vill2-第16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！

commonly　speak　of　'men'　or　'tenants　in　ancient　demesne'　without　any　further　qualification。（78*）　Sometimes　the　expression　'condition　of　ancient　demesne'　also　is　used。　But　closer　examination　shows　a　variety　of　classes　on　the　privileged　soil；　and　leads　to　a　number　of　difficult　and　interesting　problems。　　　　　To　begin　with；　the　nature　of　the　tenancy　in　general　has　been　much　contested。　As　to　the　law　of　later　times　Mr　Elton　puts　the　case　in　this　way：　'There　is　great　confusion　in　the　law　books　respecting　this　tenure。　The　copyholders　of　these　manors　are　sometimes　called　tenants　in　ancient　demesne；　and　land　held　in　this　tenure　is　said　to　pass　by　surrender　and　admittance。　This　appears　to　be　inaccurate。　It　is　only　the　freeholders　who　are　tenants　in　ancient　demesne；　and　their　land　passes　by　common　law　conveyances　without　the　instrumentality　of　the　lord。　Even　Sir　W。　Blackstone　seems　to　have　been　misled　upon　this　point。　There　are　however；　as　a　rule；　in　manors　of　ancient　demesne；　customary　freeholders　and　sometimes　copyholders　at　the　will　of　the　lord；　as　well　as　the　true　tenants　in　ancient　demesne。'（79*）　Now　such　a　description　seems　strangely　out　of　keeping　with　the　history　of　the　tenure。　Blackstone　speaks　of　privileged　copyhold　as　descended　from　privileged　villainage；（80*）　and　as　to　the　condition　in　the　thirteenth　century　of　those　'men'　or　'tenants　in　ancient　demesne'　of　whom　we　have　been　speaking；　there　can　be　no　doubt。　Bracton　and　his　followers　lay　down　quite　distinctly　that　their　tenure　is　villainage　though　privileged　villainage。　The　men　of　ancient　demesne　are　men　of　free　blood　holding　in　villainage。（81*）　And　to　take　up　the　special　point　mentioned　by　Mr　Elton　　conveyance　by　surrender　and　admittance　is　a　quite　necessary　feature　of　the　tenure：（82*）　conveyance　by　charter　makes　the　land　freehold　and　destroys　its　ancient　demesne　condition。（83*）　But　although　this　is　so　clear　in　the　authorities　of　the　thirteenth　century；　there　is　undoubtedly　a　great　deal　of　confusion　in　later　law　books；　and　reasons　are　not　wanting　which　may　account　for　this　fact　and　for　the　doctrine　propounded　by　Mr　Elton　in　conformity　with　certain　modern　treatises　and　decisions。　　　　　We　may　start　with　the　observation；　that　privileged　villains　or　villain　socmen　are　not　the　only　people　to　be　found　on　the　soil　of　the　ancient　demesne。　There　are　free　tenants　there　and　pure　villains　too。（84*）　Free　socage　is　often　mentioned　in　these　manors；　and　it　is　frequently　pleaded　in　order　to　get　a　trial　transferred　to　the　Common　Law　Courts。　When　the　question　is　raised　whether　a　tenement　is　free　or　villain　socage；　the　fact　that　it　has　been　conveyed　by　feoffment　and　charter　is　treated；　as　has　just　been　pointed　out；　as　establishing　its　freehold　character　and　subjecting　it　to　the　ordinary　common　law　procedure。（85*）　On　the　other　hand；　registers　and　extents　of　ancient　demesne　manors　sometimes　treat　separately　of　'nativi'　or　'villani'　as　distinguished　from　the　regular　customary　tenants；　and　describe　their　services　as　being　particularly　base。（86*）　In　trials　it　is　quite　a　common　thing　for　a　lord；　when　accused　of　having　altered　the　services；　to　plead　that　the　plaintiffs　were　his　villains　to　be　treated　at　will。　Attempts　were　made　in　such　cases　to　take　advantage　of　the　general　term　'men　of　ancient　demesne；'　and　to　argue　that　all　the　population　on　the　crown　manors　must　be　of　the　same　condition；　the　difference　of　rank　applying　only　to　the　amount　and　the　kind　of　services；　but　not　to　their　certainty；　which　ought　to　be　taken　for　granted。（87*）　But　strictly　and　legally　the　lord's　plea　was　undoubtedly　good：　the　courts　admitted　it；　and　when　it　was　put　forward　proceeded　to　examine　the　question　of　fact　whether　the　lord　had　been　actually　seised　of　certain　or　of　uncertain　services。（88*）　It　is　of　considerable　importance　to　note　that　the　difference　between　villains　pure　and　villains　privileged　was　sometimes　connected　with　the　distinction　between　the　lord's　demesne　and　the　tenant's　land　in　the　manor。（89*）　The　demesne　proper　was　frank　fee　in　the　hands　of　the　lord；　and　could　be　used　by　him　at　his　pleasure。　If　he　chose　to　grant　it　away　to　villains　in　pure　villainage；　the　holdings　thus　formed　could　have　no　claim　to　rank　as　privileged　land。　It　was　assumed　that　some　such　holdings　had　been　formed　at　the　very　beginning；　as　it　were；　that　is　at　a　time　beyond　memory　of　man；　but　tenements　at　will　could　be　created　at　a　later　time　on　approved　waste　or　on　soil　that　had　escheated　to　the　lord　and　in　this　way　passed　through　his　demesne。（90*）　One　of　the　reasons　of　later　confusion　must　be　looked　for　in　the　fact　that　the　pure　villain　holdings　gradually　got　to　be　recognised　at　law　as　copyhold　or　base　customary　tenures。　They　were　thus　brought　dangerously　near　to　ancient　demesne　socage；　which　was　originally　nothing　but　base　customary　tenure。　The　very　fact　of　copyhold　thus　gaining　on　villain　socage　may　have　pushed　this　last　on　towards　freehold。　Already　the　Old　Natura　Brevium　does　not　know　exactly　how　to　make　distinctions。　It　speaks　of　three　species　of　socagefree；　ancient　demesne；　and　base。　The　line　is　soon　drawn　between　the　first　two；　but　the　third　kind　is　said　to　be　held　by　uncertain　services；　and　sued　by　writ　of　'Monstraverunt'　instead　of　having　the　writs　of　right　and　'Monstraverunt'　of　ancient　demesne　socage。（91*）　Probably　what　is　meant　is　a　species　of　copyhold　which　is　not　socage；　and　the　writ　of　'Monstraverunt'　attributed　to　it　may　perhaps　be　the　plaint　or　petition　which　is　the　initial　move　in　a　suit　for　the　protection　of　copyhold　in　the　manorial　court。　　　　　In　the　time　of　Henry　III　and　of　the　Edwards　the　nature　of　ancient　demesne　tenure　was　better　understood。　At　the　close　of　the　thirteenth　century　the　lawyers　distinguish　three　kinds　of　men…free；　villains；　and　socmen。（92*）　In　order　to　be　quite　accurate　people　spoke　of　villain　socmen　or　little　socage（93*）　in　opposition　to　free。　But　even　at　that　time　there　were　several　confusing　features　about　the　case。　The　certainty　of　condition　made　the　tenure　of　the　villain　socmen　so　like　a　freehold　that　it　was　often　treated　as　such　in　the　manorial　documents。　In　the　Stoneleigh　Register　the　peculiar　nature　of　socage　in　ancient　demesne　is　described　fully　and　clearly。　It　is　distinguished　in　so　many　words　from　tenancy　at　will；　and　a　detailed　description　of　conveyance　by　surrender　in　contrast　with　conveyance　by　charter　seems　to　give　the　necessary　material　for　the　distinction　between　it　and　freehold。（94*）　But　still　the　fundamental　notion　of　free　men　holding　in　villainage　gets　lost　sight　of。　Only　some　of　the　cottiers　are　said　to　hold　in　villainage。　The　more　important　tenants；　the　socmen　holding　virgates　and　half…virgates；　are　not　only　currently　described　as　freeholders　in　the　Register；　but　they　are　entered　as　such　on　the　Warwickshire　Hundred　Roll。（95*）　The　term　'parva　sokemanria'　is　applied　in　the　Stoneleigh　Register　only　to　a　few　subordinate　holdings　which　are　undoubtedly　above　the　level　of　pure　villainage；　but　cannot　be　definitely　distinguished　from　the　other　kinds　of　socage　in　the　Register。　This　may　serve　as　an　indication　of　the　tendency　of　manorial　communities　to　consider　privileged　villainage　as　a　free　tenure；　but　legal　pleadings　and　decisions　were　also　cresting　confusion　for　another　reason；　because　they　tended；　as　has　been　said；　to　consider　the　whole　body　of　men　on　the　ancient　demesne　in　one　lump　as　it　were。　The　courts　very　often　applied　as　the　one　test　of　tenure　and　service　the　question　whether　a　person　was　a　descendant　by　blood　of　men　of　ancient　demesne　or　a　stranger。（96*）　In　connexion　with　this　the　court　rolls　testify　to　the　particular　care　taken　to　control　any　intrusion　of　strangers　into　the　boundaries　of　a　privileged　manor。（97*）　This　was　done　primarily　in　the　interests　of　the　lord；　but　the　tenantry　also　seem　to　have　sometimes　been　jealous　of　their　prerogatives；（98*）　and　it　is　only　in　the　course　of　the　fourteenth　century　that　they　begin　to　open　their　gates　to　strangers；　'adventicii。'（99*）　However　this　may　be；　the　practice　of　drawing　the　line　between　native　stock　and　strangers　undoubtedly　countenanced　the　idea　that　all　the　tenants　of　native　stock　were　alike；　and　in　this　way　tended　to　confuse　the　distinction　between　freeholders；　pure　villains；　and　villain　socmen。　　　　　The　courts　made　several　attempts　to　insist　on　a　firm　classification；　but　some　of　these　were　conceived　in　such　an　unhappy　spirit　that　they　actually　embroiled　matters。　The　conduct　of　the　king's　judges　was　especially　misdirected　in　one　famous　case　which　came　up　several　times　before　the　courts　during　the　thirteenth　century。　The　tenants　of　Tavistock　in　Devonshire　were　seeking　protection　against　their　lords；　and　appealing　to　the　right　of　ancient　demesne。　The　case　was　debated　two　or　three　times　during　Henry　III's　reign；　and　in　1279　judgment　was　given　against　the　plaintiffs　by　an　imposing　quorum；　as　many　as　eight　judges　with　the　Chief　Justice　Ralph　Hengham　at　their　head。　It　was　conceded　that　Tavistock　was　ancient　demesne；　but　the　claimants　were　held　to　be　villains　and　not　villain　socmen；　and　this　on　the　ground　that　the　Domesday　description　did　not　mention　socmen；　but　only　villains。（100*）　It　seems　strange　to　dispute　a　decision　given　with　such　solemnity　by　men　who　were　much　better　placed　to　know　about　these　things　than　we　are；　but　there　does　not　seem　to　be　any　possible