vill3-第28节
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！
on or by survivals of a former condition。 Or again； we may start from the whole and inquire whether the equality the elements of which we detect is equality in ownership or equality in service。 Let us take up the first thread of the inquiry。 How can we account for the occurrence of regular 'shareholding' among the freeholders？ Two possibilities have to be considered： the free character of the tenements may be newly acquired and the 'shareholding' may be a relic of a servile past； or； on the other hand； the freehold character of the tenements may be coeval with the 'shareholding；' and in this latter case we shall have to admit the existence of freeholds which from of old have formed an element in the village community。 In the first of these cases again we shall have to distinguish between two suppositions： Servile tenements have become free； this may be due either to some general measure of enfranchisement； a lord having preferred to take money rents in lieu of the old labour services； and these money rents being the modern equivalent for those old services； or else to particular and occasional feoffments made in favour of those who； for one reason or another； have earned some benefit at the lord's hand。 To put it shortly； we may explain the phenomenon either by a process of commutation such as that which turned 'workland' into 'molland；' or by special privileges which have exempted certain shares in the land from a general scheme of villainage； or； lastly； by the existence of freeholds as normal factors in the ancient village community。 Let us test these various suppositions by the facts recorded in our surveys。 At first sight it may seem possible to account for the freehold virgates by reference to the process which converted 'workland' into 'molland。' We have seen above that if a lord began to demand money instead of work； the result might； in some cases； be the evolution of new tenures which gradually lost their villain character and became recognised as genuine freeholds。 And no doubt one considerable class of cases can be explained by this process。 But a great many instances seem to call for some other explanation。 To begin with； the mere acceptance of rent in lieu of labour did not make the tenement a freehold； servile tenements were frequently put ad censum；（70*） and it seems difficult to believe that many lords allowed a commutation of labour for rent to have the effect of turning villainage into freehold。 Another difficulty is found on the opposite side。 What force kept the shares together when they had become free？ Why did they not accumulate and disperse according to the chances of free development？ It may be thought that custom； and express conditions of feoffment； must have acted against disruption。 I do not deny the possibility； but I say that it is not easy to explain the very widely diffused phenomenon of free shareholding by a commutation which tended to break up the shares and to make them useless for the purposes of assessment。 Still I grant that these considerations； though they should have some weight； are not decisive； and I insist chiefly on the following argument。 The peculiar trait which distinguishes 'molland' is the transition from labour service to money rent； and the rent is undoubtedly considered as an equivalent for the right to labour services which the lord abandons。 It must be admitted that in some cases the lord may have taken less than the real equivalent in order to get such a convenient commodity as money； or because for some reason or another he was in need of current coin。 Still I am not afraid to say that； in a general way； commutation supposes an exchange against an equivalent。 Indeed the demand for money rents was considered rather as increasing than as decreasing the burden incumbent on the peasantry。（71*） Now； although it would be preposterous to try and make out in every single case whether the rent of the free virgate is an adequate equivalent for villain services or not； there is a very sufficient number of instances in which a rough reckoning may be made without fear of going much astray。（72*） And if we attempt such a reckoning we shall be struck by the number of cases in which the rent of the free virgate falls considerably short of what it yielded by the virgate of the villain。 We have seen that in Ravenston； Bedfordshire； the villain service is valued at eight shillings per virgate； and that the free assessment amounts only to four shillings。 In Thriplow； Cambridgeshire； the villains perform labour duties valued at 9s。 4d。 per bovate； the freeholders are assessed variously； but there is a certain number among them which forms； as it were； the stock of that class； and their average rent is 5s。 6d。 per bovate。（73*） In Tyringham； Buckinghamshire； the villain holding is computed at six acres and one rood； and its service at five shillings； the free virgates have a like number of acres and pay various rents； but almost without exception less than the villains。（74*） In Croxton； Cambridgeshire； there are customers with twenty acres； and others with ten acres； the first have to pay ten shillings and to assist at four boonworks。 The free holders are possessed of plots of irregular size； and their rent is also irregular； but on the average much lower than that of the customers。（75*） Let it be noted that the customary tenants have commuted their labour services into money payments； and。 in fact； they are to be considered as molmen in the first stage of development。 Still； their payments are computed on a different scale from those of the free。 In Brandone； Warwickshire； the typical villain； William Bateman； pays for his virgate 5s。 3d。； and sends one man to work twice a week from the 29th of June until the ist of August； and thence onward his man has to work two days one week and three days the next。 The free half…virgate merely pays five shillings； and does suit to the manorial court。 This last point makes no difference； because the villain had to attend the manorial court quite as regularly as the freeholder； and indeed more regularly ； because he was obliged to serve on inquests。（76*） In Bathekynton； Warwickshire； the difference in favour of the free is also noticeable； but not so great。（77*） And these are by no means exceptional cases。 Nothing is more common than to find free tenements held by trifling services； and whatever we may think of single cases； it would be absurd to explain such arrangements in the aggregate as the results of a bargain between lord and serfs。 It is evident； therefore； that a reference to 'molland；' to a commutation of labour into rent； does not suit these cases。（78*） Can we explain these cases of 'free shareholding' by feoffments made to favoured persons？ We have seen that the lord used to recompense his servants by grants of land and that he favoured the spread of cultivation by exacting but a light rent from newly reclaimed land。 Such transactions would undoubtedly produce free tenements held on very advantageous terms； but still they seem incapable of solving our problem。 Tenements created by way of beneficial feoffment are in general easily recognised。 The holdings of servants and other people endowed by favour are always few and interspersed among the plots of the regular occupiers of the land； be they free or serfs。 The 'essarted' fields are sometimes numerous； but usually cut up into small strips and as it were engrafted on the original stock of tenements。 Altogether privileged land mostly appears divided into irregular plots and reckoned by acres and not by shares。 And what we have to account for is a vast number of instances in which what seem to be some of the principal and original shares in the land are held freely and by comparatively light services。 I do not think that we can get rid of a very considerable residue of cases without resorting to the last of the suppositions mentioned above。 We must admit that some of the freeholders in the Hundred Rolls are possessed of shares in the fields not because they have emerged from serfdom； but because they were from the first members of a village community over which the lord's power spread。 it would be very hard to draw absolute distinctions in special cases； because the terminology of our records does not take into account the history of tenure and only indicates net results。 But a comparison of facts en bloc points to at least three distinct sources of the freehold virgates。 Some may be due to commutation； others to beneficial feoffments； but there are yet others which seem to be ancient and primitive。 The traits which mark these last are 'shareholding' and light rents。 The light rents do not look like the result of commutation； the 'shareholding' points to some other cause than favours bestowed by the lord。 We shall come to the same conclusion if we follow the other line of our inquiry。 It may be asked； whether the community into which the share is made to fit should be thought of primarily as a community in ownership or a community in assessment； whether the shares are constructed for the purpose of satisfying equal claims or for the purpose of imposing equal duties？ The question is a wide one； much wider than the subject immediately in hand； but it is connected with that subject an
