vill3-第30章

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！


s　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　conclusion；　why　a　Frankish　form　should　be　found　prevalent　in　the　customary　arrangement　of　the　English　manorial　system？　The　fact　will　hardly　appear　strange　when　we　consider；　firstly；　that　the　symbolical　acts　of　investiture　and　conveyancing　were　very　similar　in　Old　English　and　Old　Frankish　law；（52*）　and　that　many　practices　of　procedure　were　imported　into　England　from　France；　through　the　medium　of　Normandy。　It　is　impossible　at　the　present　date　to　trace　conclusively　the　ceremonies　of　surrender　and　admittance　in　all　their　varieties　and　stages　of　development；　but　the　most　probable　course　of　progress　seems　to　have　been　a　passage　from　symbolical　investiture　in　the　folk…law　of　free　English　ceorls　through　the　Frankish　practice　of　'affatomire；'　to　the　feudal　ceremony　of　surrender　and　admittance　by　the　steward。　　　　　And　now　let　us　take　up　the　second　thread　of　our　inquiry　into　the　manorial　forms　of　conveyancing。　A　tenant　by　the　verge　is　also　a　tenant　by　copy　of　court　roll。　The　steward　who　presided　at　the　court　had　to　keep　a　record　of　its　proceedings；　and　this　record　had　a　primary　importance　for　the　servile　portion　of　the　community。　While　the　free　people　could　enter　into　agreements　and　perform　legal　acts　in　their　own　name　and　by　charter；　the　villains　had　to　content　themselves　with　ceremonial　actions　before　the　court。　They　were　faithful　in　this　respect　to　old　German　tradition；　while　the　privileged　people　followed　precedents　which　may　be　ultimately　traced　to　a　Roman　origin。　The　court　roll　or　record　of　manorial　courts　enabled　the　base　tenant　to　show；　for　instance；　that　some　piece　of　land　was　his　although　he　had　no　charter　to　produce　in　proof　of　his　contention。　And　we　find　the　rolls　appealed　to　constantly　in　the　course　of　manorial　litigation。（53*）　But　the　rolls　were　nothing　else　than　records　of　actions　in　the　court　and　before　the　court。　They　could　actually　guide　the　decision；　but　their　authority　was　not　independent；　it　was　merely　derived　from　the　authority　of　the　court。　For　this　reason　the　evidence　of　the　rolls；　although　very　valuable；　was　by　no　means　indispensable。　A　claimant　could　go　past　them　to　the　original　fount；　that　is；　to　the　testimony　of　the　court。　And　here　we　must　keep　clear　of　a　misconception　suggested　by　a　first…sight　analysis　of　the　facts　at　hand。　It　would　seem　that　the　verdict　of　neighbours；　to　which　debateable　claims　are　referred　to　in　the　manorial　courts；　stands　exactly　on　a　par　with　the　verdicts　of　jury　men　taken　by　the　judges　of　the　Royal　Courts。　This　is　not　so；　however。　It　is　true　that　the　striving　of　manorial　officers　to　make　the　procedure　of　halimotes　as　much　like　the　common　law　procedure　as　possible；　went　far　to　produce　similarity　between　forms　of　actions；　presentments；　verdicts　and　juries；　in　both　sets　of　tribunals。　But　nevertheless；　characteristic　distinctions　remained　to　show　that　the　import　of　some　institutions　brought　near　each　other　in　this　way　was　widely　different。　I　have　said　already　that　the　peasant　suitors　of　the　halimote　are　appealed　to　on　questions　of　law　as　well　as　on　questions　of　fact。　But　the　most　important　point　for　our　present　purpose　is　this：　the　jurors　called　to　substantiate　the　claim　of　a　party　in　a　trial　are　mere　representatives　of　the　whole　court。　The　testimony　of　the　court　is　taken　indirectly　through　their　means；　and　very　often　resort　is　had　to　that　testimony　without　the　intermediate　stage　of　a　jury。　Now　this　is　by　no　means　a　trifle　from　the　point　of　view　of　legal　analysis。　The　grand　and　petty　juries　of　the　common　law　are　means　of　information；　and　nothing　more。　They　form　no　part　of　the　tribunal；　strictly　speaking；　the　court　is　constituted　by　the　judges；　the　lawyers　commissioned　by　the　king；　who　adopt　this　method　in　investigating　the　facts　before　them；　because　a　knowledge　of　the　facts　at　issue；　and　an　understanding　of　local　conditions　surrounding　them；　is　supposed　to　reside　naturally　in　the　country　where　the　facts　have　taken　place。（54*）　Historically　the　institution　is　evolved　from　examinations　of　witnesses　and　experts；　and　has　branched　off　in　France　into　the　close　formalism　of　inquisitorial　process。　The　manorial　jury；　on　the　other　hand；　represents　the　court；　and　interchanges　with　it。（55*）　For　this　reason；　we　may　speak　directly　of　the　court　instead　of　treating　of　its　delegates。　And　if　the　verdict　of　the　court　is　taken；　it　is　not　on　account　of　the　chance　knowledge；　the　presumable　acquaintance　of　the　suitors　with　facts　and　conditions；　but　as　a　living　remembrance　of　what　took　place　before　this　same　court；　or　as　a　re…assertion　of　its　power　of　regulating　the　legal　standing　of　the　community。　The　verdict　of　the　suitors　is　only　another　form　of　the　entry　on　the　rolls；　and　both　are　means　of　securing　the　continuity　of　an　institution　and　not　merely　of　providing　information　to　outsiders。　Of　course；　claims　may　not　be　always　reduced　to　such　elementary　forms　that　they　can　be　decided　by　a　mere　reference　to　memory；　the　memory　of　the　constituted　body　of　the　court。　A　certain　amount　of　reasoning　and　inference　may　be　involved　in　their　settlement；　a　set　of　juridical　doctrines　is　necessary　to　provide　the　general　principles　of　such　reasoning。　And　in　both　respects　the　manorial　court　is　called　upon　to　act。　It　is　considered　as　the　repositary　of　legal　lore；　and　the　exponent　of　its　applications。　This　means　that　the　court　is；　what　its　name　implies；　a　tribunal　and　not　a　set　of　private　persons　called　upon　to　assist　a　judge　by　their　knowledge　of　legal　details　or　material　facts。（56*）　　　　　The　whole　exposition　brings　us　back　to　a　point　of　primary　importance。　The　title　by　which　land　is　held　according　to　manorial　custom　is　derived　from　communal　authority　quite　as　much　as　from　the　lord's　grant。　Without　stepping　out　of　the　feudal　evidence　into　historical　inquiry；　we　find　that　civil　arrangements　of　the　peasantry　are　based　on　acts　performed　through　the　agency　of　the　steward；　and　before　the　manorial　court；　which　has　a　voice　in　the　matter　and　vouches　for　its　validity　and　remembrance。　The　'full　court'　is　noticed　in　the　records　as　quite　as　necessary　an　element　in　the　conveyancing　business　as　the　lord　and　his　steward；　although　the　legal。　theory　of　modern　ti