vill3-第40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！


he　steward。　One　significant　little　trait　remains　to　be　observed　in　this　context。　it　has　been　noticed　（80*）　that　care　seems　to　be　taken　that　there　should　be　certain　Freemen　or　Franklains　in　every　manor。　The　feature　has　been　mentioned　in　connexion　with　the　doctrine　of　free　suitors　necessary　to　a　court。　But　these　people　are　by　no　means　free　tenants；　in　the　usual　legal　sense　they　are　mostly　holding　in　villainage；　and　their　freedom　must　be　traced　not　to　the　dual　division　of　feudal　times；　but　to　survivals　of　the　threefold　division　which　preceded　feudalism；　and　contrasted　slave；　free　ceorl；　and　military　landowner。　　　　　Before　concluding　this　chapter　I　have　to　say　a　few　words　upon　those　forms　of　the　manorial　court　which　appear　as　a　modification　of　the　normal　institution。　Of　the　ancient　demesne　tribunal　I　have　already　spoken；　but　there　are　several　other　peculiar　formations　which　help　to　bring　out　the　main　ideas　of　manorial　organisation；　just　because　they　swerve　from　it　in　one　sense　or　another。　Mr　Maitland　has　spoken　so　well　of　one　of　these　variations；　that　I　need　not　do　anything　more　than　refer　the　reader　to　his　pages　about　the　Honour　and　its　Court。（81*）　He　has　proved　that　it　is　no　mere　aggregate　of　manors；　but　a　higher　court；　constructed　on　the　feudal　principle；　that　every　lord　who　had　free　tenants　under　him　could　summon　them　to　form　a　court　for　their　common　dealings。　It　ought　to　be　observed；　however；　that　the　instance　of　Broughton；　though　its　main　basis　is　undoubtedly　this　feudal　doctrine；　still　appears　complicated　by　manorial　business；　which　is　brought　in　by　way　of　appeal　and　evocation；　as　well　as　by　a　mixture　between　the　court　of　the　great　fief　and　the　halimot　of　Broughton。　　　　　A　second　phenomenon　well　worth　consideration　is　the　existence　in　some　parts　of　the　country　of　a　unit　of　jurisdiction　and　management　which　does　not　fall　in　with　the　manor；　　it　is　called　the　soke；　and　comprises　free　tenantry　dispersed　sometimes　over　a　very　wide　area。　A　good　example　of　this　institution　is　given　by　Mr　Clark's　publication　on　the　Soke　of　Rothley　in　Lincolnshire。（82*）　We　need　not　go　into　the　details　of　the　personal　status　of　the　tenants；　they　clearly　come　under　the　description　of　free　sokemen。　Our　present　concern　is　that　they　are　not　simply　arranged　into　the　manor　of　Rothley　as　usual；　but　are　distinguished　as　forming　the。　soke　of　this　manor。　They　are　rather　numerous　　twenty…three　　and　come　to　the　lord's　court；　but　their　services　are　trifling　as　compared　with　those　of　the　customers；　and　their　possessions　are　so　scattered；　that　there　could　be　no　talk　of　their　joining　the　agrarian　unit　of　the　central　estate。　What　unites　them　to　the　manor　is　evidently　merely　jurisdiction；　although　in　feudal　theory　they　are　assumed　to　hold　of　the　lord　of　Rothley。　But　they　are　set　apart　as　forming　the　soke；　and　this　shows　them　clearly　to　be　subjected　to　jurisdiction　rather　than　anything　else。　It　is　interesting　to　note　such　survivals　in　the　thirteenth　century；　and　within　the　realm　of　feudal　law　the　case　of　Rothley　is　of　course　by　no　means　the　only　one。（83*）　If　we　contrast　this　exceptional　appearance　of　the　soke　outside　the　manor　with　the　normal　arrangement　by　which　all　the　free　tenants　are　fitted　into　the　manor；　we　shall　come　to　the　conclusion　that　originally　the　element　of　jurisdiction　over　freeholders　might　exist　separately　from　the　management　of　the　estate；　but　that　in　the　general　course　of　events　it　was　merged　into　the　estate　and　formed　one　of　the　component　elements　of　the　manorial　court。　The　case　of　Rothley　is　especially　interesting　because　the　men　of　the　soke　or　under　the　soke　do　not　go　to　a　court　of　their　own；　but　simply　join　the　manorial　meetings。　If　they　are　still　kept　apart；　it　is　evident　that　their　relation　to　the　court；　and　indeed　to　the　manor；　was　what　made　them　distinct　from　everybody　else。　In　short；　to　state　the　difference　in　a　pointed　form；　the　other　people　were　tenants　and　they　were　subjects。　　　　　One　more　point　remains　to　be　noticed。　In　order　to　make　it　clear　we　must　by　way　of　exception　start　from　the　arrangements　of　a　later　epoch　than　that　which　we　have　been　discussing。　The　manor　of　Aston　and　Cote；　which　may　have　been　carved　out　with　several　others　from　the　manor　of　Bampton；　presents　a　very　good　instance　of　a　village　meeting　which　does　not　coincide　with　the　manorial　divisions；　and　appears　constructed　on　the　lines　of　a　village　community　which　has　preserved　its　unity；　although　several　manors　have　grown　out　of　it。　It　was　stated　by　the　lord　of　the　manor　of　Aston　and　Cote　in　1657；　that　'there　hath　been　a　custom　time　out　of　mind　that　a　certain　number　of　persons　called　the　Sixteen；　or　the　greater　part　of　them；　have　used　to　make　orders；　set　penalties；　choose　officers；　and　lot　meadows；　and　do　all　such　things　as　are　usually　performed　or　done　in　the　courts　baron　of　other　manors。'　All　the　details　of　this　case　are　interesting；　but　we　need　not　go　into　them；　because　they　have　been　set　out　with　sufficient　care　in　the　existing　literature；　and　summed　up　by　Mr　Gomme　in　his　book　on　the　Village　Community。（84*）　It　is　the　main　point　which　we　must　consider。　Here　is　an　assembly　meeting　to　transact　legal　and　economic　business；　which　acts　on　the　pattern　of　manorial　courts。　And　if　not　a　manorial　court；　what　is　it？　I　think　it　is　difficult　to　escape　the　conclusion　that　it　is　a　meeting　of　the　village　community　outside　the　lines　of　manorial　division。　The　supposition　that　it　represents　the　old　manor　of　Bampton；　to　which　Aston；　Cote；　Bampton　Pogeys；　Bampton　Priory　are　subordinated；　is　entirely　insufficient　to　explain　the　case；　because　then　we　should　not　have　had　to　recognise　new　manors　in　the　fractions　which　were　detached　from　Bampton；　and　there　would　have　been　no　call　to　speak　of　a　peculiar　assembly　assuming　the　competence　of　a　court　baron　　we　should　have　had　the　manorial　court　and　the　lord　of　Bampton；　and　not　the　Sixteen　to　speak　of。　The　fact　is　patent　and　significant。　It　shows　by　itself　that　there　may　have　been　cases　where　the　village　community　and　the　manor　did　not　coincide；　and　the　village　community　had　the　best　of　it。　　　　　The　first　proposition　does　not　admit　of　doubt。　It　was　of　quite　common　occurrence　that　the　land　of　one　village　should　be　broken　up　between　several　manors；　although　its　open　field　system　and　all　its　husbandry　arrangements　remained　undivided。　The　question　arises；　how　was　that　system　to　work？　There　could　be　express　agreement　between　the　owners；（85*）　ancient　custom　and　the　interference　of　manorial　officers　chosen　from　the　different　parts　could　help　on　many　occasions。　But　it　is　impossible　to　suppose；　in　the　light　of　the　Bampton　instance；　that　meetings　might　not　sometimes　exist　in　such　divided　villages　which　took　into　their　hands　the　management　of　the　many　economic　questions　arising　out　of　common　husbandry：　questions　about　hedges；　rotation　of　crops；　commonable　animals；　usage　as　to　wood；　moor；　pasture；　and　so　forth。　A　diligent　search　in　the　customs　of　manors　at　a　later　period；　say　in　the　sixteenth　and　seventeenth　centuries；　must　certainly　disclose　a　number　of　similar　instances。　Our　own　material　does　not　help　us；　because　it　passes　over　questions　of　husbandry；　and　touches　merely　jurisdiction；　ownership；　and　tenant…right。　And　so　we　must　restrict　ourself　to　notice　the　opening　for　an　inquiry　in　that　direction。　　　　　Such　an　inquiry　must　also　deal　with　the　converse　possibility；　namely；　the　cases　in　which　the　manor　is　so　large　that　several　village　units　fit　into　it。　We　may　find　very　frequently　in　some　parts　of　the　country　large　manors　which　are　composed　of　several　independent　villages　and　hamlets。（86*）　On　large　tracts　of　land　these　villages　would　form　separate　open　field　groups。　Although　the　economic　evidence　is　not　within　our　reach　in　early　times；　we　have　indications　of　separate　village　meetings　under　the　manorial　court　even　from　the　legal　point　of　view　taken　by　the　court…rolls。　In　several　instances　the　entries　printed　in　the　second　volume　of　the　Selden　Society　publications　point　to　the　action　of　townships　as　distinct　from　the　manorial　court；　and　placed　under　it。　In　Broughton　a　man　distrained　for　default　puts　himself　on　the　verdict　of　the　whole　court　and　of　the　township　of　Hurst；　both　villains　and　freemen；　that　he　owes　no　suit　to　the　court　of　Broughton；　save　twice　a　year　and　to　afforce　the　court。　Be　it　noted　that　the　court　of　Hurst　is　distinguished　from　the　township；　which　appears　subordinated　to　it；　probably　because　there　were　other　townships　in　the　manor　of　Hurst。　At　the　same　time　the　township　is　called　upon　to　act　as　an　independent　unit　in　the　matter。　Even　so　in　the　rolls　of　Hemingford；　the　township　which　forms　the　centre　of　the　manor　and　gives　its　name　to　it；　is　sometimes　singled　out　from　the　rest　of　the　court　as　an　organised　corporation。（87*）　When　township　and　tithing　coincided；　as　in　the　case　of　Brightwaltham；　the　tithing　gets　opposed　to　the　general　court　in　the　same　way。（88*）　Altogether　the　corporate　unity　of　townships　is　well　perceivable　behind　the　feudal　covering　of　the　manor。　Mr　Maitland　says　with　perfect　right；　'the　manor　was　not　a　unit　in　the　governmental　system；　the　county　was　such　a　unit；　so　was　the　hundred。　So　again　was　the　vill；　for　the　township　had　many　police　duties　to　perform；　it　was　an　amerciable；　punishable　unit；　not　so　the　manor；　unless　it　coincided　with　the　vill。'（89*）