vill2-第42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！
ains first of all； because this class was most numerous in the village。 This does not mean； of course； that they were all personally unfree： we know already； that the law of tenure was of more importance in such questions than personal status。（31*） It does not even mean that the hundredors were necessarily holding in villainage： small freeholders may have appeared among them。 But the institution could not rest on the basis of legal freehold if it was to represent the great bulk of the peasantry in the townships。 This seems obvious and definite enough； but our inquiry would be incomplete and misleading if it were to stop here。 We have in this instance one of those curious contradictions between two well…established sets of facts which are especially precious to the investigator because they lead him while seeking their solution to inferences far beyond the material under immediate examination。 In one sense the reeve and the four men； the hundredors； seem villains and not freeholders。 In another they seem freeholders and not villains。 Their tenure by the 'sergeanty' of attending hundreds and shires ranks again and again with freehold and in opposition to base tenure。（32*） Originally the four men were made to go not only with the reeve but with the priest； and if the reeve was considered in feudal times as unfree； the priest； the 'mass…thane；' was always considered as free。（33*） It is to be noticed that the attendance of the priest fell into abeyance in process of time； but that it was not less necessary for the representation of the township according to the ancient constitution of the hundred than the attendance of the reeve。 This last fact is of great importance because it excludes an explanation which would otherwise look plausible enough。 Does it not seem at first sight that the case of the hundredors is simply a case of exemption and exactly on a parallel with the commutation of servile obligations for money？ We have seen that villains discharged from the most onerous and opprobrious duties of their class rise at once in social standing； and mix up with the smaller freeholders。 Hundredors are relieved from these same base services in order that they may perform their special work； and this may possibly be taken as the origin of their freedom。 Should we look at the facts in this way； the classification of this class of tenants as free would proceed from a lax use of the term and their privileges would have to be regarded as an innovation。 The presence of the priest warns us that we have to reckon in the case with a survival； with an element of tradition and not of mere innovation。 And it is not only the presence of the priest that points this way。 At first sight the line seems drawn very sharply between the reeve and the four men on the one hand； and the freehold suitors of the hundred court on the other： while these last have to judge and to decide； the first only make presentments。 But the distinction； though very clear in later times； is by no means to be relied upon even in the thirteenth century。 In Britton's account of the sheriff's tourn the two bodies； though provided with different functions； are taken as constituted from the same class： 'the free landowners of the hundred are summoned and the first step is to cause twelve of them to swear that they will make presentment according to the articles。 Afterwards the rest shall be sworn by dozens and by townships； that they will make lawful presentment to the first twelve jurors。'（34*） The wording of the passage certainly leads one to suppose that both sets of jurors are taken from the freeholder class； and the difference only lies in the fact that some are selected to act as individuals； and the rest to do so by representation。 The Assize of Clarendon； which Mr Maitland has shown to be at the origin of the sheriff's tourn；（35*） will only strengthen the inference that the two bodies were intended to belong to the same free class： the inquiry； says the Assize； shall be made by twelve of the most lawful men of the county； and by four of the most lawful men of every township。 What is there in these words to show that the two sets were to be taken from different classes？ And does not the expression 'lawful；' extending to both sets； point to people who are 'worthy of their law' that is to free men？ The Assize of Clarendon and the constitution of the tourn are especially interesting because they give a new bearing to an old institution： both divisions of the population which they have in view appear in the ordinary hundred and county court； and in the 'law day' of the 'great' hundred instituted for the view of frankpledge。 In the ordinary court the lord； his steward； and the reeve； priest； and four men； interchange； according to the clear statement of Leg。 Henrici I。 c。 7； that is to say； the vill is to be represented either by the lord； or by his steward； or again by the six men just mentioned。 They are not called out as representing different classes and interests； but as representing the same territorial unity。 If the landlord does not attend personally or by his personal representative； the steward； then six men from the township attend in his place。 The question arises naturally； where is one to look for the small freeholders in the enactment？ However much we may restrict their probable number； their existence cannot be simply denied or disregarded。 It does not seem likely that they were treated as landlords （terrarum domini）； and one can hardly escape the inference that they are included in the population of the township； which appears through the medium of the six hundredors： another hint that the class division underlying the whole structure did not coincide with the feudal opposition between freeholder and villain。 Again； in the great hundred for the view of frankpledge； which is distinguished from the ordinary hundred by fuller attendance； and not by any fundamental difference in constitution； all men are to appear who are 'free and worthy of their wer and their wite：'（36*） this expression seems an equivalent to the 'free and lawful' men of other cases； and at the same time it includes distinctly the great bulk of the villain population as personally free。 I have not been able； in the present instance； to keep clear of the evidence belonging to the intermediate period between the Saxon and the feudal arrangements of society； this deviation from the general rule； according to which such evidence is to be discussed separately and in connexion with the Conquest； was unavoidable in our case； because it is only in the light of the laws of Henry I that some important feudal facts can be understood。 in a trial as to suit of court between the Abbot of Glastonbury and two lay lords； the defendants plead that they are bound to appear at the Abbot's hundred court personally or by attorney only on the two law…days； whereas for the judgment of thieves their freemen； their reeves and ministers have to attend in order to take part in the judgment。（37*） It is clearly a case of substitution； like the one mentioned in Leg。 Henrici； c。 7； and the point is； that the representatives of the fee are designated as reeves and freemen。 Altogether the two contradictory aspects in which the hundredors are made to appear can hardly be explained otherwise than on the assumption of a fluctuation between the conception of the hundred as of an assembly of freemen； and its treatment under the influence of feudal notions as to social divisions。 In one sense the hundredors are villains： they come from the vill； represent the bulk of its population； which consists of villains； and are gradually put on a different footing from the greater people present。 In another sense they are free men； and even treated as freeholders； because they form part of a communal institution intended to include the free class and to exclude the servile class。（38*） If society had been arranged consistently on the feudal basis； there would have been no room for the representation of the vill instead of the manor； for the representation of the vill now by the lord and now by a deputation of peasants； for a terminology which appears to confuse or else to neglect the distinction between free and servile holding。 As it is； the
