vill2-第9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！
f may have been； it was entirely bound up with the manorial organisation。 As soon as the villain had got out of its boundaries he was regularly treated as a free man and protected in the enjoyment of liberty so long as his servile status had not been proved。* Such protection was a legal necessity； a necessary complement to the warranty offered by the state to its real free men。 There could be no question of allowing the lord to seize on any person whom he thought fit to claim as his serf。 And； again； if the political power inherent in the manor gave the lord A great privileges and immunities as to the people living under his sway； this same manorial power began to tell against him as soon as such people had got under the sway of lord B or within the privileged town C The dependant could be effectually coerced only if he got back to his unfree nest again or through the means of such kinsfolk as he had left in the unfree nest。* And so the settlement of disputed rights connected with status brings home forcibly two important positions： first the theory of personal subjection is modified in its legal application by influence in favour of liberty； and next this influence is not to be traced exclusively to moral and intellectual progress； but must be accounted for to a great extent by peculiarities in the political structure of feudalism。 One point remains to be investigated in the institution of villainage； namely modes in which a villain might become free。 I have had occasion to notice the implied manumission which followed from a donation of land to a bondman and his heirs； which in process of time was extended to all contracts and concords between a lord and his serf。 A villain was freed also； as is well known； by remaining for a year and a day on the privileged soil of a crown manor or a chartered town。* As to direct manumission； its usual mode was the grant of a charter by which the lord renounced all rights as to the person of his villain。 Traces of other and more archaic customs may have survived in certain localities； but； if so； they were quite exceptional。 Manumission is one of the few subjects touched by Glanville in the doctrine of villainage； and he is very particular as to its conditions and effects。 He says that a serf cannot buy his freedom； because he has no money or goods of his own。 His liberty may be bought by a third person however； and his lord may liberate him as to himself； but not as regards third persons。 There seems to be a want of clearness in； if not some contradiction between these two last statements； because one does not see how manumission by a stranger could possibly be wider than that effected by the lord。 Again； the whole position of a freed man who remains a serf as regards everybody but his lord is very difficult to realize； even if one does not take the later view into account； which is exactly the reverse； namely that a villain is free against everybody but his lord。 I may be allowed to start a conjecture which will find some support in a later chapter； when we come to speak about the treatment of freedom and serfdom in manorial documents。 It seems to me that Glanville has in mind liberation de facto from certain duties and customs； such as agricultural work for instance； or the payment of merchet。 Such liberation would not amount to raising the status of a villain； although it would put him on a very different footing as to his lord。* However this may be； if from Glanville's times we come down to Bracton and to his authorities； we shall find all requirements changed； but distinct traces of the former view still lingering in occasional decisions and practices。 There are frequent cases of villains buying their freedom with their own money；* but the practice of selling them for manumission to a stranger is mentioned both in Bracton's Treatise* and in his Notebook。 A decision of 1226 distinctly repeats Glanville's teaching that a man may liberate his serf as to himself and not as to others。 The marginal note in the Notebook very appropriately protests against such a view； which is certainly quite inconsistent with later practice。* Such flagrant contradictions between authorities which are separated barely by some sixty or seventy years； and on points of primary importance too； can only tend to strengthen the inference previously drawn from other facts that the law on the subject was by no means square and settled even by the time of Bracton； but was in every respect in a state of transition。
NOTES：
1。 Littleton； sect。 188。
2。 Bracton； ff。 5； 193； b。
3。 I need not say that there were very notable variations in the history of the Roman rule itself （cf for instance； Puchta； Institutionen； 211）； but these do not concern us； as we are taking the Roman doctrine as broadly as it was taken by medieval lawyers。
4。 Mater certa est。 Gai。 Inst。 I。 82。 3 See Fitz。 Abr。 Villenage； pl。 5 （43 Edw。 III）： 'Ou il allege bastardise pur ceo qe si son auncestor fuit bastard il ne puit estre villein； sinon par connusance。' There was a special reason for turning the tables in favour of bastardy； which is hinted at in this case。 The bastard's parents could not be produced against a bastard。 He had no father； and his mother would be no proof against him because she was a woman ＇Fitz。 Abr。 Vill。 37 （13 Edw。 I）； Par ce qe la feme ne puit estre admise pur prove par lour fraylte et ausi cest qi est demaunde est pluiz digne person qe un feme＇。 It followed strictly that he could be a villain by confession； but not by birth。 The fact is a good instance of the insoluble contradictions in which feudal law sometimes involved itself。
5。 Bracton； f 5： 'Servus ratione qui se copulaverit villanae in villenagio constitutae。' Bract。 Note…book； 1839： 'Juratores dicunt quod predictus Aluredus habuit duos fratres Hugonem ＇medium＇ medio tempore natum et Gilibertum postnatum qui nunc petit； set Hugo cepit quamdam terram in uillenagio et duxit uxorem ＇uillanam＇ et in uillenagio illo procreauit quemdam filium qui ad huc superest。。。。 Et bene dicunt quod。。。 Iste Gilibertus propinquior heres eius est； ea racione quod filius Hugonis genitus fuit in uillenagio。' 2 Y。B。 30/31 Edw。 I； p。 167 sqq。： 'Usage de Cornwall est cecy qe la ou neyfe deyt estre marier hors de maner ou ele est reseant； qe ele trovera seurte。。。 de revenir a son ny ov ses chateux apres la mort de son baroun。' Bracton； f。 26； 'Quasi avis in nido。'
6。 Bract。 Note…book； pl。 702： 'Nota quod libera femina maritata uillano non recuperat partem alicuius hereditatis quamdiu uillanus uixerit。'
7。 Bract。 Note…book； pl。 1837： 'Nota quod mulier que est libera uel in statu libero saltem ad minus non debet disseisiri quin recuperare possit per assisam quamuis nupta fuerit uillano set hereditatem petere non poterit。' Bract。 Note…book； pl。 1010： 'Et uillani mori poterunt per quod predicte sorores petere possint ius suum。' Fitzherb。 Villen。 27 （P。 7 Edw。 II。）： 'Les femmes sont sans recouverie vers le seignior uiuant leur barons pur ce que ils sont villens。' Cf Bracton； f 202。
8。 Another instance of the influence of marriage on the condition of con tracting parties is afforded by the enfranchisement of the wife in certain cases。 The common law was； however； by no means settled as to this point。 Y。 B。 30/31 Edw。 I； p。 I67 sqq。： 'La ou le seygnur espouse sa neyfe； si est enfranchi pur tozjurs； secus est la ou un homme estrange ly espose； qe donk nest ele enfraunchi si non vivant Son baroun； et post mortem viri redit ad pristinum statum。' Fitzherb。 Vill。 21 （P。 33 Edw。 III）： 'Si home espouse femme qe est son villein el est franke durant les espousailles。 Mes quand son baron est mort el est in statu quo prius； et issint el puis estre villein a son fils demesne。' It is quite likely that gentlemen sometimes got into a state of moral bondage to their own bondwomen； and were even led to marriage in a few instances； but the law had not much to feed upon in this direction； I imagine。
9。 Fitzherbert； Vill。 24 （H。 50 Edw。 III； P。 40 Edw。 III； 17）： 'Si home demurt en terre tenue en villenage de temps dount； etc。； il sera villen； et est bon prescripcion et encountre tel prescripcion est bon ple a dire qe son pere ou ayle fuit adventiffe；' etc。 I suppose ayle here to be a simple error for ayl or ael； grandfather。
10。 Cambridge Univ。； Dd。 vij。 6； f 231： 'Nota de tempore quo servus dicere poterit quia fecerlt consuetudines villanas racione tenementi non racione persone。 Et sciendum； quod quamdiu servus poterit verificare stipitem suam liberam non dicitur nativus； set quam citius dominus dlcere poterit villicus noster est ex auo et tritauo； tunc primo desinit gaudere replicacione omnimoda et privilegio libertatis racione stipitis； ut si A。 primo ingressus villenagium tenuerit de F。 per villana servitia； deinde B。 filius A。； deinde C。 filius B。； deinde D。 filius C。； et sic tenuerint in villenagium de gradu in gradum usque ad quartum gradum de F。 et heredibus suis； ille uillanus inuentus in quinto gradu descendente natiuus dicitur。' I am indebted for this passage to the kindness of Prof Maitland。
11。 Britton； i。 196； 206。
12。 Hale； Pleas of the Crown （ed。 1736）； ii。 298； gives an interesting record from Edward I's reign； which shows that even the general theory was doubtful；
13。 Dial
