vill3-第35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！


o　assume　police　duties　and　a　certain　criminal　jurisdiction。　Mr　Maitland　has　shown　how；　by　its　intimate　connexion　with　the　sheriff's　tourn；　the　institution　of　frank…pledge　was　made　to　serve　the　purpose　of　communal　accusation　in　the　time　of　Henry　II。　The　Assize　of　Clarendon　（1166）　gave　the　impulse　in　regard　to　the　Sheriff's　Court；　and　private　lords　followed　speedily　on　the　same　line；　although　they　could　not　copy　the　pattern　in　all　its　details；　and　the　system　of　double　presentment　described　by　Britton　and　Fleta　proved　too　cumbersome　for　their　small　courts　with　only　a　few　freeholders　on　them。　In　any　case　the　jurisdiction　of　the　Court　Leet　is　practically　formed　in　the　twelfth　century；　and　the　Quo　Warranto　inquiries　of　the　thirteenth　only　bring　out　its　distinctions　more　clearly。（28*）　　　　　The　questions　as　to　the　opposition　between　Court　Baron　and　Customary　Court　are　more　intricate　and　more　important。　Mr　Maitland　has　collected　a　good　deal　of　evidence　to　prove　that　the　division　did　not　exist　originally；　and　that　we　have　before　us　in　the　thirteenth　century　only　one　strictly　manorial　court；　the　'halimotum。'　I　may　say；　that　I　came　to　the　same　conclusion　myself　in　the　Russian　edition　of　the　present　work　quite　independently　of　his　argument。　Indeed　a　somewhat　intimate　acquaintance　with　the　early　Court　Rolls　must　necessarily　lead　to　this　doctrine。　If　some　distinctions　are　made；　they　touch　upon　a　difference　between　ordinary　meetings　and　those　which　were　held　under　exceptional　circumstances　and　attended　by　a　greater　number　of　Suitors　than　usual。　The　expression　'libera　curia'　which　meets　us　sometimes　in　the　documents　is　an　exact　parallel　with　that　of　'free　gallows；'　and　means　a　court　held　freely　by　the　lord　and　not　a　court　of　free　men。　Mr　Maitland　adds；　that　he　has　found　mention　of　a　court　of　villains　and　one　of　knights；　but　that　he　never　came　across　a　court　of　barons　in　the　sense　given　in　later　jurisprudence　to　the　term　'Court　Baron。'　Here　I　must　put　in　a　trifling　qualification　which　does　not　affect　his　main　position　in　the　least。　The　Introduction　to　the　Selden　Society's　second　volume；　which　is　our　greatest　authority　on　this　subject；　mentions　a　case　when　the　halimot　was　actually　divided　on　the　principle　laid　down　by　Coke　and　later　lawyers　generally。　I　mean　the　case　of　Steyning；　where　the　Abbot　holds　a　separate　court　for　free　tenants　and　another　for　his　villains。　The　instance　belongs　to　the　time　of　the　Edwards；　but　it　is　marked　as　an　innovation　and　a　bad　one。（29*）　It　shows；　however；　that　the　separation　of　the　courts　was　beginning　to　set　in。　The　Steyning　case　is　not　quite　an　isolated　one。　I　have　found　in　the　Hundred　Rolls　the　expression　Sockemanemot　to　designate　a　court　attended　by　free　sokemen；（30*）　and　it　may　be　suggested　that　the　formation　of　the　so…called　Court　Baron　may　have　been　facilitated　by　the　peculiar　constitution　and　customs　of　those　courts　where　the　unfree　element　was　almost　entirely　absent。　The　Danish　shires　and　Kent　could　not　but　exercise　a　certain　influence　on　the　adjoining　counties。　However　this　might　be；　the　general　rule　is；　undoubtedly；　that　no　division　is　admitted；　and　that　all　the　suitors　and　affairs　are　concentrated　in　the　one　manorial　court　　the　halimot。　　　　　It　met　generally　once　every　three　weeks；　but　it　happens　sometimes　that　it　is　called　together　without　a　definite　limit　of　time　at　the　pleasure　of　the　lord。（31*）　Cases　like　that　of　the　manors　of　the　Abbey　of　Ramsey；　in　which　the　courts　are　summoned　only　twice　a　year；　are　quite　exceptional；　and　in　the　instance　cited　the　fact　has　to　be　explained　by　the　existence　of　an　upper　court　for　these　estates；　the　court　of　the　honour　of　Broughton。（32*）　The　common　suitors　are　the　peasants　living　within　the　manor　　the　owners　of　holdings　in　the　fields　of　the　manor。　In　important　trials；　when　free　men　are　concerned；　or　when　a　thief　has　to　be　hanged；　suitors　are　called　in　from　abroad　　mostly　small　free　tenants　who　have　entered　into　an　agreement　about　a　certain　number　of　suits　to　the　court。（33*）　These　foreign　suitors　appear　once　every　six　weeks；　twice　a　year；　for　special　trials　upon　a　royal　writ；　for　the　hanging　of　thieves；（34*）　etc。　The　duty　of　attending　the　court　is　constantly　mentioned　in　the　documents。　It　involved　undoubtedly　great　hardships；　expense；　and　loss　of　time：　no　wonder　that　people　tried　to　exempt　themselves　from　it　as　much　as　possible。（35*）　Charters　relating　to　land　provide　for　all　manner　of　cases　relating　to　suit　of　court。　We　find　it　said；　for　instance；　that　a　tenant　must　make　his　appearance　on　the　next　day　after　getting　his　summons；　even　if　it　was　brought　to　him　at　midnight。（36*）　When　a　holding　was　divided　into　several　parts；　the　most　common　thing　was　that　one　suit　remained　due　from　the　whole。（37*）　All　these　details　are　by　no　means　without　importance；　because　they　show　that　fiscal　reasons　had　as　much　to　do　with　the　arrangement　of　these　meetings　as　real　interests：　every　court　gave　rise　to　a　number　of　fines　from　suitors　who　had　made　default。　　　　　The　procedure　of　the　halimot　was　ruled　by　ancient　custom。　All　foreign　elements　in　the　shape　of　advocates　or　professional　pleaders　were　excluded。　Such　people；　we　are　told　by　the　manorial　instructions；　breed　litigation　and　dead…letter　formalism；　whereas　trials　ought　to　be　conducted　and　judged　according　to　their　substance。（38*）　Another　ceremonial　peculiarity　of　some　interest　concerns　the　place　where　manorial　courts　are　held。　It　is　certain　that　the　ancient　gem髏s　were　held　in　the　open　air；　as　Mr　Gomme　shows　in　his　book　on　early　folk…mots。　And　we　see　a　survival　of　the　custom　in　the　meeting　which　used　to　be　held　by　the　socmen　of　Stoneleigh　on　Motstowehill。（39*）　But　in　the　feudal　period　the　right　place　to　hold　the　court　was　the　manorial　hall。　We　find　indeed　that　the　four　walls　of　this　room　are　considered　as　the　formal　limit　of　the　court；　so　that　a　man　who　has　stept　within　them　and　has　then　gone　off　without　sufficient　reason　is　charged　with　contempt　of　court。（40*）　Indeed；　the　very　name　of　'halimot'　can　hardly　be　explained　otherwise　than　as　the　moot　held　in　the　hall。（41*）　The　point　is　of　some　interest；　because　the　hall　is　not　regarded　as　a　purely　material　contrivance　for　keeping　people　protected　against　the　cold　and　the　rain；　but　appears　in　close　connexion　with　the　manor；　and　as　its　centre　and　symbol。　　　　　We　hear　very　little　of　husbandry　arrangements　made　by　the　courts；（42*）　and　even　of　the　repartition　of　duties　and　taxes。（43*）　Entries　relating　to　the　election　of　officers　are　more　frequent；（44*）　but　the　largest　part　of　the　rolls　is　taken　up　by　legal　business　of　all　sorts。　　　　　The　entire　court；　and　sometimes　a　body　of　twelve　jurors；　present　those　who　are　guilty　of　any　offence　or　misdemeanour。　Ploughmen　who　have　performed　their　ploughing　on　the　lord's　land　badly；　villains　who　have　fled　from　the　fee　and　live　on　strange　soil；　a　man　who　has　not　fulfilled　some　injunction　of　the　lord；　a　woman　who　has　picked　a　lock　appended　to　the　door　of　her　cottage　by　a　manorial　bailiff；　an　inveterate　adulterer　who　loses　the　lord's　chattels　by　being　fined　in　the　ecclesiastical　courts　　all　these　delinquents　of　very　different　kinds　are　presented　to　be　punished；　and　get　amerced　or　put　into　the　stocks；　according　to　the　nature　of　their　offences。　It　ought　to　be　noticed　that　an　action　committed　against　the　interests　of　the　lord　is　not　punished　by　any　one…sided　act　of　his　will；　or　by　the　command　of　his　steward；　but　treated　as　a　matter　of　legal　presentment。　The　negligent　ploughman　is　not　taken　to　task　directly　by　the　bailiff　or　any　other　overseer；　but　is　presented　as　an　offender　by　his　fellow…peasants；　and　according　to　strict　legal　formality。　On　the　other　hand；　the　entries　are　worded　in　such　a　way　that　the　part　played　by　the　court　is　quite　clear　only　as　to　the　presenting　of　misdeeds；　while　the　amercement　or　punishment　is　decreed　in　some　manner　which　is　not　specified　exactly。　We　read；　for　instance；　in　a　roll　of　the　Abbey　of　Bec　how　'the　court　has　presented　that　Simon　Combe　has　set　up　a　fence　on　the　lord's　land。　Therefore　let　it　be　abated。。。。　The　court　presented　that　the　following　had　encroached　on　the　lord's　land；　to　wit；　William　Cobbler；　Maud　Robins；　widow　（fined　12d。）；　John　Shepherd　（fined　12s。）。。。　Therefore　they　are　in　mercy。'（45*）　Who　has　ordered　the　fence　to　be　thrown　down；　and　who　has　imposed　the　fines　on　the　delinquents？　The　most　natural　inference　seems　to　be　that　the　penal　ties　were　imposed　by　the　lord　or　the　presiding　officer　who　represented　him　in　the　court。　But　it　is　by　no　means　impossible　that　the　court　itself　had　to　decide　on　the　penalty　or　the　amount　of　the　amercement　after　first　making　the　presentment　as　to　the　fact。　Its　action　would　merely　divide　itself　into　two　independent　decisions。　Such　a　procedure　would　be　a　necessity　in　the　case　of　a　free　tenant　who　could　not　be　fined　at　will；　and　there　is　nothing　to　show　that　it　was　entirely　different　in　regard　to　the　servile　tenantry。　When　the　lord　interferes　at　pleasure　this　is　noted　as　an　exceptional　feature。（46*）　It　is　quite　possible；　again；　that　the　amercement　was　imposed　on　the　advice　or　by　a　decision　of　certain　suitors　singled　out　from　the　rest　as　persons　of　special　credit；　as　in　a　case　from　the　same　manorial　rolls　of　Bec。（47*）　It　is　hardly　necessary　to　draw　very　precise　conclusions；　as　the　functions　of　the　suitors　do　not　appear