vill2-第21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！


d　kind　is　said　to　be　held　by　uncertain　services；　and　sued　by　writ　of　'Monstraverunt'　instead　of　having　the　writs　of　right　and　'Monstraverunt'　of　ancient　demesne　socage。（91*）　Probably　what　is　meant　is　a　species　of　copyhold　which　is　not　socage；　and　the　writ　of　'Monstraverunt'　attributed　to　it　may　perhaps　be　the　plaint　or　petition　which　is　the　initial　move　in　a　suit　for　the　protection　of　copyhold　in　the　manorial　court。　　　　　In　the　time　of　Henry　III　and　of　the　Edwards　the　nature　of　ancient　demesne　tenure　was　better　understood。　At　the　close　of　the　thirteenth　century　the　lawyers　distinguish　three　kinds　of　men…free；　villains；　and　socmen。（92*）　In　order　to　be　quite　accurate　people　spoke　of　villain　socmen　or　little　socage（93*）　in　opposition　to　free。　But　even　at　that　time　there　were　several　confusing　features　about　the　case。　The　certainty　of　condition　made　the　tenure　of　the　villain　socmen　so　like　a　freehold　that　it　was　often　treated　as　such　in　the　manorial　documents。　In　the　Stoneleigh　Register　the　peculiar　nature　of　socage　in　ancient　demesne　is　described　fully　and　clearly。　It　is　distinguished　in　so　many　words　from　tenancy　at　will；　and　a　detailed　description　of　conveyance　by　surrender　in　contrast　with　conveyance　by　charter　seems　to　give　the　necessary　material　for　the　distinction　between　it　and　freehold。（94*）　But　still　the　fundamental　notion　of　free　men　holding　in　villainage　gets　lost　sight　of。　Only　some　of　the　cottiers　are　said　to　hold　in　villainage。　The　more　important　tenants；　the　socmen　holding　virgates　and　half…virgates；　are　not　only　currently　described　as　freeholders　in　the　Register；　but　they　are　entered　as　such　on　the　Warwickshire　Hundred　Roll。（95*）　The　term　'parva　sokemanria'　is　applied　in　the　Stoneleigh　Register　only　to　a　few　subordinate　holdings　which　are　undoubtedly　above　the　level　of　pure　villainage；　but　cannot　be　definitely　distinguished　from　the　other　kinds　of　socage　in　the　Register。　This　may　serve　as　an　indication　of　the　tendency　of　manorial　communities　to　consider　privileged　villainage　as　a　free　tenure；　but　legal　pleadings　and　decisions　were　also　cresting　confusion　for　another　reason；　because　they　tended；　as　has　been　said；　to　consider　the　whole　body　of　men　on　the　ancient　demesne　in　one　lump　as　it　were。　The　courts　very　often　applied　as　the　one　test　of　tenure　and　service　the　question　whether　a　person　was　a　descendant　by　blood　of　men　of　ancient　demesne　or　a　stranger。（96*）　In　connexion　with　this　the　court　rolls　testify　to　the　particular　care　taken　to　control　any　intrusion　of　strangers　into　the　boundaries　of　a　privileged　manor。（97*）　This　was　done　primarily　in　the　interests　of　the　lord；　but　the　tenantry　also　seem　to　have　sometimes　been　jealous　of　their　prerogatives；（98*）　and　it　is　only　in　the　course　of　the　fourteenth　century　that　they　begin　to　open　their　gates　to　strangers；　'adventicii。'（99*）　However　this　may　be；　the　practice　of　drawing　the　line　between　native　stock　and　strangers　undoubtedly　countenanced　the　idea　that　all　the　tenants　of　native　stock　were　alike；　and　in　this　way　tended　to　confuse　the　distinction　between　freeholders；　pure　villains；　and　villain　socmen。　　　　　The　courts　made　several　attempts　to　insist　on　a　firm　classification；　but　some　of　these　were　conceived　in　such　an　unhappy　spirit　that　they　actually　embroiled　matters。　The　conduct　of　the　king's　judges　was　especially　misdirected　in　one　famous　case　which　came　up　several　times　before　the　courts　during　the　thirteenth　century。　The　tenants　of　Tavistock　in　Devonshire　were　seeking　protection　against　their　lords；　and　appealing　to　the　right　of　ancient　demesne。　The　case　was　debated　two　or　three　times　during　Henry　III's　reign；　and　in　1279　judgment　was　given　against　the　plaintiffs　by　an　imposing　quorum；　as　many　as　eight　judges　with　the　Chief　Justice　Ralph　Hengham　at　their　head。　It　was　conceded　that　Tavistock　was　ancient　demesne；　but　the　claimants　were　held　to　be　villains　and　not　villain　socmen；　and　this　on　the　ground　that　the　Domesday　description　did　not　mention　socmen；　but　only　villains。（100*）　It　seems　strange　to　dispute　a　decision　given　with　such　solemnity　by　men　who　were　much　better　placed　to　know　about　these　things　than　we　are；　but　there　does　not　seem　to　be　any　possible　doubt　that　Hengham　and　his　companions　were　entirely　wrong。　Their　decision　is　in　contradiction　with　almost　all　the　recorded　cases；　it　was　always　assumed　that　the　stiff　Domesday　terminology　was　quite　insufficient　to　show　whether　a　man　was　a　pure　villain　or　a　free　man　holding　in　villainage；　which　last　would　be　the　villain　socman　in　ancient　demesne。　If　Hengham's　doctrine　had　been　taken　as　a　basis　for　decision　in　these　cases；　no　ancient　demesne　tenancy　would　have　been　recognised　at　all　out　of　the　Danelaw　counties；　that　is　in　far　the　greater　part　of　England；　as　Domesday　never　mentions　socmen　there　at　all。　In　the　Danelaw　counties；　on　the　other　hand；　the　privilege　would　have　been　of　no　use；　as　those　who　were　called　socmen　there　were　freeholders　protected　without　any　reference　to　ancient　demesne。　Altogether　the　attempt　to　make　Domesday　serve　the　purpose　of　establishing　the　mode　of　tenure　for　the　thirteenth　century　must　be　called　a　misdirected　one。　It　was　quite　singular；　as　the　courts　generally　went　back　upon　Domesday　only　with　the　object　of　finding　out　whether　a　particular　manor　had　been　vested　in　the　crown　at　the　time　of　the　Conquest　or　not。　It　should　be　noted　that　Bracton　considered　the　case　from　a　very　different　point　of　view；　as　one　may　judge　by　the　note　he　jotted　down　on　the　margin　of　his　Note…book　against　a　trial　of　1237…8。　He　says：　'Nota　de　villanis　Henrici　de　Tracy　de　Tawystoke　qui　nunquam　fuerunt　in　manu　Domini　Regis　nec　antecessorum　suorum　et　loquebantur　de　tempore　Regis　Edwardi　coram　W。　de　Wiltona。'（101*）　Wilton's　decision　must　have　been　grounded　on　the　assumption　that　the　ancestors　of　the　claimants　were　strangers　to　the　manor；　or　else　that　the　manor　had　never　formed　part　of　the　ancient　demesne。　This　would；　of　course；　be　in　direct　contradiction　to　the　opinion　that　the　Tavistock　tenants　were　descended　from　the　king's　born　villains。　　　　　I　cannot　help　thinking　that　Hengham's　decision　may　have　been　prompted　either　by　partiality　towards　the　lord　of　the　manor　or　by　an　ill…considered　wish　to　compress　the　right　of　ancient　demesne　within　the　narrowest　bounds　possible。　In　any　case　this　trial　deserves　attention　by　reason　of　the　eminent　authorities　engaged　in　drawing　up　the　judgment；　and　as　illustrating　the　difficulties　which　surround　the　points　at　issue　and　lead　to　confusion　both　in　the　decisions　and　in　the　treatment　of　them　by　law　writers。　In　order　to　gain　firm　ground　we　must　certainly　go　back　again　to　the　fundamental　propositions　laid　down　with　great　clearness　by　Bracton。　It　was　not　all　the　tenants　on　ancient　demesne　soil　that　had　a　right　to　appeal　to　its　peculiar　privileges…some　had　protection　at　Common　Law　and　some　had　no　protection　at　all。　But　the　great　majority　of　the　tenants　enjoyed　special　rights；　and　these　men　of　ancient　demesne　were　considered　to　be　free　by　blood　and　holding　in　villainage。　If　the　books　had　not　noticed　their　personal　freedom　in　so　many　words；　it　would　have　been　proved　by　the　fact　that　they　were　always　capable　of　leaving　their　tenements　and　going　away　at　pleasure。　　　　　Bracton　does　not　restrict　himsel