vill3-第48章

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！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！


their　settlement；　a　set　of　juridical　doctrines　is　necessary　to　provide　the　general　principles　of　such　reasoning。　And　in　both　respects　the　manorial　court　is　called　upon　to　act。　It　is　considered　as　the　repositary　of　legal　lore；　and　the　exponent　of　its　applications。　This　means　that　the　court　is；　what　its　name　implies；　a　tribunal　and　not　a　set　of　private　persons　called　upon　to　assist　a　judge　by　their　knowledge　of　legal　details　or　material　facts。（56*）　　　　　The　whole　exposition　brings　us　back　to　a　point　of　primary　importance。　The　title　by　which　land　is　held　according　to　manorial　custom　is　derived　from　communal　authority　quite　as　much　as　from　the　lord's　grant。　Without　stepping　out　of　the　feudal　evidence　into　historical　inquiry；　we　find　that　civil　arrangements　of　the　peasantry　are　based　on　acts　performed　through　the　agency　of　the　steward；　and　before　the　manorial　court；　which　has　a　voice　in　the　matter　and　vouches　for　its　validity　and　remembrance。　The　'full　court'　is　noticed　in　the　records　as　quite　as　necessary　an　element　in　the　conveyancing　business　as　the　lord　and　his　steward；　although　the　legal。　theory　of　modern　times　has　affected　to　take　into　account　only　these　latter。（57*）　Indeed；　it　is　the　part　assumed　by　the　court　which　appears　as　the　distinctive；　if　not　the　more　important　factor。　A　feoffment　of　land　made　on　the　basis　of　free　tenure　proceeds　from　the　grantor　in　the　same　way　as　a　grant　on　the　conditions　of　base　tenure；　freehold　comes　from　the　lord；　as　well　as　copyhold。　But　copyhold　is　necessarily　transferred　in　court；　while　freehold　is　not。　And　if　we　speak　of　the　presentment　of　offences　through　the　representatives　of　townships；　as　of　the　practice　of　communal　accusation；　even　so　we　have　to　call　the　title　by　which　copyhold　tenure　is　created　a　claim　based　on　communal　testimony。　　　　　All　the　points　noticed　in　the　rolls　of　manors　held　at　common　law　are　to　be　found　on　the　soil　of　ancient　demesne；　but　they　are　stated　more　definitely　there；　and　the　rights　of　the　peasant　population　are　asserted　with　greater　energy。　Our　previous　analysis　of　the　condition　of　ancient　demesne　has　led　us　to　the　conclusion；　that　it　presents　a　crystallisation　of　the　manorial　community　in　an　earlier　stage　of　development　than　in　the　ordinary　manor；　but　that　the　constitutive　elements　in　both　cases　are　exactly　the　same。　For　this　reason；　every　question　arising　in　regard　to　the　usual　arrangements　ought　to　be　examined　in　the　light　of　the　evidence　that　comes　from　the　ancient　demesne。　　　　　We　have　seen　that　it　would　be　impossible　to　maintain　that　originally　the　steward　was　the　only　judge　of　the　manorial　tribunal；　the　whole　court　with　its　free　and　unfree　suitors　participates　materially　in　the　administration　of　justice；　and　its　office　is　extended　to　questions　of　law　as　well　as　to　issues　of　fact。　On　the　other　hand；　it　was　clear　that　the　steward　and　the　lord　were　already　preparing　the　position　which　they　ultimately　assumed　in　legal　theory；　that　in　the　exercise　of　their　functions　they　were　beginning　to　monopolise　the　power　of　ultimate　decision　and　to　restrict　the　court　to　the　duty　of　preliminary　presentment。　The　same　parties　are　in　presence　in　the　court　of　ancient　demesne；　but　the　right　of　the　suitors　has　been　summed　up　by　legal　theory　in　quite　the　opposite　direction。　The　suitors　are　said　to　be　the　judges　there；　legal　dogmatism　has　set　up　its　hard　and　fast　definitions；　and　drawn　its　uncompromising　conclusions　as　if　all　the　historical　facts　had　always　been　arrayed　against　each　other　without　the　possibility　of　common　origins　and　gradual　development。　Is　it　necessary　to　say　that　the　historical　reality　was　very　far　from　presenting　that　neat　opposition？　The　ancient　demesne　suitors　are　villains　in　the　main；　though　privileged　in　many　respects；　and　the　lord　and　steward　are　not　always　playing　such　a　subordinate　part　that　one　may　not　notice　the　transition　to　the　state　of　things　that　exists　in　common　law　manors。　It　is　curious；　anyhow；　that　later　jurisprudence　was　driven　to　set　up　as　to　the　ancient　demesne　court　a　rule　which　runs　exactly　parallel　to　the　celebrated　theory　that　there　must　be　a　plurality　of　free　tenants　to　constitute　a　manor。　Coke　expresses　it　in　the　following　way：　'There　cannot　be　ancient　demesne　unless　there　is　a　court　and　suitors。　So　if　there　be　but　one　suitor；　for　that　the　suitors　are　the　judges；　and　therefore　the　demandant　must　sue　at　common　law；　there　being　a　failure　of　justice　within　the　manor。'（58*）　We　shall　have　to　speak　of　this　rule　again　when　treating　of　classes　in　regard　to　manorial　organisation。　But　let　us　notice；　even　now；　that　in　this　view　of　the　ancient　demesne　court　the　suitors　are　considered　as　the　cardinal　element　of　its　constitution。　The　same　notion　may　be　found　already　in　trials　of　the　fourteenth　and　even　of　the　thirteenth　century。　A　curious　case　is　reported　in　the　Year　Books　of　11/12　Edw。　III。（59*）　Herbert　of　St。　Quentyn　brought　a　writ　of　false　judgment　against　John　of　Batteley　and　his　wife；　the　judgment　having　been　given　in　the　court　of　Cookham；　an　ancient　demesne　manor。　The　suitors；　or　suit…holders　as　they　were　called　there；　sent　up　their　record　to　the　King's　Bench；　and　many　things　were　brought　forward　against　the　conduct　of　the　case　by　the　counsel　for　the　plaintiff；　the　defendant　trying　to　shield　himself　by　pleading　the　custom　of　the　manor　to　account　for　all　unusual　practices。　The　judges　find；　however；　that　one　point　at　least　cannot　be　defended　on　that　ground。　The　suitors　awarded　default　against　the　plaintiff　because　he　had　not　appeared　in　person　before　them；　and　had　sent　an　attorney；　who　had　been　admitted　by　the　steward　alone　and　not　in　full　court。　Stonor；　C。　J。；　remarks；　'that　it　is　against　law　that　the　person　who　holds　the　court　is　not　suffered　to　record　an　attorney　for　a　plea　which　will　be　discussed　before　him。'　The　counsel　for　the　plaintiff　offer　to　prove　that　the　custom　of　the　manor　did　not　exclude　an　attorney　appointed　before　the　steward；　on　condition　that　the　steward　should　tell　it　to　the　suitors　in　the　next　court　after　receiving　him。　The　case　is　interesting；　not　merely　because　it　exhibits　the　suit…holders　in　the　undisputed　position　of　judges；　but　also　because　it　shows　the　difficulties　created　by　the　presence　of　the　second　element　of　the　manorial　system；　the　seignorial　element；　which　would　neither　fit　exactly　into　an　entirely　communal　organisation　nor　be　ousted　from　it。（60*）　The　difficulty　stands　quite　on　the　same　line　with　that　which　meets　us　in　the　common　law　manor；　where　the　element　of　the　communal　assessors　has　been　ultimately　suppressed　and　conjured　away；　as　it　were；　by　legal　theory。　The　results　are　contradictory；　but　on　the　same　line；　as　I　say。　And　the　more　we　go　back　in　time；　the　more　we　find　that　both　elements；　the　lord　and　the　community；　are　equally　necessary　to　the　constitution　of　the　court。　In　the　thirteenth　century　we　find　already　that　the　manorial　bailiffs　are　made　responsible　for　the　judgment　along　with　the　suitors　and　even　before　them。（61*）　　　　　The　rolls　of　ancient　demesne　manors　present　a　considerable　variety　of　types；　shading　off　from　an　almost　complete　independence　of　the　suitors　to　forms　which　are　not　very　different　from　those　of　common　law　manors。　Stoneleigh　may　be　taken　as　a　good　specimen　of　the　first　class。　　　　　The　manor　was　div