vill2-第7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！

s　an　action　against　his　lord。　He　follows　Azo　closely；　and　mentions　injury　to　life　or　to　limb　as　one　cause。　Azo　goes　on　to　say　that　a　plaint　may　be　originated　by　intollerabilis　injuria；　in　the　sense　of　corporeal　injury。　Bracton　takes　the　expression　in　a　very　different　sense；　he　thinks　that　economic　ruin　is　meant；　and　adds；　'Should　the　lord　go　so　far　as　to　take　away　the　villain's　very　waynage；　i。e。　plough　and　plough…team；　the　villain　has　an　action；'　It　is　true　that　Bracton's　text；　as　printed　in　existing　editions；　contains　a　qualification　of　this　remark；　it　is　said　that　only　serfs　on　ancient　demesne　land　are　possessed　of　such　a　right。　But　the　qualification　is　meaningless；　the　right　of　ancient　demesne　tenants　was　quite　different；　as　we　shall　see　by…and…by。　The　qualifying　clause　turns　out　to　be　inserted　only　in　later　MSS。　of　the　treatise；　is　wanting　in　the　better　MSS。；　and　altogether　presents　all　the　characters　of　a　bad　gloss。*　When　the　gloss　is　removed；　we　come　in　sight　of　the　fact　that　Bracton　in　the　beginning　of　his　treatise　admits　a　distinct　case　of　civil　action　on　the　part　of　a　villain　against　his　lord。　The　remark　is　in　contradiction　with　the　Roman　as　well　as　with　the　established　English　doctrine；　it　is　not　supported　by　legal　practice　in　the　thirteenth　century；　it　is　omitted　by　Bracton　when　he　comes　to　speak　again　of　the　'persona　standi　in　judicio　contra　dominum。'*　But　there　it　is；　and　it　cannot　be　explained　otherwise　than　as　a　survival　of　a　time　when　some　part　of　the　peasantry　at　least　had　not　been　surrendered　to　the　lord's　discretion；　but　was　possessed　of　civil　rights　and　of　the　power　to　vindicate　them。　The　notion　that　the　peasant　ought　to　be　specially　protected　in　the　possession　of　instruments　of　agricultural　labour　comes　out；　singularly　enough；　in　the　passage　commented　upon；　but　it　is　not　a　singular　notion　in　itself。　It　occurs；　as　every　one　knows；　in　the　clause　of　the　Great　Charter；　which　says　that　the　villain　who　falls　into　the　king's　mercy　is　to　be　amerced　'saving　his　waynage。'　We　come　across　it　often　enough　in　Plea　Rolls　in　cases　against　guardians　accused　of　having　wasted　their　ward's　property。　One　of　the　special　points　in　such　cases　often　is；　that　a　guardian　or　his　steward　has　been　ruining　the　villains　in　the　ward's　manors　by　destroying　their　waynage。*　Of　course；　the　protection　of　the　peasant's　prosperity；　guaranteed　by　the　courts　in　such　trials；　is　wholly　due　to　a　consideration　of　the　interests　of　the　ward；　and　the　care　taken　of　villains　is　exactly　parallel　to　the　attention　bestowed　upon　oaks　and　elms。　Still；　the　notion　of　waynage　is　in　itself　a　peculiar　and　an　important　one；　and　whatever　its　ultimate　origin　may　be；　it　points　to　a　civil　condition　which　does　not　quite　fall　within　the　lines　of　feudal　law。　　　　　Another　anomaly　is　supplied　by　Britton。　After　putting　the　case　as　strongly　as　possible　against　serfs；　after　treating　them　as　mere　chattels　to　be　given　and　sold；　he　adds；　'But　as　bondmen　are　annexed　to　the　freehold　of　the　lord；　they　are　not　devisable　by　testament；　and　therefore　Holy　Church　can　take　no　cognisance　of　them　in　Court　Christian；　although　devised　in　testament。'　（I。　197）　The　exclusion　of　villains　is　not　peculiar　to　them；　they　share　it　with　the　greater　part　of　landed　possessions。'　As　all　the　courts　of　civil　jurisdiction　had　been　prohibited　from　holding　jurisdiction　as　to　testamentary　matters；　and　the　Ecclesiastical　Courts　were　not　permitted　to　exercise　jurisdiction　as　to　any　question　relating　to　freehold；　there　was　no　court　which　could　properly　take　cognisance　of　a　testamentary　gift　of　land　as　such。'*　The　point　to　be　noted　is；　that　villains　are　held　to　be　annexed　to　the　freehold；　although　in　theory　they　ought　to　be　treated　as　chattels。　The　contradiction　gives　us　another　instance　of　the　peculiar　modification　of　personal　servitude　by　the　territorial　element。　The　serf　is　not　a　colonus；　he　is　not　bound　up　with　any　particular　homestead　or　plot　of　land；　but　he　is　considered　primarily　as　a　cultivator　under　manorial　organisation；　and　for　this　reason　there　is　a　limitation　on　the　lord's　power　of　alienating　him。　Let　it　be　understood；　however；　that　the　limitation　in　this　case　does　not　come　before　us　as　a　remnant　of　independent　rights　of　the　peasant。　It　is　imposed　by　those　interests　of　the　feudal　suzerain　and　of　the　kin　which　precluded　the　possibility　of　alienating　land　by　devise。*　　　　　An　inquiry　into　the　condition　of　villains　would　be　altogether　incomplete；　if　it　did　not　touch　on　the　questions　of　villain　tenure　and　villain　services。　Both　are　intimately　connected　with　personal　status；　as　may　be　seen　from　the　very　names；　and　both　have　to　be　very　carefully　distinguished　from　it。　I　have　had　to　speak　of　prescription　as　a　source　of　villainage。　Opinions　were　very　uncertain　in　this　respect；　and　yet；　from　the　mere　legal　point　of　view；　there　ought　not　to　have　been　any　difficulty　about　the　matter。　Bracton　takes　his　stand　firmly　on　the　fundamental　difference　between　status　and　tenure　in　order　to　distinguish　clearly　between　serfs　and　free　men　in　a　servile　position。*　The　villain　is　a　man　belonging　to　his　lord　personally；　a　villain　holding　（villenagium）　is　land　held　at　the　will　of　the　lord；　without　any　certainty　as　to　title　or　term　of　enjoyment；　as　to　kind　or　amount　of　services。　Serfs　are　mostly；　though　not　necessarily；　found　on　villain　land；　it　does　not　follow　that　all　those　seated　on　villain　land　are　serfs。　Free　men　are　constantly　seen　taking　up　a　villenagium；　they　do　not　lose　by　it　in　personal　condition；　they　have　no　protection　against　the　lord；　if　he　choose　to　alter　their　services　or　oust　them　from　the　holding；　but；　on　the　other　hand；　they　are　free　to　go　when　they　please。　There　is　still　less　reason　to　treat　as　serfs　such　free　peasants　as　are　subjected　to　base　services；　i。e。　to　the　same　kind　of　services　and　payments　as　the　villains；　but　on　certain　conditions；　not　more　and　not　less。　Whatever　the　customs　may　be；　if　they　are　certain；　not　only　the　person　holding　by　them　but　the　plot　he　is　using　are　free；　and　the　tenure　may　be　defended　at　law。*　　　　　Such　are　the　fundamental　positions　in　Bracton's　treatise；　and　there　can　be　no　doubt　that　they　are　borne　out　in　a　general　way　by　legal　practice。　But　if　from　the　general　we　turn　to　the　particular；　if　we　analyse　the　thirteenth…century　decisions　which　are　at　the　bottom　of　Bracton's　teaching；　we　shall　find　in　many　cases　notions　cropping　up；　which　do　not　at　all　coincide　with　the　received　views　on　the　subject。　In　fact　we　come　across　many　apparent　contradictions　which　can　be　attributed　only　to　a　state　of　fermentation　and　transition　in　the　law　of　the　thirteenth　century。　　　　　Martin　of　Bestenover's　case　is　used　by　Bracton　in　his　treatise　as　illustrating　the　view　that　tenure　has　no　influence　on　status。*　It　was　a　long　litigation；　or　rather　a　series　of　litigations。　Already　in　the　first　year　of　King　John's　reign　we　hear　of　a　final　concord　between　John　of　Montacute　and　Martin　of　Bestenover　as　to　a　hundred　acres　held　by　the　latter。*　The　tenant　is　ejected　however；　and　brings　an　assize　of　mort　d'ancestor　against　Beatrice　of　Montacute；　who；　as　holding　in　dower；　vouches　her　son　John　to　warranty。　The　latter　excepts　against　Martin　as　a　villain。　A　jury　by　consent　of　the　parties　is　called　in；　and　we　have　their　verdict　reported　three　times　in　different　records。*　They　say　that　Martin's　father　Ailfric　held　of　John　Montacute's　father　a　hundred　acres　of　land　and　fifty　sheep　besides；　for　which　he　had　to　pay　20s。　a　year；　to　be　tallaged　reasonably；　when　the　lord　tallaged　his　subjects；　and　that　he　was　not　allowed　to　give　his　daughter　away　in　marriage　before　making　a　fine　to　the　lord　according　to　agreement。　We　do　not　know　the　decision　of　the　judges　in　John's　time；　but　both　from　the　tenor　of　the　verdict　and　from　what　followed；　we　may　conclude　that　Martin　succeeded　in　vindicating　his　right　to　the　land。　Proceedings　break　out　again　at　the　beginning　of　Henry　III's　reign。　　　　　In　1219　John　of　Montacute　is　again　maintaining　that　Martin　is　his　villain；　in　answer　as　it　seems　to　an　action　de　libertate　probanda　which　Martin　has　brought　against　him。　The　court　goes　back　to　the　verdict　of　the　jury　in　John's　time；　and　finds　that　by　this　verdict　the　land　is　proved　to　be　of　base　tenure；　and　the　person　to　be　free。　The　whole　is　repeated　again　on　a　roll　of　1220；　whether　we　have　two　decisions；　one　of　1219　and　the　other　of　1220；　or　merely　two　records　of　the　same　decision；　is　not　very　clear；　nor　is　it　very　important。　But　there　are　several　interesting　points　about　this　case。　The　decision　in　1220　is　undoubtedly　very　strong　on　the　distinction　between　status　and　tenure：　'nullum　erat　placitum　in　curia　domini　Regis　de　villenagio　corporis　ipsius　Martini　nisi　tantum　de　villenagio　et　consuetudinibus　terre；'　etc。　As　to　tenure；　the　court　delivers　an　opinion　which　is　entitled　to　special　consideration；　and　has　been　specially　noticed　by　Bracton　both　in　his　Notebook　and　in　his　treatise。　'If　Martin；'　say　the　judges　on　the　roll　of　1219；　'wishes　to　hold　the　land；　let　him　perform　the　services　which　his　father　has　been　performing；　if　not；　the　lord　may　take　the　land　into　his　hands。'*　The　same　thing　is　repeated　almost　literally　on　the　roll　of　1220。　Bracton　draws　two　inferences　from　these　decisions。　One　is　suggested　by　the　beginning　of　the　sentence；　'If　Martin　wishes　to　hold　the　land。