vill3-第15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！


rms　another　germ　of　a　necessary　contrast　between　the　two　classes　which　afterwards　developed　into　common　appendant　and　common　appurtenant。　It　could　not　be　brought　under　the　same　rules　as　those　which　flowed　from　the　internal　arrangement　of　the　manor。　A　special　difficulty　attended　it　as　to　admeasurement：　the　customary　treatment　of　other　holdings　could　not　in　this　case　serve　as　a　standard。　The　very　laxity　of　the　principle　naturally　gave　occasion　to　very　different　interpretations　and　deductions。　And　so　we　are　justified　in　saying；　that　the　chief　distinctions　of　later　law　are　to　be　found　in　their　substance　in　the　thirteenth　century；　and　that　although　a　good　deal　of　confusion　occurs　in　details；　the　earlier　documents　give　even　better　clues　than　the　later　to　the　reasons　which　led　to　the　well…known　classification。　　　　　Common　appendant；　if　we　may　use　the　modern　term　for　the　sake　of　brevity；　is　indissolubly　connected　with　the　system　of　husbandry　followed　by　the　village　community。　A　very　noticeable　feature　of　it　is；　that；　in　one　sense；　it　towers　over　the　lord　of　the　manor　as　well　as　over　the　tenants。　Of　course；　legally　the　lord　is　considered　as　the　owner　of　the　waste；（23*）　but　even　from　the　point　of　view　of　pure　law　his　ownership　is　restricted　by　his　own　grants。　in　so　much　as　he　has　conceded　freehold　tenements　to　certain　persons；　he　is　bound　by　his　own　deed　not　to　withhold　from　these　persons　the　necessary　adjuncts　of　such　tenements；　and　especially　the　rights　of　pasture　bound　up　with　them。　The　free　tenants　share　with　the　lord；　if　he　wants　to　turn　his　common　pasture　to　some　special　and　lucrative　use；　if；　for　instance；　strangers　are　admitted　to　it　for　money；　one　part　of　the　proceeds　goes　to　the　tenantry。（24*）　Again；　the　lord　may　not　overburden　the　common；　and　sometimes　freeholders　try　their　hand　at　litigation　against　the　lord　on　the　ground　that　he　sends　his　cattle　to　some　place　where　they　ought　not　to　go。（25*）　The　point　cannot　be　overlooked；　that　the　lord　of　the　manor　appears　subjected　to　certain　rules　set　up　by　custom　and　common　decision　in　the　meetings　of　his　tenantry。　The　number　and　kind　of　beasts　which　may　come　to　the　common　from　his　land　is　fixed；　as　well　as　the　number　that　may　come　from　the　land　of　a　cottager。（26*）　The　freeholders　alone　can　enforce　the　rule　against　him；　but　it　is　set　up　not　by　the　freeholders；　but　by　the　entire　community　of　the　manor；　and　practically　by　the　serfs　more　than　by　the　freeholders；　because　they　are　so　much　more　numerous。　　　　　As　the　common　of　pasture　appears　as　an　outcome　of　a　system　of　husbandry　set　up　by　the　village　community；　so　every　change　in　the　use　of　the　pasture　ought　in　the　natural　course　to　proceed　from　a　decision　of　this　community。　Such　a　change　may　be　effected　in　one　of　two　manners：　the　customary　rotation　of　crops　may　be　altered；　or　else　a　part　of　the　waste　may　be　reclaimed　for　tillage。　In　the　first　case；　a　portion　of　the　open　arable　and　meadow；　which　ought　to　have　been　commonable　at　a　certain　time；　ceases　to　be　so；　in　the　second；　the　right　to　send　cattle　to　the　waste　is　stinted　in　so　much　as　the　arable　is　put　under　defence；　or　the　land　is　used　for　the　construction　of　dwellings。　By　the　common　law　the　free　tenants　alone　could　obtain　a　remedy　for　any　transgression　in　this　respect。　I　have　mentioned　already　that　suits　frequently　arose　when　the　old…fashioned　rotation　of　crops　was　modified　in　accordance　with　the　progress　of　cultivation。　As　to　the　right　of　approving　from　the　waste；　the　relative　position　of　lord　and　tenants　was　for　a　long　time　debateable；　and；　as　everybody　knows；　the　lord　was　empowered　to　approve　by　the　Statute　of　Merton　of　20　Henry　III；　with　the　condition　that　he　should　leave　sufficient　pasture　to　his　free　tenants　according　to　the　requirements　of　their　tenements。　The　same　power　was　guaranteed　by　the　Statute　of　Westminster　II　against　the　claims　of　neighbours。　It　has　been　asked　whether；　before　the　Statute　of　Merton；　the　lord　had　power　to　enclose　against　commoners；　if　he　left　sufficient　common　to　satisfy　their　rights。　Bracton's　text　in　the　passage　where　he　treats　of　the　Statute　is　distinctly　in　favour　of　the　view　that　this　legislative　enactment　did　actually　alter　the　common　law；　and　that　previously　it　was　held　that　a　lord　could　not　approve　without　the　consent　of　his　free…tenants。（27*）　Turning　to　the　practice　of　the　thirteenth…century　courts；　we　find　that　the　lawyers　were　rather　doubtful　as　to　this　point。　In　a　case　of　1221　the　jurors　declare；　that　although　the　defendant　has　approved　about　two　acres　of　land　from　the　waste　where　the　plaintiff　had　common；　this　latter　has　still　sufficient　pasture　left　to　him。　And　thereupon　the　plaintiff　withdraws。（28*）　In　1226　a　lord　who　has　granted　pasture　everywhere；　'ubique；'　and　has　inclosed　part　of　it；　succumbs　in　a　suit　against　his　tenant；　and　we　are　led　to　suppose　that　if　the　qualification　'ubique'　had　been　absent；　his　right　of　approvement　would　have　been　maintained。　It　must　be　noticed；　however；　that　the　marginal　note　in　Bracton's　Notebook　does　not　lay　stress　on　the　'ubique；'　and　regards　the　decision　as　contrary　to　the　law　subsequently　laid　down　by　the　Constitution　of　Merton。（29*）　In　a　case　of　1292　one　of　the　counsel　for　the　defendant　took　it　for　granted　that　the　Statute　of　Merton　altered　the　previously　existing　common　law。（30*）　The　language　of　the　Statutes　themselves　is　certainly　in　favour　of　such　a　construction：　in　the　Merton　Constitution　it　is　stated　as　a　fact　that　the　English　magnates　were　prevented　from　making　use　of　their　manors；（31*）　and　the　Westminster　Statute。　Is　as　positive　as　to　neighbours；　'multi　domini　hucusque。。。　impediti　extiterunt；'　etc。　It　seems　hardly　possible　to　doubt　that　the　enactments　really　represent　a　new　departure；　although　the　way　towards　it　had　been　prepared　by　the　collision　of　interests　in　open　Court。　The　condition　negatively　indicated　by　the　documents　in　regard　to　the　time　before　these　enactments　cannot　be　dismissed　by　the　consideration　that　the　lord　would　derogate　from　his　grant　by　approving。　Although　a　single　trial　may　bear　directly　on　the　relation　between　the　lord　and　only　one　of　the　tenants　or　a　few　of　them；　every　change　in　the　occupation　of　the　land　touches　all　those　who　are　members　of　the　manorial　community。　The　removal　of　difficulties　as　to　approvement　was；　before　the　Statute　of　Merton；　not　a　question　of　agreement　between　two　persons；　but　a　question　as　to　the　relative　position　of　the　lord　and　of　the　whole　body　of　the　tenantry。　The　lord　might　possibly　settle　with　every　tenant　singly；　but　it　seems　much　more　probable　that　he　brought　the　matter；　when　it　arose；　before　the　whole　body　with　which　the　management　of　the　village　husbandry　rested；　that　is；　before　the　halimote；　with　its　free　and　unfree　tenants。　In　any　case；　the　influence　of　the　free　tenants　as　recognised　by　the　common　law　was　decisive；　and　hardly　to　be　reconciled　with　the　usual　feudal　notions　as　to　the　place　occupied　by　the　lord　in　the　community。　It　must　be　noted　that　even　that　order　of　things　which　came　into　being　in　consequence　of　the　Statute　contains　an　indirect　testimony　as　to　the　power　of　the　village　community。　The　Act　requires　the　pasture　left　to　the　free　tenants　to　be　sufficient；　and　it　may　be　asked　at　once；　what　criterion　was　there　of　such　a　sufficiency；　if　the　nu