vill3-第36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！


　is　hardly　necessary　to　draw　very　precise　conclusions；　as　the　functions　of　the　suitors　do　not　appear　to　have　been　sharply　defined。　But　for　this　very　reason　it　would　be　wrong　to　speak　of　the　one…sided　right　of　the　lord　or　of　his　representative　to　impose　the　penalty。　　　　　The　characteristic　mixture　of　different　elements　which　we　notice　in　the　criminal　jurisdiction　of　the　manorial　court　may　be　seen　also　if　we　examine　its　civil　jurisdiction。　We　find　the　halimot　treating　in　its　humble　region　all　the　questions　of　law　which　may　be　debated　in　the　courts　of　common　law。　Seisin；　inheritance；　dower；　leases；　and　the　like　are　discussed；　and　the　pleading；　though　subject　to　the　custom　of　the　manor；　takes　very　much　the　shape　of　the　contentions　before　the　royal　judges。　Now　this　civil　litigation　is　interesting　from　two　points　of　view：　it　involves　statements　of　law　and　decisions　as　to　the　relative　value　of　claims。　In　both　respects　the　parties　have　to　refer　to　the　body　of　the　court；　to　its　assessors　or　suitors。　The　influence　of　the　'country'　on　the　judgment　goes　further　here　than　in　the　Common　Law　Courts；　because　there　is　no　independent　common　law　to　go　by；　and　the　custom　of　the　manor　has　generally　to　be　made　out　by　the　manorial　tenants　themselves。　And　so　a　party　'puts　himself　on　his　country'；　not　only　in　order　to　decide　some　issue　of　fact；　but　also　in　regard　to　points　of　customary　law。　Inquisitions　are　made　and　juries　formed　quite　as　much　to　establish　the　jurisprudence　of　the　court　as　to　decide　who　has　the　better　claim　under　the　said　jurisprudence。　Theoretically　it　is　the　full　court　which　is　appealed　to；　but　in　ordinary　cases　the　decision　rests　with　a　jury　of　twelve；　or　even　of　six。　The　authority　of　such　a　verdict　goes　back　however　to　the　supposed　juridical　sense　or　juridical　knowledge　of　the　court　as　a　body。　Now　it　cannot　be　contested　that　such　an　organisation　of　justice　places　all　the　weight　of　the　decision　with　the　body　of　the　suitors　as　assessors。　The　presiding　officer　and　the　lord　whom　he　represents　have　not　much　to　do　in　the　course　of　the　deliberation。　If　we　may　take　up　the　comparison　which　Mr　Maitland　has　drawn　with　German　procedure；（48*）　we　shall　say　that　the　'Urtheilfinder'　have　all　the　best　of　it　in　the　trial　as　against　the　'Richter。'　This　'Richter'　is　seemingly　left　with　the　duties　of　a　chairman；　and　the　formal　right　to　draw　up　and　pronounce　a　decision　which　is　materially　dependent　on　the　ruling　of　the　court。　But　a　special　reserve　of　equity　is　left　with　the　lord；　and　in　consequence　of　its　operation　we　find　some　decisions　and　sentences　altered；　or　their　execution　postponed。（49*）　I　have　to　endorse　one　more　point　of　Mr　Maitland's　exposition；　namely；　his　view　of　the　presentment　system　as　of　a　gradual　modification　of　the　original　standing　of　the　manorial　suitors　as　true　assessors　of　the　court。　Through　the　influence　of　the　procedure　of　royal　courts；　on　the　one　hand；　of　the　stringent　classifications　of　the　tenantry　in　regard　to　status　on　the　other；　the　presenters　were　gradually　debased；　and　legal　learning　came　to　maintain　that　the　only　judge　of　a　customary　court　was　its　steward。　But　a　presentment　of　the　kind　described　in　the　manorial　rolls　vouches　for　a　very　independent　position　of　the　suitors；　and　indeed　for　their　prevalent　authority　in　the　constitution　of　the　tribunal。　　　　　The　conveyancing　entries；　although　barren　and　monotonous　at　first　sight；　are　very　important；　in　so　far　as　they　show；　better　perhaps　than　anything　else；　the　part　played　by　the　community　and　by　its　testimony　in　the　transmission　of　rights。　It　has　become　a　common…place　to　argue　that　the　practice　of　surrender　and　admittance　characterises　the　absolute　ownership　that　the　lord　has　in　the　land　held　in　villainage；　and　proceeds　from　the　fact　that　every　holder　of　servile　land　is　in　truth　merely　an　occupier　of　the　plot　by　precarious　tenure。　Every　change　of　occupation　has　to　be　performed　through　the　medium　of　the　lord　who　're…enters'　the　tenement；　and　concedes　it　again　as　if　there　had　been　no　previous　occupation　at　all　and　the　new　tenant　entered　on　a　holding　freshly　created　for　his　use。　None　the　less；　a　theory　which　lays　all　the　stress　in　the　case　on　the　surrender　into　the　hand　of　the　lord；　and　explains　this　act　from　the　point　of　view　of　absolute　ownership；　is　wrong　in　many　respects。　　　　　To　begin　with　the　legal　transmission　of　a　free　holding；　although　the　element　of　surrender　has　as　it　were　evaporated　from　it；　it　is　quite　as　much　bound　up　with　the　fiction　of　the　absolute　ownership　of　the　lord　as　is　the　surrender　and　admittance　of　villains　and　copyholders。　The　ceremony　of　investiture　had　no　other　meaning　but　that　of　showing　that　the　true　owner　re…entered　into　the　exercise　of　his　right；　and　every　act　of　homage　for　land　was　connected　with　an　act　of　feoffment　which；　though　obligatory；　first　by　custom　and　then　by　law；　was　nevertheless　no　mere　pageant；　because　it　gave　rise　to　very　serious　claims　of　service　and　casual　rights　in　the　shape　of　wardship；　marriage；　and　the　like。　The　king　who　wanted　to　be　everybody's　heir　was　much　too　consequent　an　exponent　of　the　feudal　doctrine；　and　his　successors　were　forced　into　a　gentler　practice。　But　the　fiction　of　higher　ownership　was　lurking　behind　all　these　contentions　of　the　upper　class　quite　as　much　as　behind　the　conveyancing　ceremonies　of　the　manorial　court。　And　in　both　cases　the　fiction　stretched　its　standard　of　uniformity　over　very　different　elements：　allodial　ownership　was　modified　by　a　subjection　to　the　'dominium　directum；'　on　the　one　hand；　leases　and　precarious　occupation　were　crystalised　into　tenure；　on　the　other。　It　is　not　my　object　to　trace　the　parallel　of　free　and　peasant　holding　in　its　details；　but　I　lay　stress　on　the　principle　that　the　privileged　tenure　involved　the　notion　of　a　personal　concession　quite　as　much　as　did　the　base　tenure；　and　that　this　fundamental　notion　made　itself　felt　both　in　conveyancing　formalities　and　in　practical　claims。　　　　　I　am　even　inclined　to　go　further：　it　seems　to　me　that　the　manorial　ceremony　of　surrender　and　admittance；　as　considered　from　the　point　of　view　of　legal　archaeology；　may　have　gone　back　to　a　practice　which　has　nothing　to　do　with　the　lord's　ownership；　although　it　was　ultimately　construed　to　imply　this　notion。　The　tenant　enfeoffed　of　his　holding　on　the　conditions　of　base　tenure　was　technically　termed　tenant　by　copy　of　court　roll　or　tenant　by　the　rod　　par　la　verge。　This　second　denomination　is　connected　with　the　fact　that；　in　cases　of　succession　as　well　as　in　those　of　alienation；　the　holding　passed　by　the　ceremonial　action　of　the　steward　handing　a　rod　to　the　person　who　was　to　have　the　land。　Now；　this　formality　looks　characteristic　enough；　it　is　exactly　the　same　as　the　action　of　the　'salman'　in　Frankish　law　where　the　transmission　of　property　is　effected　by　the　handing　of　a　rod　called　'festuca。'　The　important　point　is；　that　the　'salman'　was　by　no　means　a　representative　of　lordship　or　ownership'；　but　the　necessary　middleman　prescribed　by　customary　law；　in　order　to　give　the　transaction　its　consecration　against　all　claims　of　third　persons。　The　Salic　law；　in　its　title　'de　affatomire；'　presents　the　ceremony　in　a　still　earlier　stage：　when　a　man　wants　to　give　his　property　to　another；　he　has　to　call　in　a　middleman　and　witnesses；　into　the　hands　of　this　middleman　he　throws　a　rod　to　show　that　he　relinquishes　all　claim　to　the　property　in　question。　The　middleman　then　behaves　as　owner　and　host；　and　treats　the　witnesses　to　a　meal　in　the　house　and　on　the　land　which　has　been　entrusted　to　him。　The　third　and　last　act　is；　that　this　intermediate　person　passes　on　the　property　to　the　donee　designated　by　the　original　owner；　and　this　by　the　same　formal　act　of　throwing　the　rod。（50*）　The　English　practice　has　swerved　from　the　original；　because　the　office　of　the　middleman　has　lapsed　into　the　hands　of　the　steward。　But　the　Characteristic　handing　of　the　rod　has　well　preserved　the　features　of　the　ancient　'laisuwerpitio'　（'the　throwing　on　to　the　bosom'）；　and；　indeed；　it　can　hardly　be　explained　on　any　other　supposition　but　that　of　a　survival　of　the　practice。　I　beg　the　reader　to　notice　two　points　which　look　decisive　to　me：　the　steward　when　admitting　a　tenant　does　not　use　the　rod　as　a　symbol　of　his　authority；　because　he　does　not　keep　it　　he　gives　it　to　the　person　admitted。　Still　more；　in　the　surrender　the　rod　goes　from　the　peasant…holder　to　the　steward。　Can　there　be　a　doubt　that　it　symbolises　the　plot　of　land；　or　rather　the　right　over　the　plot；　and　that　in　its　passage　from　hand　to　hand　there　is　nothing　to　show　that　the　steward　as　middleman　represents　absolute　ownership；　while　the　peasants　at　both　ends　are　restricted　to　mere　occupation　on　sufferance？（51*）　Is　it　necessary　to　explain　that　these　ceremonial　details　are　not　trifles　from　a　historical　point　of　view？　Their　arrangement　is　not　a　matter　of　chance　but　of　tradition；　and　if　later　generations　use　their　symbols　mechanically；　they　do　not　invent　them　at　haphazard。　Symbols　and　ceremonies　are　but　outward　expressions　of　ideas；　and　therefore　their　combinations　are　ruled　by　a　certain　logic　and　are　instinct　with　meaning。　In　a　sense　their　meaning　is　deeper　and　more　to　be　studied　than　that　supplied　by　theories　expressed　in　so　many　words：　they　give　an　insight　into　a　more　ancient　order　of　things。　It　may　be　asked；　in　concl