vill2-第26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！


ions　to　go　by；　the　lawyers　are　actually　driven　to　drop　such　traits　of　legal　relations　as　are　difficult　to　manage　with　precision；　however　great　their　material　importance；　and　to　give　their　whole　attention　to　facts　capable　of　being　treated　clearly。　This　tendency　may　account　for　the　ultimate　victory　of　the　quantitative　test　of　servitude　over　the　qualitative　one；　or　to　put　it　more　plainly；　of　the　test　of　certainty　of　services　over　the　discussion　of　kind　of　services。　Altogether　the　tendency　towards　an　artificial　crystallisation　of　the　law　cannot　be　overlooked。　　　　　In　the　work　of　simplifying　conditions　artificially　the　lawyers　had　several　strong　reagents　at　their　disposal。　The　mighty　influence　of　Roman　law　has　been　often　noticed；　and　there　can　be　no　doubt　that　it　was　brought　to　bear　on　our　subject　to　the　prejudice　of　the　peasantry　and　to　the　extinction　of　their　independent　rights。　It　would　not　have　been　so　strong　if　many　features　of　the　vernacular　law　had　not　been　brought　half　way　to　meet　it。　Norman　rules；　it　is　well　known；　exercised　a　very　potent　action　on　the　forms　of　procedure；（1*）　but　the　substantive　law　of　status　was　treated　very　differently　in　Normandy　and　in　England；　and　it　is　not　the　influx　of　Norman　notions　which　is　important　in　our　case；　but　the　impetus　given　by　them　to　the　development　of　the　King's　Courts。　This　development；　though　connected　with　the　practice　of　the　Duchy；　cannot　be　described　simply　or　primarily　as　Norman。　Once　the　leaven　had　been　communicated；　English　lawyers　did　their　own　work　with　great　independence　as　well　as　ingenuity　of　thought；　and　the　decision　of　the　King's　Court　was　certainly　a　great　force。　I　need　not　point　out　again　to　what　extent　the　law　was　fashioned　by　the　writ　procedure；　but　I　would　here　recall　to　attention　the　main　fact；　that　the　opposition　between　'free'　and　'unfree'　rested　chiefly　on　the　point　of　being　protected　or　not　being　protected　by　the　jurisdiction　of　the　King's　Court。　　　　　If　we　examine　the　action　of　lawyers　as　a　whole；　in　order　to　trace　out；　as　it　were；　its　social　bias；　we　must　come　to　the　conclusion　that　it　was　exercised　first　in　one　direction　and　then　in　the　opposite　one。　The　refusal　of　jurisdiction　may　stand　as　the　central　fact　in　the　movement　in　favour　of　servitude；　although　that　movement　may　be　illustrated　almost　in　every　department；　even　if　one　omits　to　take　into　account　what　may　be　mere　instances　of　bad　temper　or　gross　partiality。　But　the　wave　begins　to　rise　high　in　favour　of　liberty　even　in　the　thirteenth　century。　It　does　not　need　great　perspicuity　to　notice　that；　apart　from　any　progress　in　morals　or　ideas；　apart　from　any　growth　of　humanitarian　notions；　the　law　was　carried　in　this　direction　by　that　development　of　the　State　which　lays　a　claim　to　and　upon　its　citizens；　and　by　that　development　of　social　intercourse　which　substitutes　agreement　for　bondage。　Is　it　strange　that　the　social　evolution；　as　observed　in　this　particular　curve；　does　not　appear　as　a　continuous　crescendo；　but　as　a　wavy　motion？　I　do　not　think　it　can　be　strange；　if　one　reflects　that　the　period　under　discussion　embraces　both　the　growth　and　the　decay　of　feudalism；　embraces；　that　is；　the　growth　of　the　principle　of　territorial　power　on　the　ruins　of　the　tribal　system　and　also　the　disappearance　of　that　principle　before　the　growing　influence　of　the　State。　　　　　Indirectly　we　have　had　to　consider　the　influence　of　feudalism；　as　it　was　transmitted　through　the　action　of　its　lawyers。　But　it　may　be　viewed　in　its　direct　consequences；　which　are　as　manifest　as　they　are　important。　In　England；　feudalism　in　its　definite　shape　is　bound　up　with　conquest。（2*）　and　it　is　well　known　that；　though　very　much　hampered　on　the　political　side　by　the　royal　power；　it　was　exceptionally　complete　on　the　side　of　private　law　by　reason　of　its　sudden；　artificial；　and　enforced　introduction。　One　of　the　most　important　results　of　conquest　from　this　point　of　view　was　certainly　the　systematic　way　in　which　the　subjection　of　the　peasantry　was　worked　out。　If　we　look　for　comparison　to　France　as　the　next　neighbour　of　England　and　a　country　which　has　influenced　England；　we　shall　find　the　same　elements　at　work；　but　they　combine　in　a　variety　of　modes　according　to　provincial　and　local　peculiarities。　Although　the　political　power　of　the　French　baron　is　so　much　greater　than　that　of　an　English　lord；　the　roturier　often　keeps　his　distance　from　the　serf　better　than　was　the　case　in　England。　In　France　everything　depends　upon　the　changing　equilibrium　of　local　forces　and　circumstances。　In　England　the　Norman　Conquest　produced　a　compact　estate　of　aristocracy　instead　of　the　magnates　of　the　continent；　each　of　whom　was　strong　or　weak　according　to　the　circumstances　of　his　own　particular　case；　it　produced　Common　Law　and　the　King's　courts　of　Common　Law；　and　it　reduced　the　peasantry　to　something　like　uniform　condition　by　surrounding　the　liberi　et　legales　homines　with　every　kind　of　privilege。　The　national　colouring　given　by　the　Dialogus　de　Scaccario　to　the　social　question　of　the　time　is　not　without　meaning　in　this　light：　　the　peasants　may　be　regarded　as　the　remnant　of　a　conquered　race；　or　as　the　issue　of　rebels　who　have　forfeited　their　rights。　　　　　The　feudal　system　once　established　produced　certain　effects　quite　apart　from　the　Conquest；　effects　which　flowed　from　its　own　inherent　properties。　The　Conquest　had　cast　free　and　unfree　peasantry　together　into　the　one　mould　of　villainage；　feudalism　prevented　villainage　from　lapsing　into　slavery。　I　have　shown　in　detail　how　the　manor　gives　a　peculiar　turn　to　personal　subjection。　Its　action　is　perceivable　in　the　treatment　of　the　origin　of　the　servile　status。　The　villain；　however　near　being　a　chattel；　cannot　be　devised　by　will　because　he　is　considered　as　an　annex　to　the　free　tenement　of　the　lord。　The　connexion　with　a　manor　becomes　the　chief　means　of　establishing　and　proving　seisin　of　the　villain。　On　the　other　hand；　in　the　trial　of　status；　manorial　organisation　led　to　the　sharp　distinction　between　persons　in　the　power　of　the　lord　and　out　of　it。　This　fact　touches　the　very　essence　of　the　case。　The　more　powerful　the　manor　became；　the　less　possible　was　it　to　work　out　subjection　on　the　lines　of　personal　slavery。　Without　entering　into　the　economic　part　of　the　question　for　the　present；　merely　from　the　legal　point　of　view　it　was　a　necessary　consequence　of　the　rise　of　a　local　and　territorial　power　that　the　working　people　under。　Its　sway　were　subjected　by　means　of　its　territorial　organisation　and　within　its　limited　sphere　of　local　action。　Of　course；　the　State　upheld　some　of　the　lord's　rights　even　outside　the　limits　of　the　manor；　but　these　were　only　a　pale　reflection　of　what　took　place　within　the　manor；　and　they　were　more　difficult　to　enforce　in　proportion　as　the　barriers　between　the　manors　rose　higher；　it　became　very　difficult　for　one　lord　to　reclaim　runaways　who　were　lying　within　the　manor　of　another　lord。　　　　　If　we　remove　those　strata　of　the　law　of　villainage　which　owe　their　origin　to　the　action　of　the　feudal　system　and　to　the　action　of　the　State；　which　rises　on　the　ruins　of　the　feudal　system；　we　come　upon　remnants　of　the　pre…feudal　condition。　They　are　by　no　means　few　or　unimportant；　and　it　is　rather　a　wonder　that　so　much　should　be　preserved　notwithstanding　the　systematic　work　of　conquest；　feudalism；　and　State。　When　I　speak　of　pre…feudal　condition　I　do　not　mean　to　say；　of　course；　that　feudalism　had　not　been　in　the　course　of　formation　before　the　Norman　Conquest。　I　merely　wish　to　oppose　a　social　order　grounded　on　feudalism　to　a　social　order　which　was　only　preparing　for　it　and　developing　on　a　different　basis。　The　Conquest　brought　together　the　free　and　unfree。　Our　survivals　of　the　state　of　things　before　the　Conquest　group　themselves　naturally　in　one　direction；　they　are　manifestations　of　the　free　element　which　went　into　the　constitution　of　villainage。　It　is　not　strange　that　it　should　be　so；　because　the　servile　element　predominated　in　those　parts　of　the　law　which　had　got　the　upper　hand　and　the　official　recognition。　A　trait　which　goes　further　than　the　accepted　law　in　the　direction　of　slavery　is　the　difficulties　which　are　put　by　Glanville　in　the　way　of　manumission。　His　statement　practically　amounts　to　a　denial　of　the　possibility　of　manumission；　and　such　a　denial　we　cannot　acc