vill2-第17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 of perquisites from the place all through his reign； and it is specially noticed that his writs were directed not to the Abbot or the Abbot's bailiffs； but to his own bailiffs in Stoneleigh。（56*） In order to get rid of the inconveniences consequent upon such mixed ownership； Abbot William of Tyso bought a charter from King John； granting to the Abbey all the soke of Stoneleigh。（57*） But all the same the royal rights did not yet disappear。 There were tenants connected with the place who were immediately dependent on the king；（58*） and his bailiff continued to exercise functions by the side of； and in conjunction with； the officers of the Abbot。（59*） In the 50th year of Henry III a remarkable case occurred： a certain Alexander of Canle was tried for usurping the rights of the Abbot as to the tenantry in the hamlet of Canle； and it came out that one of his ancestors had succeeded in improving his position of collector of the revenue into the position of an owner of the rents。 Although the rights which were vindicated against him were the rights of the Abbot； still the king entered into possession and afterwards transferred the possession to the Abbot。（60*） In one word； the king is always considered as 'the senior lord' of Stoneleigh； his lordship is something more direct than a mere feudal over…lordship。（61*） We find a similar state of things at King's Ripton。 The manor had been let in fee farm to the Abbots of Ramsey。 In case of a tenement lapsing into the lord's hands； it is seized sometimes by the bailiff of the king； sometimes by the bailiffs of the Abbot。（62*） The royal writs again are directed not to the Abbot； but to his bailiff。 The same was the case at Stoneleigh；（63*） and indeed this seems to have been the regular course on ancient demesne manors。（64*） This curious way of ignoring the lord himself and addressing the writ directly to his officers seems an outcome of the fundamental assumption that of these manors there was no real lord but the king； and that the private lord's officers were acting as the king's bailiffs。 According to current notions the demesnes of the crown ought not to have been alienated at all。 Although alienated by one king they were considered as liable to be resumed by his successors。（65*） And as a matter of fact such resumptions were by no means unusual。 Edward I gave an adequate expression to this doctrine when he ordered an inquisition into the state of the tenantry at Stoneleigh： he did not wish any encroachment made on the old constitution of the manor； for he had always in mind the possibility that his royal rights would be resumed by himself or by one of his successors。（66*） If we turn to the court rolls of a manor which is actually in the king's hand and compare them with those of a manor which he has granted to some convent or some private lord； we see hardly any difference between them。 The rolls of the manor of Havering at the Record Office； although comparatively late； afford a good insight into the constitution of a manor retained in the king's own hand。 They contain a good many writs of right； and though； naturally enough； the tenants do not bring actions against the king； we find an instance in which the king brings an action against his tenant； and pleads before a court which is held in his own name。（67*） This is good proof that the condition of the tenants was by no means dependent on the arbitrary action of the manorial officers。 When King Henry II granted Stoneleigh to the Cistercians he displaced a number of 'rustics' from their holdings； and while doing this he recognised their right and enjoined the sheriff of Warwickshire to give them an equivalent for what they had lost in consequence of the grant。（68*） The notion from which all inquiry consequent upon a 'Monstraverunt' starts is always this； that the tenants were holding by certain （i。e。 by fixed） services at the time when the manor was in the king's own hand。 The certainty is not created by the fact that the manor passes away from the king to some one else； it exists when the land is royal land and therefore cannot be destroyed on land that has been alienated。 So true is this that Bracton and Britton give their often cited description of privileged villainage without alluding to the question whether or no the manor is still in the king's hand；（69*） Britton even applies this description primarily to the king's own possessions by his way of stating the law as the direct utterance of the king's command。 The well…known fact that the 'ferm' or rent of royal manors was not always fixed； that we constantly hear of an increased rental （incrementum） levied in addition to the old 'ferm'； （assisa redditus antiquitus assisus）； can be easily reconciled with this doctrine。（70*） The prosperity of the country was gradually rising； both in agricultural communities and in towns new tenements and houses； new occupations and revenues were growing； and it was not the interest either of the communities or of the lord to compress this development within an unelastic bond。 In principle the increased payments fell on this new growth on the demesne； although this may in some cases have been due to exactions against which the people could remonstrate only in the name of immemorial custom； and only by way of petition since nobody could judge the king。 In principle； too； certainty of condition was admitted as to the privileged villains on the king's demesnes。（71*） This serves to explain the procedure followed by the court when a question of services was raised by a writ of 'Monstraverunt。' The first thing； of course； was to ascertain whether the manor was ancient demesne or not； and for this purpose nothing short of a direct mention in Domesday was held to be sufficient。（72*） When this question had been solved in the affirmative； a jury had to decide what the customs and duties were； by which the ancestors of the plaintiffs held at the time when the crown was possessed of the manor。 In principle it was always considered that such had been the services at the time of the Conquest；（73*） but practically； of course； there could be no attempt to examine into such ancient history。 The men of King's Ripton actually pleaded back to the time of King Cnut； and maintained that no prescription was available against their rights as no prescription could avail against the king。（74*） The courts naturally declined to go higher than men could remember； but they laid down this limitation entirely as one of practice and not of principle。（75*） Metingham demanded that the claimants should make good their contention even for a single day in Richard Coeur de Lion's time。（76*） The men of Wycle combine both assertions in their contention against Mauger； they appeal to the age of the first Norman kings； but offer to prove the certainty of their services in the reigns of Richard and John。（77*） Now all that has been said hitherto applied to 'the tenants in ancient demesne' indiscriminately； without regard to any diversity of classes among them。 Hitherto I have not noticed any such diversity； and in so doing I am warranted by the authorities。 Those authorities commonly speak of 'men' or 'tenants in ancient demesne' without any further qualification。（78*） Sometimes the expression 'condition of ancient demesne' also is used。 But closer examination shows a variety of classes on the privileged soil； and leads to a number of difficult and interesting problems。 To begin with； the nature of the tenancy in general has been much contested。 As to the law of later times Mr Elton puts the case in this way： 'There is great confusion in the law books respecting this tenure。 The copyholders of these manors are sometimes called tenants in ancient demesne； and land held in this tenure is said to pass by surrender and admittance。 This appears to be inaccurate。 It is only the freeholders who are tenants in ancient demesne； and their land passes by common law conveyances without the instrumentality of the lord。 Even Sir W。 Blackstone seems to have been misled upon this point。 There are however； as a rule； in manors of ancient demesne； customary freeholders and sometimes copyholders at the will of the lord； as well as the true tenants in ancient demesne。'（79*） Now such a descript
