vill2-第24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！

ew　or　unimportant；　and　it　is　rather　a　wonder　that　so　much　should　be　preserved　notwithstanding　the　systematic　work　of　conquest；　feudalism；　and　State。　When　I　speak　of　pre…feudal　condition　I　do　not　mean　to　say；　of　course；　that　feudalism　had　not　been　in　the　course　of　formation　before　the　Norman　Conquest。　I　merely　wish　to　oppose　a　social　order　grounded　on　feudalism　to　a　social　order　which　was　only　preparing　for　it　and　developing　on　a　different　basis。　The　Conquest　brought　together　the　free　and　unfree。　Our　survivals　of　the　state　of　things　before　the　Conquest　group　themselves　naturally　in　one　direction；　they　are　manifestations　of　the　free　element　which　went　into　the　constitution　of　villainage。　It　is　not　strange　that　it　should　be　so；　because　the　servile　element　predominated　in　those　parts　of　the　law　which　had　got　the　upper　hand　and　the　official　recognition。　A　trait　which　goes　further　than　the　accepted　law　in　the　direction　of　slavery　is　the　difficulties　which　are　put　by　Glanville　in　the　way　of　manumission。　His　statement　practically　amounts　to　a　denial　of　the　possibility　of　manumission；　and　such　a　denial　we　cannot　accept。　His　way　of　treating　the　question　may　possibly　be　explained　by　old　notions　as　to　the　inability　of　a　master　to　put　a　slave　by　a　mere　act　of　his　will　on　the　same　level　with　free　men。　　　　　However　this　may　be；　our　survivals　arrange　themselves　with　this　single　possible　exception　in　the　direction　of　freedom。　Perhaps　such　facts　as　the　villain's　capacity　to　take　legal　action　against　third　persons；　and　his　position　in　the　criminal　and　police　law；　ought　not　to　be　called　survivals。　They　are　certain　sides　of　the　subject。　They　are　indissolubly　allied　to　such　features　of　the　civil　law　as　the　occasional　recognition　of　villainage　as　a　protected　tenure；　and　the　villain's　admitted　standing　against　the　lord　when　the　lord　had　bound　himself　by　covenant。　In　the　light　of　these　facts　villainage　assumes　an　entirely　different　aspect　from　that　which　legal　theory　tries　to　give　it。　Procedural　disability　comes　to　the　fore　instead　of　personal　debasement。　A　villain　is　to　a　great　extent　in　the　power　of　his　lord；　not　because　he　is　his　chattel；　but　because　the　courts　refuse　him　an　action　against　the　lord。　He　may　have　rights　recognised　by　morality　and　by　custom；　but　he　has　no　means　to　enforce　them；　and　he　has　no　means　to　enforce　them　because　feudalism　disables　the　State　and　prevents　it　from　interfering。　The　political　root　of　the　whole　growth　becomes　apparent；　and　it　is　quite　clear；　on　the　one　hand；　that　liberation　will　depend　to　a　great　extent　on　the　strengthening　of　the　State；　and；　on　the　other　hand；　that　one　must　look　for　the　origins　of　enslavement　to　the　political　conditions　before　and　after　the　Conquest。　　　　　One　undoubtedly　encounters　difficulties　in　tracing　and　grouping　facts　with　regard　to　those　elements　of　freedom　which　appear　in　the　law　of　villainage。　Sometimes　it　may　not　be　easy　to　ascertain　whether　a　particular　trait　must　be　connected　with　legal　progress　making　towards　modern　times；　or　with　the　remnants　of　archaic　institutions。　As　a　matter　of　fact；　however；　it　will　be　found　that；　save　in　very　few　cases；　we　possess　indications　to　show　us　which　way　we　ought　to　look。　　　　　Another　difficulty　arises　from　the　fact　that　the　law　of　this　period　was　fashioned　by　kings　of　French　origin　and　lawyers　of　Norman　training。　What　share　is　to　be　assigned　to　their　formal　influence？　and　what　share　comes　from　that　old　stock　of　ideas　and　facts　which　they　could　not　or　would　not　destroy？　We　may　hesitate　as　to　details　in　this　respect。　It　is　possible　that　the　famous　paragraph　of　the　so…called　Laws　of　William　the　Conqueror；　prescribing　in　general　terms　that　peasants　ought　not　to　be　taken　from　the　land　or　subjected　to　exactions；（3*）　is　an　insertion　of　the　Norman　period；　although　the　great　majority　of　these　Laws　are　Saxon　gleanings。　It　is　likely　that　the　notion　of　wainage　was　worked　out　under　the　influence　of　Norman　ideas；　the　name　seems　to　show　it；　and　perhaps　yet　more　the　fact　that　the　plough　was　specially　privileged　in　the　duchy。　It　is　to　be　assumed　that　the　king；　not　because　he　was　a　Norman　but　because　he　was　a　king；　was　interested　in　the　welfare　of　subjects　on　whose　back　the　whole　structure　of　his　realm　was　resting。　But　the　influence　of　the　strangers　went　broadly　against　the　peasantry；　and　it　has　been　repeatedly　shown　that　Norman　lawyers　were　prompted　by　anything　but　a　mild　spirit　towards　them。　The　Dialogus　de　Scaccario　is　very　instructive　on　this　point；　because　it　was　written　by　a　royal　officer　who　was　likely　to　be　more　impartial　than　the　feudatories　or　any　one　who　wrote　in　their　interest　would　be；　and　yet　it　makes　out　that　villains　are　mere　chattels　of　their　lord；　and　treats　them　throughout　with　the　greatest　contempt。　And　so；　speaking　generally；　it　is　to　the　times　before　the　Conquest　that　the　stock　of　liberty　and　legal　independence　inherent　in　villainage　must　be　traced；　even　if　we　draw　inferences　merely　on　the　strength　of　the　material　found　on　this　side　of　the　Conquest。　And　when　we　come　to　Saxon　evidence；　we　shall　see　how　intimately　the　condition　of　the　ceorl　connects　itself　with　the　state　of　the　villain　along　the　main　lines　and　in　detail。　　　　　The　case　of　ancient　demesne　is　especially　interesting　in　this　light。　It　presents；　as　it　were；　an　earlier　and　less　perfect　crystallisation　of　society　on　a　feudal　basis　than　the　manorial　system　of　Common　Law。　It　steps　in　between　the　Saxon　soc　and　tun　on　the　one　hand；　and　the　manor　on　the　other。　It　owes　to　the　king's　privilege　its　existence　as　an　exception。　The　procedure　of　its　court　is　organised　entirely　on　the　old　pattern　and　quite　out　of　keeping　with　feudal　ideas；　as　will　be　shown　by…and…by。　Treating　of　it　only　in　so　far　as　it　illustrates　the　law　of　status；　it　presents　in　separate　existence　the　two　classes　which　were　fused　in　the　system　of　the　Common　Law；　villain　socmen　are　carefully　distinguished　from　the　villains；　and　the　two　groups　are　treated　differently　in　every　way。　A　most　interesting　fact；　and　one　to　be　taken　up　hereafter；　is　the　way　of　treating　the　privileged　group　as　the　normal　one。　Villain　socmen　are　the　men　of　ancient　demesne；　villains　are　the　exception；　they　appear　only　on　the　lord's　demesne；　and　seem　very　few；　so　far　as　we　can　make　a　calculation　of　numbers。　Villain　socmen　enjoy　a　certainty　of　condition　which　becomes　actual　tenant…right　when　the　manor　passes　from　the　crown　into　a　private　lord's　hand。　As　to　its　origin　there　can　be　no　doubt　　ancient　demesne　is　traced　back　to　Saxon　times　in　as　many　words　and　by　all　our　authorities。　　　　　A　careful　analysis　of　the　law　of　ancient　demesne　may　even　give　us　valuable　clues　to　the　condition　of　the　Saxon　peasantry。　The　point　just　noticed；　namely；　that　the　number　of　villain　socmen　is　exceedingly　large　and　quite　out　of　proportion　to　that　of　other　tenants；　gives　indirect　testimony　that　the　legal　protection　of　the　tenure　was　not　due　merely　to　an　influx　of　free　owners　deprived　of　their　lands　by　conquest。　This　is　the　explanation　given　by　Bracton；　but　it　is　not　sufficient　to　account　for　the　privileged　position　of　almost　all　the　tenants　within　the　manor。　A　considerable　part　of　them　surely　held　before　the　Conquest　not　as　owners　and　not　freely；　but　as　tenants　by　base　services；　and　their　fixity　of　tenure　is　as　important　in　the　constitution　of　ancient　demesne　as　is　the　influx　of　free　owners。　If　this　latter　cause　contributed　to　keep　up　the　standard　of　this　status；　the　former　cause　supplied　that　tradition　of　certainty　to　which　ancient　demesne　right　constantly　appeals。　　　　　Another　point　to　be　kept　firmly　in　view　is　that　the　careful　distinction　kept　up　on　the　ancient　demesne　between　villain　socmen　and　villains；　proves　the　law　on　this　subject　to　have　originated　in　the　general　distribution　of　classes　and　rights　during　the　Saxon　period；　and　not　in　the　exceptional　royal　privilege　which　preserved　it　in　later　days；　I　mean；　that　if　certainty　of　condition　had　been　granted　to　the　tenantry　merely　because　it　was　royal　tenantry；　which　is　unlikely　enough　in　itself；　the　certainty　would　have　extended　to　tenants　of　all　sorts　and　kinds。　It　did　not；　because　it　was　derived　from　a　general　right　of　one　class　of　peasants　to　be　protected　at　law；　a　right　which　did　not　in　the　least　preclude　the　lord　from　using　his　slaves　as　mere　chattels。　　　　　And　so　I　may　conclude：　an　investigation　into　the　legal　aspect　of　villainage　discloses　three　elements　in　its　complex　structure。　Legal　theory　and　political　disabilities　would　fain　make　it　all　but　slavery；　the　manorial　system　ensures　it　something　of　the　character　of　the　Roman　colonatus；　there　is　a　stock　of　freedom　in　it　which　speaks　of　Saxon　tradition。

NOTES：

1。　Brunner；　Entstehung　der　Schwurgericht；　has　made　an　epoch　on　the　discussion　of　this　phenomenon。

2。　I　shall　treat　at　length　of　the　Norman　Conquest　in　my　third　essay。

3。　Leg。　Will。　Conq。　i；　29　（Schmid；　p。　340）。

Chapter　5

The　Servile　Peasantry　of　Manorial　Records

　　　　It　would　be　as　wrong　to　restrict　the　study　of　villainage　to　legal　documents　as　to　disregard　them。　The　jurisprudence　and　practice　of　the　king's　courts　present　a　one…sided；　though　a　very　important　view　of　the　subject；　but　it　must　be　supplemented　and　verified　by　an　investigation　of　manorial　records。　With　one　class　of　such　documents　we　have　had　already　to　deal；　name