vill2-第38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！


　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　and　precarious　occupation　is　never　applied。　It　is　constantly　noticed；　on　the　other　hand；　whether　a　plot　pays　rent　or　provides　labour；　whether　it　can　be　transferred　from　one　category　into　the　other；　on　what　conditions　demesne　land　has　been　given　to　peasants；　and　whether　it　is　expedient　to　alter　them。　Let　us　take　the　following　case　as　an　instance：　John　Clerk　had　in　the　time　of　Bishop　Henry　one　virgate　in　Domerham　and　holds　it　now；　and　another　virgate　in　Stapelham　for　ten　shillings。　When　he　farmed　the　Domerham　manor　he　left　on　his　own　authority　the　virgate　in　Stapelham　and　took　half　a　virgate　in　Domerham；　as　it　was　nearer。　This　half　virgate　ought　to　work　and　is　now　free。　And　the　virgate　in　Stapelbam；　though　it　was　free　formerly；　has　to　work　now；　after　the　exchange。（95*）　The　opposition　is　quite　clear；　and　entirely　suited　to　the　list　of　questions　addressed　to　the　jury。　The　meaning　of　the　terms　free　and　freedom　is　also　brought　out　by　the　following　example。　Anderd　Budde　holds　half　a　virgate　of　demesne　land；　from　the　time　of　Bishop　Henry；　by　the　same　services　as　all　who　hold　so　much。　The　village　has　to　render　as　gift　twenty…nine　shillings　and　six　pence。　Six　pence　are　wanting　（to　complete　the　thirty　shillings？）　because　Anderd　holds　more　freely　than　his　ancestors　used　to。（96*）　　　　　Such　phraseology　is　by　no　means　restricted　to　one　document　or　one　locality。　In　a　Ramsey　Cartulary　we　find　the　following　entry　in　regard　to　a　Huntingdonshire　manor：　'Of　seven　hides　one　is　free；　of　the　remaining　six　two　virgates　pay　rent。　The　holder　pays　with　the　villains；　he　pays　merchet　and　joins　in　the　boon…work　as　the　villains。　The　remaining　five　hides　and　three　virgates　are　in　pure　villainage。'（97*）　The　gradation　is　somewhat　more　complex　here　than　in　the　Somersetshire　instance：　besides　free　land　and　working　land　we　have　a　separate　division　for　mixed　cases。　But　the　foundation　is　the　same　in　both　documents。　Earlier　surveys　of　Ramsey　Abbey　show　the　same　classification　of　holding　into　free　and　working　virgates　（liberae；　ad　opus（98*））。　　　　　In　opposition　to　free　service；　that　is　rent；　we　find　both　the　villenagium　（99*）　and　the　terra　consuetudinaria　or　custoniaria；（100*）　burdened　with　the　usual　rural　work。　Sometimes　the　document　points　out　that　land　has　been　freed　or　exempted　from　the　common　duties　of　the　village；（101*）　in　regard　to　manorial　work　the　village　formed　a　compact　body。　The　notion　which　I　have　been　explaining　lies　at　the　bottom　of　a　curious　designation　sometimes　applied　to　base　tenure　in　the　earlier　documents　of　our　period　　terra　ad　furcam　et　flagellum；（102*）　fleyland。　The　Latin　expression　has　been　construed　to　mean　land　held　by　a　person　under　the　lord's　jurisdiction；　under　his　gallows　and　his　whip；　but　this　explanation　is　entirely　false。　The　meaning　is；　that　a　base　holding　is　occupied　by　people　who　have　to　work　with　pitchfork　and　flail；　and　may　be　other　instruments　of　agriculture；（103*）　instead　of　simply　paying　rent。　In　view　of　such　a　phraseology　the　same　tenement　could　alternately　be　considered　as　a　free　or　a　servile　one；　according　to　its　changing　obligations。（104*）　Some　surveys　insert　two　parallel　descriptions　of　duties　which　are　meant　to　fit　both　eventualities；　when　the　land　is　ad　opus；　it　owes　such　and　such　services；　when　it　is　ad　censum；　it　pays　so　much　rent。　It　must　be　added；　that　in　a　vast　majority　of　cases　rent…paying　land　retains　some　remnants　of　services；　and；　vice　versa；　land　subjected　to　village…work　pays　small　rents；（105*）　the　general　quality　of　the　holding　is　made　to　depend　on　the　prevailing　character　of　the　duties。　　　　　The　double　sense　in　which　the　terms　'free　tenure'　and　'servile　tenure'　are　used　should　be　specially　noticed；　because　it　lays　bare　the　intimate　connexion　between　the　formal　divisions　of　feudal　law　and　the　conditions　of　economic　reality。　I　have　laid　stress　on　the　contrast　between　the　two　phraseologies；　but；　of　course；　they　could　not　be　in　use　at　the　same　time　without　depending　more　or　less　on　each　other。　And　it　is　not　difficult　to　see；　that　the　legal　is　a　modification　of　the　economic　use　of　terms；　that　it　reduces　to　one…sided　simplicity　those　general　facts　which　the　evidence　of　every　day　life　puts　before　us　in　a　loose　and　complex　manner；　that　land　is　really　free　which　is　not　placed　in　a　constant　working　submission　to　the　manor；　in　constant　co…operation　with　other　plots；　similarly　arranged　to　help　and　to　serve　in　the　manor。　However　heavy　the　rent；　the　land　that　pays　it　has　become　independent　in　point　of　husbandry；　its　dependence　appears　as　a　matter　of　agreement；　and　not　an　economic　tie。　When　a　tenement　is　for　economic　purposes　subordinated　to　the　general　management　of　the　manor；　there　is　almost　of　necessity　a　degree　of　uncertainty　in　its　tenure；　it　is　a　satellite　whose　motions　are　controlled　by　the　body　round　which　it　revolves。　On　the　other　hand；　mere　payments　in　money　look　like　the　outcome　of　some　sort　of　agreement；　and　are　naturally　thought　of　as　the　result　of　contract。　　　　　Everything　is　subject　to　the　will　and　pleasure　of　the　lord；　but　this　will　and　pleasure　does　not　find　expression　in　any　capricious　interference　which　wo