vill2-第29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！
give a year's rent； but in some instances the heir must settle with the lord at the latter's will； or ransom the land as a stranger； that is by a separate agreement in each single case。（73*） Fixed sums occur also； and they vary accord ing to the size and quality of the holding。（74*） On the boundary between personal subjection and political subordination we find the liability of the peasantry to pay tallage。 It could be equally deduced from the principle that a villain has nothing of his own and may be exploited at will by his master or from the political grant of the power of taxation to the representative of feudal privilege。 the payment of arbitrary tallage is held during the thirteenth century to imply a servile status。（75*） Such tallage at will is not found very often in the documents； although the lord sometimes retained his prerogative in this respect even when sanctioning the customary forms of renders and services。 Now and then it is mentioned that the tallage is to be levied once a year；（76*） although the amount remains uncertain。 As a holder of political power the lord has a right to inflict fines and amercements on transgressors。（77*） The Court…rolls are full of entries about such payments； and it seems that one of the reasons why very great stress was laid on attendance at the manorial Courts was connected with the liability to all sorts of impositions that was enforced by means of these gatherings。 tenants had to attend and to make presentments； to elect officers； and to serve on juries； and in every case where there was a default or an irregularity of any kind； fines flowed into the lord's exchequer。 Lastly； we may classify under the head of political exactions； monopolies and privileges such as those which were called banalites in France： they were imposed on the peasantry by the strong hand； although there was no direct connexion between them and the exercise of any particular function of the State。 English medieval documents often refer to the privileged mill； to which all the villains and sometimes the freemen of the Soke were bound to bring their corn。（78*） there is also the manorial fold in which all the sheep of the township had to be enclosed。（79*） In the latter case the landlord profited by the dung for manuring his land。 Special attention was bestowed on supervising the making of beer。 Court…rolls constantly speak of persons fined for brewing without licence。 Every now and then we come across the wondrous habit of collecting all the villagers on fixed days and making them drink Scotale；（80*） that is ale supplied by the lord for a good price； of course。 Let us pass now to those aspects of manorial usage which are directly connected with the mode of holding land。 I may repeat what I said before； that it would be out of the question to draw anything like a hard and fast line between these different sides of one subject。 How intimately the personal relation may be bound up with the land may be gathered； among other things； from the fact that there existed an oath of fealty which in many places was obligatory on villains when entering into possession of a holding。 This oath； though connected with tenure； bears also on the personal relation to the lord。（81*） The oath of fealty taken by the tenant in villainage differed from that taken by the freeholder in that it contained the words； 'I will be justified by you in body and goods；' and again the tenant in villainage； though he swore fealty； did no homage； the relationship between him and his lord was not a merely feudal relationship； the words； 'I become your man；' would have been out of place； and there could be no thought of the lord kissing his villain。 But however intimate the connexion between both aspects of the question； in principle the tenure was quite distinct from the status； and could influence the condition of people who were personally free from any taint of servility。 The legal definition of villainage as unfree tenure does not take into account the services or economic quality of the tenure； and lays stress barely on the precarious character of the holding。（82*） The owner may take it away when he pleases； and alter its condition at will。 The Abingdon Chronicle tells us （83*） that before the time of Abbot Faritius it was held lawful on the manors of the Abbey to drive the peasants away from their tenements。 The stewards and bailiffs often made use of this right； if anybody gave them a fee out of greed； or out of spite against the holder。 Nor was there any settled mode of succession； and when a man died； his wife and children were pitilessly thrown out of their home in order to make place for perfect strangers。 An end was put to such a lawless condition of things by Faritius' reforms： he was very much in want of money； and found it more expedient to substitute a settled custom for the disorderly rule of the stewards。 But he did not renounce thereby any of his manorial rights： he only regulated their application。 The legal feature of base tenure its insecurity was not abolished on the Abingdon estates。 Our documents sometimes go the length of explaining that particular plots are held without any sort of security against dispossession。 We find such remarks in the Warwickshire Hundred Rolls for instance。（84*） Sometimes the right is actually enforced： in the Cartulary of Dunstable Priory we have the record of an exchange between two landlords； in consequence of which the peasants were removed from eight hides of land by one of the contracting parties。（85*） The villain is in no way to be considered as the owner of the plot of land he occupies； his power of disposing of it is stinted accordingly； and he is subjected to constant control from the real owner。 He cannot fell timber。 oaks and elms are reserved to the lord。（86*） He cannot change the cultivation of the land of his own accord； it would be out of the question； for instance； to turn a garden…close into arable without asking for a licence。（87*） He is bound to keep hedges and ditches in good order； and is generally responsible for any deterioration of his holding。 When he enters into possession of it； he has to find a pledge that he will perform his duties in a satisfactory manner。（88*） There can be no thought of a person so situated alienating the land by an act of his own will； he must surrender it into the hand of the lord； and the latter grants it to the new holder after the payment of a fine。 The same kind of procedure is followed when a tenement is passed to the right heir in the lifetime of the former possessor。（89*） A default in paying rents or in the performance of services； and any other transgression against the interests of the lord； may lead to forfeiture。（90*） The lord takes also tenements into his hand in the way of escheat； in the absence of heirs。 Court…rolls constantly mention plots which have been resumed in this way by the lord。（91*） The homage has to report to the steward as to all changes of occupation； and as to the measures which are thought necessary to promote the interests of the landowner and of the tenantry。（92*） As to the treatment of tenure 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 a
