vill3-第37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！

n　so　many　words：　they　give　an　insight　into　a　more　ancient　order　of　things。　It　may　be　asked；　in　conclusion；　why　a　Frankish　form　should　be　found　prevalent　in　the　customary　arrangement　of　the　English　manorial　system？　The　fact　will　hardly　appear　strange　when　we　consider；　firstly；　that　the　symbolical　acts　of　investiture　and　conveyancing　were　very　similar　in　Old　English　and　Old　Frankish　law；（52*）　and　that　many　practices　of　procedure　were　imported　into　England　from　France；　through　the　medium　of　Normandy。　It　is　impossible　at　the　present　date　to　trace　conclusively　the　ceremonies　of　surrender　and　admittance　in　all　their　varieties　and　stages　of　development；　but　the　most　probable　course　of　progress　seems　to　have　been　a　passage　from　symbolical　investiture　in　the　folk…law　of　free　English　ceorls　through　the　Frankish　practice　of　'affatomire；'　to　the　feudal　ceremony　of　surrender　and　admittance　by　the　steward。　　　　　And　now　let　us　take　up　the　second　thread　of　our　inquiry　into　the　manorial　forms　of　conveyancing。　A　tenant　by　the　verge　is　also　a　tenant　by　copy　of　court　roll。　The　steward　who　presided　at　the　court　had　to　keep　a　record　of　its　proceedings；　and　this　record　had　a　primary　importance　for　the　servile　portion　of　the　community。　While　the　free　people　could　enter　into　agreements　and　perform　legal　acts　in　their　own　name　and　by　charter；　the　villains　had　to　content　themselves　with　ceremonial　actions　before　the　court。　They　were　faithful　in　this　respect　to　old　German　tradition；　while　the　privileged　people　followed　precedents　which　may　be　ultimately　traced　to　a　Roman　origin。　The　court　roll　or　record　of　manorial　courts　enabled　the　base　tenant　to　show；　for　instance；　that　some　piece　of　land　was　his　although　he　had　no　charter　to　produce　in　proof　of　his　contention。　And　we　find　the　rolls　appealed　to　constantly　in　the　course　of　manorial　litigation。（53*）　But　the　rolls　were　nothing　else　than　records　of　actions　in　the　court　and　before　the　court。　They　could　actually　guide　the　decision；　but　their　authority　was　not　independent；　it　was　merely　derived　from　the　authority　of　the　court。　For　this　reason　the　evidence　of　the　rolls；　although　very　valuable；　was　by　no　means　indispensable。　A　claimant　could　go　past　them　to　the　original　fount；　that　is；　to　the　testimony　of　the　court。　And　here　we　must　keep　clear　of　a　misconception　suggested　by　a　first…sight　analysis　of　the　facts　at　hand。　It　would　seem　that　the　verdict　of　neighbours；　to　which　debateable　claims　are　referred　to　in　the　manorial　courts；　stands　exactly　on　a　par　with　the　verdicts　of　jury　men　taken　by　the　judges　of　the　Royal　Courts。　This　is　not　so；　however。　It　is　true　that　the　striving　of　manorial　officers　to　make　the　procedure　of　halimotes　as　much　like　the　common　law　procedure　as　possible；　went　far　to　produce　similarity　between　forms　of　actions；　presentments；　verdicts　and　juries；　in　both　sets　of　tribunals。　But　nevertheless；　characteristic　distinctions　remained　to　show　that　the　import　of　some　institutions　brought　near　each　other　in　this　way　was　widely　different。　I　have　said　already　that　the　peasant　suitors　of　the　halimote　are　appealed　to　on　questions　of　law　as　well　as　on　questions　of　fact。　But　the　most　important　point　for　our　present　purpose　is　this：　the　jurors　called　to　substantiate　the　claim　of　a　party　in　a　trial　are　mere　representatives　of　the　whole　court。　The　testimony　of　the　court　is　taken　indirectly　through　their　means；　and　very　often　resort　is　had　to　that　testimony　without　the　intermediate　stage　of　a　jury。　Now　this　is　by　no　means　a　trifle　from　the　point　of　view　of　legal　analysis。　The　grand　and　petty　juries　of　the　common　law　are　means　of　information；　and　nothing　more。　They　form　no　part　of　the　tribunal；　strictly　speaking；　the　court　is　constituted　by　the　judges；　the　lawyers　commissioned　by　the　king；　who　adopt　this　method　in　investigating　the　facts　before　them；　because　a　knowledge　of　the　facts　at　issue；　and　an　understanding　of　local　conditions　surrounding　them；　is　supposed　to　reside　naturally　in　the　country　where　the　facts　have　taken　place。（54*）　Historically　the　institution　is　evolved　from　examinations　of　witnesses　and　experts；　and　has　branched　off　in　France　into　the　close　formalism　of　inquisitorial　process。　The　manorial　jury；　on　the　other　hand；　represents　the　court；　and　interchanges　with　it。（55*）　For　this　reason；　we　may　speak　directly　of　the　court　instead　of　treating　of　its　delegates。　And　if　the　verdict　of　the　court　is　taken；　it　is　not　on　account　of　the　chance　knowledge；　the　presumable　acquaintance　of　the　suitors　with　facts　and　conditions；　but　as　a　living　remembrance　of　what　took　place　before　this　same　court；　or　as　a　re…assertion　of　its　power　of　regulating　the　legal　standing　of　the　community。　The　verdict　of　the　suitors　is　only　another　form　of　the　entry　on　the　rolls；　and　both　are　means　of　securing　the　continuity　of　an　institution　and　not　merely　of　providing　information　to　outsiders。　Of　course；　claims　may　not　be　always　reduced　to　such　elementary　forms　that　they　can　be　decided　by　a　mere　reference　to　memory；　the　memory　of　the　constituted　body　of　the　court。　A　certain　amount　of　reasoning　and　inference　may　be　involved　in　their　settlement；　a　set　of　juridical　doctrines　is　necessary　to　provide　the　general　principles　of　such　reasoning。　And　in　both　respects　the　manorial　court　is　called　upon　to　act。　It　is　considered　as　the　repositary　of　legal　lore；　and　the　exponent　of　its　applications。　This　means　that　the　court　is；　what　its　name　implies；　a　tribunal　and　not　a　set　of　private　persons　called　upon　to　assist　a　judge　by　their　knowledge　of　legal　details　or　material　facts。（56*）　　　　　The　whole　exposition　brings　us　back　to　a　point　of　primary　importance。　The　title　by　which　land　is　held　according　to　manorial　custom　is　derived　from　communal　authority　quite　as　much　as　from　the　lord's　grant。　Without　stepping　out　of　the　feudal　evidence　into　historical　inquiry；　we　find　that　civil　arrangements　of　the　peasantry　are　based　on　acts　performed　through　the　agency　of　the　steward；　and　before　the　manorial　court；　which　has　a　voice　in　the　matter　and　vouches　for　its　validity　and　remembrance。　The　'full　court'　is　noticed　in　the　records　as　quite　as　necessary　an　element　in　the　conveyancing　business　as　the　lord　and　his　steward；　although　the　legal。　theory　of　modern　times　has　affected　to　take　into　account　only　these　latter。（57*）　Indeed；　it　is　the　part　assumed　by　the　court　which　appears　as　the　distinctive；　if　not　the　more　important　factor。　A　feoffment　of　land　made　on　the　basis　of　free　tenure　proceeds　from　the　grantor　in　the　same　way　as　a　grant　on　the　conditions　of　base　tenure；　freehold　comes　from　the　lord；　as　well　as　copyhold。　But　copyhold　is　necessarily　transferred　in　court；　while　freehold　is　not。　And　if　we　speak　of　the　presentment　of　offences　through　the　representatives　of　townships；　as　of　the　practice　of　communal　accusation；　even　so　we　have　to　call　the　title　by　which　copyhold　tenure　is　created　a　claim　based　on　communal　testimony。　　　　　All　the　points　noticed　in　the　rolls　of　manors　held　at　common　law　are　to　be　found　on　the　soil　of　ancient　demesne；　but　they　are　stated　more　definitely　there；　and　the　rights　of　the　peasant　population　are　asserted　with　greater　energy。　Our　previous　analysis　of　the　condition　of　ancient　demesne　has　led　us　to　the　conclusion；　that　it　presents　a　crystallisation　of　the　manorial　community　in　an　earlier　stage　of　development　than　in　the　ordinary　manor；　but　that　the　constitutive　elements　in　both　cases　are　exactly　the　same。　For　this　reason；　every　question　arising　in　regard　to　the　usual　arrangements　ought　to　be　examined　in　the　light　of　the　evidence　that　comes　from　the　ancient　demesne。　　　　　We　have　seen　that　it　would　be　impossible　to　maintain　that　originally　the　steward　was　the　only　judge　of　the　manorial　tribunal；　the　whole　court　with　its　free　and　unfree　suitors　participates　materially　in　the　administration　of　justice；　and　its　office　is　extended　to　questions　of　law　as　well　as　to　issues　of　fact。　On　the　other　hand；　it　was　clear　that　the　steward　and　the　lord　were　already　preparing　the　position　which　they　ultimately　assumed　in　legal　theory；　that　in　the　exercise　of　their　functions　they　were　beginning　to　monopolise　the　power　of　ultimate　decision　and　to　restrict　the　court　to　the　duty　of　preliminary　presentment。　The　same　parties　are　in　presence　in　the　court　of　ancient　demesne；　but　the　right　of　the　suitors　has　been　summed　up　by　legal　theory　in　quite　the　opposite　direction。　The　suitors　are　said　to　be　the　judges　there；　legal　dogmatism　has　set　up　its　hard　and　fast　definitions；　and　drawn　its　uncompromising　conclusions　as　if　all　the　historical　facts　had　always　been　arrayed　against　each　other　without　the　possibility　of　common　origins　and　gradual　development。　Is　it　necessary　to　say　that　the　historical　reality　was　very　far　from　presenting　that　neat　opposition？　The　ancient　demesne　suitors　are　villains　in　the　main；　though　privileged　in　many　respects；　and　the　lord　and　steward　are　not　always　playing　such　a　subordinate　part　that　one　may　not　notice　the　transition　to　the　state　of　things　that　exists　in　common　law　manors。　It　is　curious；　anyhow；　that　later　jurisprudence　was　driven　to　set　up　as　to　the　ancient　demesne　court　a　rule　which　runs　exactly　parallel　to　the　celebrated　theory　that　there　must　be　a　plurality　of　free　tenants　to　constitute　a　manor。　Coke　expresses　it　in　the　following　way：　'Ther