　by　the　latter　to　the　former。　I　make　bold　to　prefer　this　view；　chiefly　on　account　of　those　trifling　and　indeed　fictitious　duties　which　are　constantly　found　in　the　Surveys。（79*）　They　can　only　have　one　meaning　　that　of　'recognitions'。（80*）　Trifling　in　themselves；　they　establish　the　subordinate　relation　of　one　owner　to　the　other；　and　although　their　imposition　must　be　considered　from　the　formal　standpoint　of　feudal　law　as　the　result　of　a　feoffment；　it　is　clear　that　their　real　foundation　must　often　have　been　a　submission　to　patronage。　The　subject　is　a　wide　one　and　includes　all　kinds　of　free　tenure；　communal　as　well　as　other。　When　a　knight　was　enfeoffed　by　a　monastery　in　consideration　of　some　infinitesimal　payment；　there　might　be　several　reasons　for　such　a　transaction。　The　abbot　may　have　thought　it　good　policy　to　acquire　the　support　of　a　considerable　person；　he　may　have　been　forced　to　give　the　land　and　only　glad　to　obtain　some　recognition；　however　trifling；　of　the　gift；　or　again；　he　may　have　made　a　beneficial　feoffment　in　return　for　a　sum　of　ready　money　paid　by　way　of　gersuma　or　fine；　but　he　may　also　have　extended　his　supremacy　over　a　piece　of　land　which　did　not　belong　to　him　originally　at　all。　Even　in　feudal　times　this　could　be　done　by　means　of　a　fictitious　lawsuit　ending　in　'a　final　concord'；　or　even　simply　by　an　instrument　of　quit　claim　and　feoffment　without　any　suit。（81*）　At　the　time　when　feudalism　was　only　settling　itself；　in　the　twelfth　and　thirteenth　centuries；　this　must　have　been　a　common　thing；　even　if　we　do　not　take　into　account　the　Saxon　practice　of　'commendation。'　However　this　may　be；　the　trifling　duties　imposed　on　freeholds　lead　to　the　inference　that　the　agreement　between　lord　and　tenant　had　been　made　on　the　basis　of　the　latter's　independent　right；　and　not　on　that　of　the　lord's　will　and　power。　They　testify　to　a　subjection　of　free　people　and　not　to　the　liberation　of　serfs。　And　as　they　are　found　constantly　allied　with　shareholding；　we　have　to　say　that　they　imply　manorial　relations　superimposed　on　a　community　which；　if　not　entirely　free；　contained　free　elements　within　it。　The　manorial　duties　are　more　varied　and　capricious　than　are　the　shares　just　because　they　are　a　later　growth。　　　　　I　should　not　like　to　leave　this　intricate　inquiry　without　testing　its　results　by　yet　another　standard。　I　have　been　trying　to　prove　two　things　：　that　some　of　the　feudal　freeholds　are　ancient　freeholds；　not　liberated　from　servitude　but　originally　based　on　the　recognised　right　of　the　holders；　that　such　ancient　freeholds　were　included　in　the　communal　arrangement　of　ownership；　although　the　assessment　of　their　duties　was　not　communal。　To　what　extent　are　these　propositions　supported　by　an　analysis　of　that　admittedly　ancient　tenure；　the　tenure　of　the　socmen？　We　must　look　chiefly　to　the　'free'　socmen；　but　I　may　be　allowed；　on　the　strength　of　the　chapter　on　Ancient　Demesne；　to　take　the　bond　socmen　also　into　account。　　　　　Let　us　take　the　manor　of　Chesterton；　in　Cambridgeshire。（82*）　It　is　royal；　but　let　out　in　feefarm　to　the　Prior　of　Barnwell；　and　its　men　make　use　of　the　parvum　breve　de　rec　to。　There　is　one　free　tenant　of　eighty…eight　acres　holding　de　antiquitate　and　the　Scholars　of　Merton　hold　forty…four　acres　freely。　They　have　clearly　taken　the　place　of　some　freeman；　whether　by　purchase　or　by　gift　I　do　not　know；　they　are　bound　to　perform　ploughings　and　to　carry　corn。　Both　tenements　are　worthy　of　notice　because　charters　are　not　mentioned　and　still　the　holdings　are　set　apart　from　the　rest。　In　the　one　case　the　tenure　is　expressly　stated　to　be　an　ancient　one；　and　presumably　the　title　of　the　other　tenement　is　of　the　same　kind。　The　number　of　acres　is　peculiar　and　points　to　some　agrarian　division　of　which　eighty…eight　and　forty…four　were　fractions　or　multiples。　The　bulk　of　the　population　are　described　as　customers。　They　used　to　hold　half…virgates；　it　is　said；　but　some　of　them　have　sold　part　of　their　land　according　to　the　custom　o