vill2-第8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！

se　decisions。　One　is　suggested　by　the　beginning　of　the　sentence；　'If　Martin　wishes　to　hold　the　land。'　Both　in　the　Note…book　and　in　the　treatise　Bracton　deduces　from　it；　that　holding　and　remaining　on　the　land　depended　on　the　wish　of　Martin；　who　as　a　free　man　was　entitled　to　go　away　when　he　pleased。*　The　judgment　does　not　exactly　say　this；　but　as　to　the　right　of　a　free　person　to　leave　the　land　there　can　be　no　doubt。　　　　　The　second　conclusion　is；　that　if　a　free　man　hold　in　villainage　by　villain　services　he　cannot　be　ejected　by　the　lord　against　his　will；　provided　he　is　performing　the　services　due　from　the　holding。　What　Bracton　says　here　is　distinctly　implied　by　the　decisions　of　1219　and　1220；　which　subject　the　lord's　power　of　dealing　with　the　land　to　a　condition　　non…performance　of　services。*　There　can　be　no　question　as　to　the　importance　of　such　a　view；　it　contains；　as　it　were；　the　germ　of　copyhold　tenure。*　It　places　villainage　substantially　on　the　same　footing　as　freehold；　which　may　also　be　forfeited　by　discontinuance　of　the　services；　although　the　procedure　for　establishing　a　forfeiture　in　that　case　would　be　a　far　more　elaborate　one。　And　it　must　be　understood　that　Bracton's　deduction　by　no　means　rests　on　the　single　case　before　us。　He　appeals　also　to　a　decision　of　William　Raleigh；　who　granted　an　assize　of　mort　d'ancestor　to　a　free　man　holding　in　villainage。*　Unfortunately　the　original　record　of　this　case　has　been　lost。　The　decision　in　a　case　of　1225　goes　even　further。　It　is　an　assize　of　novel　disseisin　brought　by　a　certain　William　the　son　of　Henry　against　his　lord　Bartholomew　the　son　of　Eustace。　The　defendant　excepts　against　the　plaintiff　as　his　villain；　the　court　finds；　on　the　strength　of　a　verdict；　that　he　is　a　villain；　and　still　they　decide　that　William　may　hold　the　land　in　dispute；　if　he　consents　to　perform　the　services；　if　not；　he　forfeits　his　land。*　Undoubtedly　the　decision　before　us　is　quite　isolated；　and　it　goes　against　the　rules　of　procedure　in　such　cases。　Once　the　exception　proved；　nothing　ought　to　have　been　said　as　to　the　conditions　of　the　tenure。　Still　the　mistake　is　characteristic　of　a　state　of　things　which　had　not　quite　been　brought　under　the　well…known　hard　and　fast　rule。　And　the　best　way　to　explain　it　is　to　suppose　that　the　judges　had　in　their　mind　the　more　familiar　case　of　free　men　holding　in　villainage；　and　gave　decision　in　accordance　with　Martin　of　Bestenover　v。　Montacute；　and　the　case　decided　by　Raleigh。*　All　these　instances　go　clean　against　the　usually　accepted　doctrine；　that　holding　in　villainage　is　the　same　as　holding　at　the　will　of　the　lord：　the　celebrated　addition　'according　to　the　custom　of　the　manor'　would　quite　fit　them。　They　bring　home　forcibly　one　main　consideration；　that　although　in　the　thirteenth　century　the　feudal　doctrine　of　non…interference　of　the　state　between　lord　and　servile　tenantry　was　possessed　of　the　field；　its　victory　was　by　no　means　complete。　Everywhere　we　come　across　remnants　of　a　state　of　things　in　which　one　portion　at　least　of　the　servile　class　had　civil　rights　as　well　as　duties　in　regard　to　the　lord。　　　　　Matters　were　even　more　unsettled　as　to　customs　and　services　in　their　relation　to　status　and　tenure。　What　services；　what　customs　are　incompatible　with　free　status；　with　free　tenure？　Is　the　test　to　be　the　kind　of　services　or　merely　their　certainty？　Bracton　remarks　that　the　payment　of　merchet；　i。e。　of　a　fine　for　giving　away　one's　daughter　to　be　married；　is　not　in　keeping　with　personal　freedom。　But　he　immediately　puts　in　a　kind　of　retractation；*　and　indeed　in　the　case　of　Martin　of　Bestenover　it　was　held　that　the　peasant　was　free　although　paying　merchet。　To　tenure；　merchet；　being　a　personal　payment；　should　have　no　relation　whatever。　In　case　of　doubt　as　to　the　character　of　the　tenure；　the　inquiry　ought　to　have　been　entirely　limited　to　the　question　whether　rents　and　services　were　certain　or　not；*　because　it　was　established　that　even　a　free　tenement　could　be　encumbered　with　base　services。　In　reality　the　earlier　practice　of　the　courts　was　to　inquire　of　what　special　kind　the　services　and　customs　were；　whether　merchet　and　fine　for　selling　horses　and　oxen　had　been　paid；　whether　a　man　was　liable　to　be　tallaged　at　will　or　bound　to　serve　as　reeve；　whether　he　succeeded　to　his　tenancy　by　'junior　right'　（the　so…called　Borough　English　rule）；　and　the　like。　　　　　All　this　was　held　to　be　servile　and　characteristic　of　villainage。*　I　shall　have　to　discuss　the　question　of　services　and　customs　again；　when　I　come　to　the　information　supplied　by　manorial　documents。　It　is　sufficient　for　my　present　purpose　to　point　out　that　two　contradictory　views　were　taken　of　it　during　the　thirteenth　century；　'certain　or　uncertain？'　was　the　catchword　in　one　case；　'of　what　kind？'　in　the　other。　A　good　illustration　of　the　unsettled　condition　of　the　law　is　afforded　by　the　case　Prior　of　Ripley　v。　Thomas　Fitz…Adam。　According　to　the　Prior；　the　jurors　called　to　testify　as　to　services　and　tenures　had；　while　admitting　the　payment　of　tallage　and　merchet；　asked　leave　to　take　the　advice　of　Robert　Lexington；　a　great　authority　on　the　bench；　whether　a　holding　encumbered　by　such　customs　could　be　free。　　　　　The　subject　is　important；　not　only　because　its　treatment　shows　to　what　extent　the　whole　law　of　social　distinctions　was　still　in　a　state　of　fermentation；　but　also　because　the　classification　of　tenures　according　to　the　nature　of　customs　may　afford　valuable　clues　to　the　origin　of　legal　disabilities　in　economic　and　political　facts。　The　plain　and　formal　rule　of　later　law；　which　is　undoubtedly　quite　fitted　to　test　the　main　issue　as　to　the　power　of　the　lord；　is　represented　in　earlier　times　by　a　congeries　of　opinions；　each　of　which　had　its　foundation　in　some　matter　of　fact。　We　see　here　a　state　of　things　which　on　the　one　hand　is　very　likely　to　invite　an　artificial　simplification；　by　an　application　of　some　one…sided　legal　conception　of　serfdom；　while　on　the　other　hand　it　seems　to　have　originated　in　a　mixture　and　confusion　of　divers　classes　of　serfs　and　free　men；　which　shaded　off　into　each　other　by　insensible　degrees。　　　　　The　procedure　in　trials　touching　the　question　of　status　was　decidedly　favourable　to　liberty。　To　begin　with；　only　one　proof　was　accepted　as　conclusive　against　it　　absolute　proof　that　the　kinsfolk　of　the　person　claimed　were　villains　by　descent。*　The　verdict　of　a　jury　was　not　sufficient　to　settle　the　question；*　and　a　man　who　had　been　refused　an　assize　in　consequence　of　the　defendant　pleading　villainage　in　bar　had　the　right　notwithstanding　such　decision　to　sue　for　his　liberty。　When　the　proof　by　kinship　came　on；　two　limitations　were　imposed　on　the　party　maintaining　servitude：　women　were　not　admitted　to　stand　as　links　in　the　proof　because　of　their　frailty　and　of　the　greater　dignity　of　a　man；　and　one　man　was　not　deemed　sufficient　to　establish　the　servile　condition　of　the　person　claimed。*　If　the　defendant　in　a　plea　of　niefty；　or　a　plaintiff　in　an　action　of　liberty；　could　convincingly　show　that　his　father　or　any　not　too　remote　ancestor　had　come　to　settle　on　the　lord's　land　as　a　stranger；　his　liberty　as　a　descendant　was　sufficiently　proved。*　In　this　way　to　prove　personal　villainage　one　had　to　prove　villainage　by　birth。　Recognition　of　servile　status　in　a　court　of　record　and　reference　to　a　deed　are　quite　exceptional。　　　　　The　coincidence　in　all　these　points　against　the　party　maintaining　servitude　is　by　no　means　casual；　the　courts　proclaimed　their　leaning　'in　favour　of　liberty'　quite　openly；　and　followed　it　in　many　instances　besides　those　just　quoted。　It　was　held；　for　instance；　that　in　defending　liberty　every　means　ought　to　be　admitted。　The　counsel　pleading　for　it　sometimes　set　up　two　or　three　pleas　against　his　adversary　and　declined　to　narrow　his　contention；　thus　transgressing　the　rules　against　duplicity　of　plea　'in　favour　of　liberty。'*　In　the　case　of　a　stranger　settling　on　the　land；　his　liberty　was　always　assumed；　and　the　court　declined　to　construe　any　uncertainty　of　condition　against　him。4　When　villainage　was　pleaded　in　bar　against　a　person　out　of　the　power　of　the　lord；　the　special　question　was　very　often　examined　by　a　jury　from　the　place　where　the　person　excepted　to　had　been　lately　resident；　and　not　by　a　jury　from　the　country　where　he　had　been　born。*　This　told　against　the　lord；　of　course；　because　the　jurors　might　often　have　very　vague　notions　as　to　the　previous　condition　of　their　new　fellow…countryman。*　　　　　It　would　be　impossible　to　say　in　what　particular　cases　this　partiality　of　the　law　is　to　be　taken　as　a　consequence　of　enlightened　and　humanitarian　views　making　towards　the　liberation　of　the　servile　class；　and　in　what　cases　it　may　be　traced　to　the　fact　that　an　original　element　of　freedom　had　been　attracted　into　the　constitution　of　villainage　and　was　influencing　its　legal　development　despite　any　general　theory　of　a　servile　character。　There　is　this　to　be　noticed　in　any　case；　that　most　of　the　limitations　we　have　been　speaking　of　are　found　in　full　work　at　the　very　time　when　villainage　was　treated　as　slavery　in　the　books。　One　feature；　perhaps　the　most　important　of　all；　is　certainly　not　dependent　on　any　progress　of　ideas；　however　complete　the　lord's　power　over　the　serf　may　have　been；　it　was　entirely　bound　up　with　the　manorial　organisation。　As　soon　as　the　villain　had