vill2-第44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！


hing　about　'molmen；'　'gavelmen；'　or　'censuarii；'　They　keep　to　the　plain　distinction　between　free　and　bond。　Nevertheless；　all　these　groups　exist　in　practice；　and　are　constantly　growing　in　consequence　of　commutation。　The　whole　law　of　status　gets　transformed　by　their　growth　as　the　law　of　tenure　gets　transformed　by　the　growth　of　leases。　Molmen；　though　treated　as　villains　by　Royal　courts；　are　already　recognised　as　more　'free'　than　the　villains　by　manorial　juries。　The　existence　of　such　groups　testifies　to　something　more　than　a　precarious　passage　from　service　to　rent；　namely　to　a　change　from　servile　subjection　to　a　status　closely　resembling　that　of　peasant　freeholders；　and　actually　leading　up　to　it。　In　one　word；　our　manorial　records　give　ample　notice　of　the　growth　of　a　system　based　on　free　contract　and　not　on　customary　labour。　But　the　old　forms　of　tenure　and　service　are　still　existent　in　law；　and　the　contradiction　involved　in　this　fact　is　not　merely　a　technical　one：　it　lies　at　the　root　of　the　revolutionary　movement　at　the　close　of　the　fourteenth　century。　In　this　manner　facts　were　slowly　paving　the　way　towards　a　modification　of　the　law。　But　now；　turning　from　what　is　in　the　future；　to　what　is　in　the　past；　let　us　try　to　collect　those　indications　which　throw　light　on　the　condition　of　things　preceding　feudal　law　and　organisation。　　　　　The　one…sided　conception　of　feudal　law　builds　up　the　entire　structure　of　social　divisions　on　the　principle　of　the　lord's　will。　Custom；　however　sacred；　is　not　equivalent　to　actionable　right；　and　a　person　who　has　nothing　but　custom　to　lean　upon　is　supposed　to　be　at　the　will　and　mercy　of　his　lord　and　of　base　or　servile　condition；　But　we　find　even　in　the　domain　of　legal　doctrine　other　notions　less　convenient　for　the　purpose　of　classification；　and　more　adapted　to　the　practice　of　daily　life。　Servile　persons　and　servile　land　are　known　from　the　nature　of　the　services　to　which　they　are　subject。　This　test　is　applied　in　two　directions：　（1）　regular　rural　work；　'with　pitch…fork　and　flail；'　is　considered　servile；　and　this　would　exclude　the　payment　of　rents　and　occasional　help　in　the　performance　of　agricultural　labour；　（2）　certain　duties　are　singled　out　as　marking　servitude　because　they　imply　the　idea　of　one　person　being　owned　by　another；　and　this　would　exclude　subjection　derived　from　the　possession　of　land；　however　burdensome　and　arbitrary　such　subjection　might　be。　　　　　Turning　next　to　manorial　records；　we　find　these　abortive　features　of　feudal　law　resting　on　a　very　broad　basis。　Only　that　land　is　considered　servile　which　owes　labour；　if　it　renders　nothing　but　rent　it　is　termed　free。　We　have　here　no　mere　commutation：　the　notion　is　an　old　one；　and　rather　driven　back　by　later　law　than　emerging　from　it。　It　is　natural　enough　that　the　holder　of　a　plot　is　considered　free　if　his　relations　with　the　lord　are　restricted　to　occasional　appearances　at　court；　occasional　fines；　and　the　payment　of　certain　rents　two　or　three　times　a　year。　It　is　natural　enough　that　the　holder　of　another　plot　should　be　treated　as　a　serf　because　he　is　bound　to　perform　work　which　is　fitted　as　a　part　into　the　arrangement　of　his　lord's　husbandry；　and　constantly　brought　under　the　control　and　the　coercive　power　of　the　steward。　This　matter…of…fact　contrast　comes　naturally　to　the　fore　in　documents　which　are　drawn　up　as　descriptions　of　daily　transactions　and　not　as　evidence　for　a　lawsuit。　But　the　terms　'free'　and　'servile'　are　not　used　lightly　even　in　such　documents。　We　may　be　sure　that　manorial　juries　and　bailiffs　would　not　have　been　allowed　to　displace　at　their　pleasure　terminological　distinctions　which　might　lead　people　to　alter　their　legal　position。　The　double　sense　of　these　terms　cannot　be　taken　as　arranging　society　under　the　same　two　categories　and　yet　in　two　entirely　different　ways：　it　must　be　construed　as　implying　the　two　sides　of　one　and　the　same　thing；　the　substance　in　manorial　records　and　the　formal　distinction　in　legal　records。　That　is　to　say；　when　the　test　of　legal　protection　was　applied；　the　people　who　had　to　perform　labour　were　deprived　of　it　and　designated　as　holding　in　villainage；　and　to　the　people　who　paid　rent　protection　was　granted　and　they　were　considered　as　holding　freely。　For　this　very　reason　the　process　of　commutation　creating　mol…land　actually　led　to　an　increase　in　the　number　of　free　tenancies。（3*）　　　　　The　courts　made　some　attempts　to　utilise　personal　subjection　as　a　distinctive　feature　of　born　villains。　If　it　had　been　possible　to　follow　out　the　principle；　we　should　have　been　able　to　distinguish　between　villains　proper　and　men　of　free　blood　holding　in　villainage。　The　attempt　miscarried　in　practice；　although　the　King's　courts　were　acting　in　this　case　in　conjunction　with　local　custom　and　local　juries。　The　reason　of　the　failure　is　disclosed　by　manorial　documents。　Merchet；　the　most　debasing　incident　of　personal　villainage；　appears　so　widely　spread　in　the　Hundred　Rolls　that　there　can　be　no　question；　at　least　at　the　close　of　the　thirteenth　century；　of　treating　it　as　a　sure　test　of　personal　subjection。　We　cannot　admit　even　for　one　moment　that　the　whole　peasant　population　of　entire　counties　was　descended　from　personal　slaves；　as　the　diffusion　of　merchet　would　lead　us　to　suppose。　The　appearance　of　the　distinction　is　quite　as　characteristic　as　its　gradual　collapse。　The　original　idea　underlying　it　was　to　connect　villain　status　with　personal　slavery；　and　it　failed　because　the　incidents　of　personal　slavery　were　confused　with　other　facts　which　were　quite　independent　of　it　and　which　were　expanded　over　a　very　large　area　instead　of　a　very　restricted　one。　　　　　And　now　we　have　ready　the　several　links　of　one　chain。　The　three　tests　of　serfdom　applied　by　our　documents　are　connected　with　each　other　by　the　very　terms　in　which　they　are　stated；　and　at　the　same　time　they　present　three　consecutive　stages　of　development。　The　notion　of　serfdom　is　originally　confined　to　forms　of　personal　subjection　and　to　the　possession　of　land　under　the　bane　of　personal　subjection：　in　this　sense　servitude　is　a　narrow　term；　and　the　condition　denoted　by　it　is　exceptional。　In　its　second　meaning　it　connects　itself　with　rural　labour　and　spreads　over　the　whole　class　of　peasants　engaged。　in　it。　In　its　last　and　broadest　sense　it　includes　all　the　people　and　all　the　land　not　protected　by　the　Common　Law。　We　have　no　evidence　as　to　the　chronological　landmarks　between　these　several　epochs；　and　it　is　clear　that　the　passage　from　one　to　another　was　very　gradual；　and　by　no　means　implied　the　absolute　disappearance　of　ancient　terms。　But　it　seems　hardly　doubtful　that　the　movement　was　effected　in　the　direction　described；　both　the；　intrinsic　evidence　of　the　notions　under　discussion　and　their　appearance　in　our　documents　point　this　way。　　　　　This　being　so；　we　may　expect　to　find　some　traces　of　the　gradual　spread　of　serfdom　in　the　subdivisions　of　that　comprehensive　class　called　villainage。　And；　indeed；　there　are　unmistakable　signs　of　the　fact　that　the　flood　was　rising　slowly　and　swamping　the　several　groups　of　the　peasantry　which　hitherto　had　been　of　very　various　conditions。　The　Domesday　classification　will　have　to　be　discussed　by　itself；　but　it　may　be　noticed　even　now　that　its　fundamental　features　are　the　distinction　between　serfs　and　villains；　and　the　very　limited　number　of　these　first。　Judging　by　this；　the　bulk　of　the　peasantry　was　not　considered　unfree。　The　inference　is　corroborated　for　the　epoch　of　the　early　Norman　kings　by　the　laws　of　Henry　I；　in　which　the　villain　is　still　treated　on　the　same　footing　as　the　ceorl　of　Saxon　times；　is　deemed　'worthy　of　his　were　and　of　his　wite；'　and　is　called　as　a　free　man　to　the　hundred　court；　although　not　a　landlord；　'teirrarum　dominus。'　The　hundredors　of　later　times　kept　up　the　tradition：　degraded　in　many　ways；　they　were　still　considered　as　representatives　of　a　free　population。　Ancient　demesne　tenure　is　another　proof　of　the　same　freedom　in　villainage；　it　is　protected　though　base；　and　supposes　independent　rights　on　the　part　of　the　peasantry。　The　position　of　the　group　of　socmen　outside　the　ancient　demesne　points　the　same　way：　their　tenure　is　originally　nothing　more　and　nothing　less　than　a　customary　freehold　or　a　free　copyhold；　if　one　may　say　so。　The　law　of　Kent　is　constructed　on　this　very　basis：　it　is　the　law　of　free　ceorls　subjected　to　a　certain　manorial　authority　which　has　not　been　able　to　strike　very　deep　roots　in　this　soil。　　　　　But　the　general　current　went　Steadily　against　the　peasantry。　The　disruption　of　political　unity　at　the　time　of　the　great　civil　war；　and　the　systematic　resumption　of　royal　rights　by　Henry　II；　must　have　led　to　a　settlement　which　impaired　the　social　standing　of　the　villain　in　the　sense　of　feudal　law。　The　immediate　connexion　between　the　lower　class　and　the　royal　power　could　not　be　kept　up　during　the　troubled　reign　of　Stephen；　when　England　all　but　lapsed　into　the　political　dismemberment　of　the　neighbouring　continental　states。　Government　and　law　were　restored　by　Henry　II；　but　he　had　to　set　a　limit　to　his　sphere　of　action　in　order　that　within　that　sphere　he　might　act　efficiently。　The　very　growth　of　the　great　system　of　royal　writs　necessitated　the　drawing　a　sharp　line　between　the　people　admitted　to　use　them　and　those　excluded　from　this　benefit。　One　part　of　the　revolution　effe