vill2-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！

　give　a　year's　rent；　but　in　some　instances　the　heir　must　settle　with　the　lord　at　the　latter's　will；　or　ransom　the　land　as　a　stranger；　that　is　by　a　separate　agreement　in　each　single　case。（73*）　Fixed　sums　occur　also；　and　they　vary　accord　ing　to　the　size　and　quality　of　the　holding。（74*）　　　　　On　the　boundary　between　personal　subjection　and　political　subordination　we　find　the　liability　of　the　peasantry　to　pay　tallage。　It　could　be　equally　deduced　from　the　principle　that　a　villain　has　nothing　of　his　own　and　may　be　exploited　at　will　by　his　master　or　from　the　political　grant　of　the　power　of　taxation　to　the　representative　of　feudal　privilege。　the　payment　of　arbitrary　tallage　is　held　during　the　thirteenth　century　to　imply　a　servile　status。（75*）　Such　tallage　at　will　is　not　found　very　often　in　the　documents；　although　the　lord　sometimes　retained　his　prerogative　in　this　respect　even　when　sanctioning　the　customary　forms　of　renders　and　services。　Now　and　then　it　is　mentioned　that　the　tallage　is　to　be　levied　once　a　year；（76*）　although　the　amount　remains　uncertain。　　　　　As　a　holder　of　political　power　the　lord　has　a　right　to　inflict　fines　and　amercements　on　transgressors。（77*）　　The　Court…rolls　are　full　of　entries　about　such　payments；　and　it　seems　that　one　of　the　reasons　why　very　great　stress　was　laid　on　attendance　at　the　manorial　Courts　was　connected　with　the　liability　to　all　sorts　of　impositions　that　was　enforced　by　means　of　these　gatherings。　tenants　had　to　attend　and　to　make　presentments；　to　elect　officers；　and　to　serve　on　juries；　and　in　every　case　where　there　was　a　default　or　an　irregularity　of　any　kind；　fines　flowed　into　the　lord's　exchequer。　　　　　Lastly；　we　may　classify　under　the　head　of　political　exactions；　monopolies　and　privileges　such　as　those　which　were　called　banalites　in　France：　they　were　imposed　on　the　peasantry　by　the　strong　hand；　although　there　was　no　direct　connexion　between　them　and　the　exercise　of　any　particular　function　of　the　State。　English　medieval　documents　often　refer　to　the　privileged　mill；　to　which　all　the　villains　and　sometimes　the　freemen　of　the　Soke　were　bound　to　bring　their　corn。（78*）　there　is　also　the　manorial　fold　in　which　all　the　sheep　of　the　township　had　to　be　enclosed。（79*）　In　the　latter　case　the　landlord　profited　by　the　dung　for　manuring　his　land。　Special　attention　was　bestowed　on　supervising　the　making　of　beer。　Court…rolls　constantly　speak　of　persons　fined　for　brewing　without　licence。　Every　now　and　then　we　come　across　the　wondrous　habit　of　collecting　all　the　villagers　on　fixed　days　and　making　them　drink　Scotale；（80*）　that　is　ale　supplied　by　the　lord　　for　a　good　price；　of　course。　　　　　Let　us　pass　now　to　those　aspects　of　manorial　usage　which　are　directly　connected　with　the　mode　of　holding　land。　I　may　repeat　what　I　said　before；　that　it　would　be　out　of　the　question　to　draw　anything　like　a　hard　and　fast　line　between　these　different　sides　of　one　subject。　How　intimately　the　personal　relation　may　be　bound　up　with　the　land　may　be　gathered；　among　other　things；　from　the　fact　that　there　existed　an　oath　of　fealty　which　in　many　places　was　obligatory　on　villains　when　entering　into　possession　of　a　holding。　This　oath；　though　connected　with　tenure；　bears　also　on　the　personal　relation　to　the　lord。（81*）　The　oath　of　fealty　taken　by　the　tenant　in　villainage　differed　from　that　taken　by　the　freeholder　in　that　it　contained　the　words；　'I　will　be　justified　by　you　in　body　and　goods；'　and　again　the　tenant　in　villainage；　though　he　swore　fealty；　did　no　homage；　the　relationship　between　him　and　his　lord　was　not　a　merely　feudal　relationship；　the　words；　'I　become　your　man；'　would　have　been　out　of　place；　and　there　could　be　no　thought　of　the　lord　kissing　his　villain。　But　however　intimate　the　connexion　between　both　aspects　of　the　question；　in　principle　the　tenure　was　quite　distinct　from　the　status；　and　could　influence　the　condition　of　people　who　were　personally　free　from　any　taint　of　servility。　　　　　The　legal　definition　of　villainage　as　unfree　tenure　does　not　take　into　account　the　services　or　economic　quality　of　the　tenure；　and　lays　stress　barely　on　the　precarious　character　of　the　holding。（82*）　The　owner　may　take　it　away　when　he　pleases；　and　alter　its　condition　at　will。　The　Abingdon　Chronicle　tells　us　（83*）　that　before　the　time　of　Abbot　Faritius　it　was　held　lawful　on　the　manors　of　the　Abbey　to　drive　the　peasants　away　from　their　tenements。　The　stewards　and　bailiffs　often　made　use　of　this　right；　if　anybody　gave　them　a　fee　out　of　greed；　or　out　of　spite　against　the　holder。　Nor　was　there　any　settled　mode　of　succession；　and　when　a　man　died；　his　wife　and　children　were　pitilessly　thrown　out　of　their　home　in　order　to　make　place　for　perfect　strangers。　An　end　was　put　to　such　a　lawless　condition　of　things　by　Faritius'　reforms：　he　was　very　much　in　want　of　money；　and　found　it　more　expedient　to　substitute　a　settled　custom　for　the　disorderly　rule　of　the　stewards。　But　he　did　not　renounce　thereby　any　of　his　manorial　rights：　he　only　regulated　their　application。　The　legal　feature　of　base　tenure　　its　insecurity　　was　not　abolished　on　the　Abingdon　estates。　Our　documents　sometimes　go　the　length　of　explaining　that　particular　plots　are　held　without　any　sort　of　security　against　dispossession。　We　find　such　remarks　in　the　Warwickshire　Hundred　Rolls　for　instance。（84*）　Sometimes　the　right　is　actually　enforced：　in　the　Cartulary　of　Dunstable　Priory　we　have　the　record　of　an　exchange　between　two　landlords；　in　consequence　of　which　the　peasants　were　removed　from　eight　hides　of　land　by　one　of　the　contracting　parties。（85*）　　　　　The　villain　is　in　no　way　to　be　considered　as　the　owner　of　the　plot　of　land　he　occupies；　his　power　of　disposing　of　it　is　stinted　accordingly；　and　he　is　subjected　to　constant　control　from　the　real　owner。　He　cannot　fell　timber。　oaks　and　elms　are　reserved　to　the　lord。（86*）　He　cannot　change　the　cultivation　of　the　land　of　his　own　accord；　it　would　be　out　of　the　question；　for　instance；　to　turn　a　garden…close　into　arable　without　asking　for　a　licence。（87*）　He　is　bound　to　keep　hedges　and　ditches　in　good　order；　and　is　generally　responsible　for　any　deterioration　of　his　holding。　When　he　enters　into　possession　of　it；　he　has　to　find　a　pledge　that　he　will　perform　his　duties　in　a　satisfactory　manner。（88*）　There　can　be　no　thought　of　a　person　so　situated　alienating　the　land　by　an　act　of　his　own　will；　he　must　surrender　it　into　the　hand　of　the　lord；　and　the　latter　grants　it　to　the　new　holder　after　the　payment　of　a　fine。　The　same　kind　of　procedure　is　followed　when　a　tenement　is　passed　to　the　right　heir　in　the　lifetime　of　the　former　possessor。（89*）　A　default　in　paying　rents　or　in　the　performance　of　services；　and　any　other　transgression　against　the　interests　of　the　lord；　may　lead　to　forfeiture。（90*）　The　lord　takes　also　tenements　into　his　hand　in　the　way　of　escheat；　in　the　absence　of　heirs。　Court…rolls　constantly　mention　plots　which　have　been　resumed　in　this　way　by　the　lord。（91*）　The　homage　has　to　report　to　the　steward　as　to　all　changes　of　occupation；　and　as　to　the　measures　which　are　thought　necessary　to　promote　the　interests　of　the　landowner　and　of　the　tenantry。（92*）　　　　　As　to　the　treatment　of　tenure　in　manorial　documents；　it　is　to　be　noticed　that　a　distinction　which　has　no　juridical　meaning　at　all　becomes　all　important　in　practice。　At　common　law；　as　has　been　said　repeatedly；　the　contrast　between　free　land　and　servile　land　resolves　itself　into　a　contrast　between　precarious　occupation　and　proprietary　right。　This　contrast　is　noticed　occasionally　and　as　a　matter　of　legal　principle　by　manorial　documents　（93*）　quite　apart　from　the　consequences　which　flow　from　it；　and　of　which　I　have　been　speaking　just　now。　But　in　actual　life　this　fundamental　feature　is　not　very　prominent；　all　stress　is　laid　on　the　distinction　between　land　held　by　rent　and　land　held　by　labour。　In　the　common　phraseology　of　surveys　and　manorial　rolls；　the　tenements　on　which　the　rent　prevails　over　labour　are　called　'free　tenements；'　and　those　on　the　contrary　which　have　to　render　labour　services；　bear　the　names　of　'servile　holdings。'　This　fact　is　certainly　not　to　be　treated　lightly　as　a　mere　result　of　deficient　classification　or　terminology。　It　is　a　very　important　one　and　deserves　to　be　investigated　carefully。　　　　　In　the　ancient　survey　of　Glastonbury　Abbey；　compiled　in　1189；　the　questions　to　be　answered　by　the　jury　are　enumerated　in　the　following　way：　'Who　holds　freely'　and　how　much；　and　by　what　services；　and　by　whose　warrant；　and　from　what　time？　Has　land　which　ought　to　perform　work　been　turned　into　free　land　in　the　time　of　Bishop　Henry；　or　afterwards？　By　whose　warrant　was　this　change　made；　and　to　what　extent　is　the　land　free？　Is　the　demesne　land　in　cultivation；　or　is　it　given　away　in　free　tenure　or　villain　tenure；　is　such　management　profitable；　or　would　it　be　better　if　this　land　was　taken　back　by　the　lord？'（94*）　The　contrast　is　between　land　which　provides　labour　and　land　which　does　not；　the　former　is　unfree；　and　villain　tenure　is　the　tenure　of　land　held　by　such　services；　portions　of　the　demesne　given　away　freely　may　eventually　be　reclaimed。　The　scheme　of　the　survey　made　in　answer　to　these　questions　is　entirely　in　keeping　with　this　mode　of　classification。　All　holdings　are　considered　exclusively　from　the　economic　point　of　view；　the　test　of　security　a