vill2-第15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！

used　to　do。　The　judgment　was　in　their　favour。（54*）　　　　　The　chief　point　is　that　the　writ　of　'Monstraverunt'　appears　to　be　connected　with　petitions　to　the　king　against　the　exactions　of　his　officers；　and　may　be　said　in　its　origin　to　be　applicable　as　much　to　the　actual　possessions　of　the　crown　as　to　those　which　had　been　granted　away　from　it。　This　explains　a　very　remarkable　omission　in　our　best　authorities。　Although　the　writ　played　such　an　important　part　in　the　law　of　ancient　demesne；　and　was　so　peculiar　in　its　form　and　substance；　neither　Bracton　nor　his　followers　mention　it　directly。　They　set　down　'the　little　writ　of　right　close'　as　the　only　writ　available　for　the　villain　socmen。　As　the　protection　in　point　of　services　is　nevertheless　distinctly　affirmed　by　those　writers；　and　as　the　Monstraverunt　appears　in　full　working　order　in　the　time　of　Henry　III　and　even　of　John；（55*）　the　obvious　explanation　seems　to　be　that　Bracton　regarded　the　case　as　one　not　of　writ　but　of　petition；　a　matter；　we　might　say；　rather　for　royal　equity　than　for　strict　law。　Thus　both　the　two　modes　of　procedure　which　are　distinctive　of　the　ancient　demesne；　namely　the　'parvum　breve'　and　the　'Monstraverunt；'　though　they　attain　their　full　development　on　the　manors　that　have　been　alienated；　seem　really　to　originate　on　manors　which　are　in　the　actual　possession　of　the　crown。　　　　　If　we　now　examine　the　conditions　under　which　the　manors　of　the　ancient　demesne　were　alienated　by　the　crown；　we　shall　at　once　see　that　no　very　definite　line　could　be　drawn　between　those　which　had　been　given　away　and　those　which　remained　in　the　king's　hand。　The　one　class　gradually　shades　off　into　the　other。　A　very　good　example　is　afforded　by　the　history　of　Stoneleigh　Abbey。　In　1154　King　Henry　II　gave　the　Cistercian　monks　of　Radmore　in　Staffordshire　his　manor　of　Stoneleigh　in　exchange　for　their　possessions　in　Radmore。　The　charter　as　given　in　the　Register　of　the　Abbey　seems　to　amount　to　a　complete　grant　of　the　land　and　of　the　jurisdiction。　Nevertheless；　we　find　Henry　II　drawing　all　kinds　of　perquisites　from　the　place　all　through　his　reign；　and　it　is　specially　noticed　that　his　writs　were　directed　not　to　the　Abbot　or　the　Abbot's　bailiffs；　but　to　his　own　bailiffs　in　Stoneleigh。（56*）　In　order　to　get　rid　of　the　inconveniences　consequent　upon　such　mixed　ownership；　Abbot　William　of　Tyso　bought　a　charter　from　King　John；　granting　to　the　Abbey　all　the　soke　of　Stoneleigh。（57*）　But　all　the　same　the　royal　rights　did　not　yet　disappear。　There　were　tenants　connected　with　the　place　who　were　immediately　dependent　on　the　king；（58*）　and　his　bailiff　continued　to　exercise　functions　by　the　side　of；　and　in　conjunction　with；　the　officers　of　the　Abbot。（59*）　In　the　50th　year　of　Henry　III　a　remarkable　case　occurred：　　a　certain　Alexander　of　Canle　was　tried　for　usurping　the　rights　of　the　Abbot　as　to　the　tenantry　in　the　hamlet　of　Canle；　and　it　came　out　that　one　of　his　ancestors　had　succeeded　in　improving　his　position　of　collector　of　the　revenue　into　the　position　of　an　owner　of　the　rents。　Although　the　rights　which　were　vindicated　against　him　were　the　rights　of　the　Abbot；　still　the　king　entered　into　possession　and　afterwards　transferred　the　possession　to　the　Abbot。（60*）　In　one　word；　the　king　is　always　considered　as　'the　senior　lord'　of　Stoneleigh；　his　lordship　is　something　more　direct　than　a　mere　feudal　over…lordship。（61*）　　　　　We　find　a　similar　state　of　things　at　King's　Ripton。　The　manor　had　been　let　in　fee　farm　to　the　Abbots　of　Ramsey。　In　case　of　a　tenement　lapsing　into　the　lord's　hands；　it　is　seized　sometimes　by　the　bailiff　of　the　king；　sometimes　by　the　bailiffs　of　the　Abbot。（62*）　The　royal　writs　again　are　directed　not　to　the　Abbot；　but　to　his　bailiff。　The　same　was　the　case　at　Stoneleigh；（63*）　and　indeed　this　seems　to　have　been　the　regular　course　on　ancient　demesne　manors。（64*）　This　curious　way　of　ignoring　the　lord　himself　and　addressing　the　writ　directly　to　his　officers　seems　an　outcome　of　the　fundamental　assumption　that　of　these　manors　there　was　no　real　lord　but　the　king；　and　that　the　private　lord's　officers　were　acting　as　the　king's　bailiffs。　　　　　According　to　current　notions　the　demesnes　of　the　crown　ought　not　to　have　been　alienated　at　all。　Although　alienated　by　one　king　they　were　considered　as　liable　to　be　resumed　by　his　successors。（65*）　And　as　a　matter　of　fact　such　resumptions　were　by　no　means　unusual。　Edward　I　gave　an　adequate　expression　to　this　doctrine　when　he　ordered　an　inquisition　into　the　state　of　the　tenantry　at　Stoneleigh：　　he　did　not　wish　any　encroachment　made　on　the　old　constitution　of　the　manor；　for　he　had　always　in　mind　the　possibility　that　his　royal　rights　would　be　resumed　by　himself　or　by　one　of　his　successors。（66*）　　　　　If　we　turn　to　the　court　rolls　of　a　manor　which　is　actually　in　the　king's　hand　and　compare　them　with　those　of　a　manor　which　he　has　granted　to　some　convent　or　some　private　lord；　we　see　hardly　any　difference　between　them。　The　rolls　of　the　manor　of　Havering　at　the　Record　Office；　although　comparatively　late；　afford　a　good　insight　into　the　constitution　of　a　manor　retained　in　the　king's　own　hand。　They　contain　a　good　many　writs　of　right；　and　though；　naturally　enough；　the　tenants　do　not　bring　actions　against　the　king；　we　find　an　instance　in　which　the　king　brings　an　action　against　his　tenant；　and　pleads　before　a　court　which　is　held　in　his　own　name。（67*）　This　is　good　proof　that　the　condition　of　the　tenants　was　by　no　means　dependent　on　the　arbitrary　action　of　the　manorial　officers。　When　King　Henry　II　granted　Stoneleigh　to　the　Cistercians　he　displaced　a　number　of　'rustics'　from　their　holdings；　and　while　doing　this　he　recognised　their　right　and　enjoined　the　sheriff　of　Warwickshire　to　give　them　an　equivalent　for　what　they　had　lost　in　consequence　of　the　grant。（68*）　The　notion　from　which　all　inquiry　consequent　upon　a　'Monstraverunt'　starts　is　always　this；　that　the　tenants　were　holding　by　certain　（i。e。　by　fixed）　services　at　the　time　when　the　manor　was　in　the　king's　own　hand。　The　certainty　is　not　created　by　the　fact　that　the　manor　passes　away　from　the　king　to　some　one　else；　it　exists　when　the　land　is　royal　land　and　therefore　cannot　be　destroyed　on　land　that　has　been　alienated。　So　true　is　this　that　Bracton　and　Britton　give　their　often　cited　description　of　privileged　villainage　without　alluding　to　the　question　whether　or　no　the　manor　is　still　in　the　king's　hand；（69*）　Britton　even　applies　this　description　primarily　to　the　king's　own　possessions　by　his　way　of　stating　the　law　as　the　direct　utterance　of　the　king's　command。　The　well…known　fact　that　the　'ferm'　or　rent　of　royal　manors　was　not　always　fixed；　that　we　constantly　hear　of　an　increased　rental　（incrementum）　levied　in　addition　to　the　old　'ferm'；　（assisa　redditus　antiquitus　assisus）；　can　be　easily　reconciled　with　this　doctrine。（70*）　The　prosperity　of　the　country　was　gradually　rising；　both　in　agricultural　communities　and　in　towns　new　tenements　and　houses；　new　occupations　and　revenues　were　growing；　and　it　was　not　the　interest　either　of　the　communities　or　of　the　lord　to　compress　this　development　within　an　unelastic　bond。　In　principle　the　increased　payments　fell　on　this　new　growth　on　the　demesne；　although　this　may　in　some　cases　have　been　due　to　exactions　against　which　the　people　could　remonstrate　only　in　the　name　of　immemorial　custom；　and　only　by　way　of　petition　since　nobody　could　judge　the　king。　In　principle；　too；　certainty　of　condition　was　admitted　as　to　the　privileged　villains　on　the　king's　demesnes。（71*）　　　　　This　serves　to　explain　the　procedure　followed　by　the　court　when　a　question　of　services　was　raised　by　a　writ　of　'Monstraverunt。'　The　first　thing；　of　course；　was　to　ascertain　whether　the　manor　was　ancient　demesne　or　not；　and　for　this　purpose　nothing　short　of　a　direct　mention　in　Domesday　was　held　to　be　sufficient。（72*）　When　this　question　had　been　solved　in　the　affirmative；　a　jury　had　to　decide　what　the　customs　and　duties　were；　by　which　the　ancestors　of　the　plaintiffs　held　at　the　time　when　the　crown　was　possessed　of　the　manor。　In　principle　it　was　always　considered　that　such　had　been　the　services　at　the　time　of　the　Conquest；（73*）　but　practically；　of　course；　there　could　be　no　attempt　to　examine　into　such　ancient　history。　The　men　of　King's　Ripton　actually　pleaded　back　to　the　time　of　King　Cnut；　and　maintained　that　no　prescription　was　available　against　their　rights　as　no　prescription　could　avail　against　the　king。（74*）　The　courts　naturally　declined　to　go　higher　than　men　could　remember；　but　they　laid　down　this　limitation　entirely　as　one　of　practice　and　not　of　principle。（75*）　Metingham　demanded　that　the　claimants　should　make　good　their　contention　even　for　a　single　day　in　Richard　Coeur　de　Lion's　time。（76*）　The　men　of　Wycle　combine　both　assertions　in　their　contention　against　Mauger；　they　appeal　to　the　age　of　the　first　Norman　kings；　but　offer　to　prove　the　certainty　of　their　services　in　the　reigns　of　Richard　and　John。（77*）　　　　　Now　all　that　has　been　said　hitherto　applied　to　'the　tenants　in　ancient　demesne'　indiscriminately；　without　regard　to　any　diversity　of　classes　among　them。　Hitherto　I　have　not　noticed　any　such　diversity；　and　in　so　doing　I　am　warranted　by　the　authorities。　Those　authorities　commonly　speak　of　'men'　or　'tenants　in　ancient　demesne'　without　any　further　qualification。（78*）　Some