vill2-第6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！


becoming　a　villain　besides　being　born　to　the　condition；　the　acknowledgment　of　unfree　status　in　a　court　of　record；　and　prescription。　We　need　not　speak　of　the　first；　as　it　does　not　present　any　particulars　of　interest　from　a　historical　point　of　view。　As　to　prescription；　there　is　a　very　characteristic　vacillation　in　our　sources。　In　pleadings　of　Edward　III's　time　its　possibility　is　admitted；　and　it　is　pointed　out；　that　it　is　a　good　plea　if　the　person　claimed　by　prescription　shows　that　his　father　and　grandfather*　were　strangers。　　　　　There　is　a　curious　explanatory　gloss；　in　a　Cambridge　MS。　of　Bracton；　which　seems　to　go　back　at　least　to　the　beginning　of　the　fourteenth　century；　and　it　maintains　that　free　stock　doing　villain　service　lapses　into　villainage　in　the　fifth　generation　only。*　On　the　other　hand；　Britton　flatly　denies　the　possibility　of　such　a　thing；　according　to　him　no　length　of　time　can　render　free　men　villains　or　make　villains　free　men。　Moreover　he　gives　a　supposed　case　（possibly　based　on　an　actual　trial）；　in　which　a　person　claimed　as　a　villain　is　made　to　go　back　to　the　sixth　generation　to　establish　his　freedom；*　It　does　not　seem　likely　that　people　could　often　vindicate　their　freedom　by　such　elaborate　argument；　but　the　legal　assumption　expounded　in　Britton　deserves　full　attention。　It　is　only　a　consequence　of　the　general　view；　that　neither　the　holding　nor　the　services　ought　to　have　any　influence　on　the　status　of　a　man；　and　in　so　far　it　seems　legally　correct。　But　it　is　easy　to　see　how　difficult　it　must　have　been　to　keep　up　these　nice　distinctions　in　practice；　how　difficult　for　those　who　for　generations　had　been　placed　in　the　same　material　position　with　serfs　to　maintain　personal　freedom。*　For　both　views；　though　absolutely　opposed　to　each　other；　are　in　a　sense　equally　true：　the　one　giving　the　logical　development　of　a　fundamental　rule　of　the　law；　the　other　testifying　to　the　facts。　And　so　we　have　one　more　general　observation　to　make　as　to　the　legal　aspect　of　villainage。　Even　in　the　definition　of　its　fundamental　principles　we　see　notable　discrepancies　and　vacillations；　which　are　the　result　of　the　conflict　between　logical　requirements　and　fluctuating　facts。　　　　　The　original　unity　of　purpose　and　firmness　of　distinction　are　even　more　broken　up　when　we　look　at　the　criminal　and　the　police　law　where　they　touch　villainage。　In　the　criminal　law　of　the　feudal　epoch　there　is　hardly　any　distinction　between　free　men　and　villains。　In　point　of　amercements　there　is　the　well…known　difference　as　to　the　'contenement'　of　a　free　landholder；　a　merchant　and　a　villain；　but　this　difference　is　prompted　not　by　privilege　but　by　the　diversity　of　occupations。　The　Dialogus　de　Scaccario　shows　that　villains　being　reputed　English　are　in　a　lower　position　than　free　men　as　regards　the　presumption　of　Englishry　and　the　payment　of　the　murder…fine；*　but　this　feature　seems　to　have　become　obliterated　in　the　thirteenth　century。　In　some　cases　corporal　punishment　may　have　differed　according　to　the　rank　of　the　culprit；　and　the　formalities　of　ordeal　were　certainly　different。*　The　main　fact　remains；　that　both　villains　and　free　men　were　alike　able　to　prosecute　anybody　by　way　of　'appeal'*　for　injury　to　their　life；　honour；　and　even　property；*　and　equally　liable　to　be　punished　and　prosecuted　for　offences　of　any　kind。　Their　equal　right　was　completely　recognized　by　the　criminal　law；　and　as　a　natural　sequence　of　this；　the　pleas　of　the　crown　generally　omit　to　take　any　notice　of　the　status　of　parties　connected　with　them。　One　may　read　through　Mr　Maitland's　collection　of　Pleas　of　the　Crown　edited　for　the　Selden　Society；　or　through　his　book　of　Gloucestershire　pleas；　without　coming　across　any　but　exceptional　and　quite　accidental　mentions　of　villainage。　In　fact　were　we　to　form　our　view　of　the　condition　of　England　exclusively　on　the　material　afforded　by　such　documents；　we　might　well　believe　that　the　whole　class　was　all　but　an　extinct　one。　One　glance　at　Assize　Rolls　or　at　Cartularies　would　teach　us　better。　Still　the　silence　of　the　Corona　Rolls　is　most　eloquent。　It　shows　convincingly　that　the　distinction　hardly　influenced　criminal　law　at　all。　　　　　It　is　curious　that；　as　regards　police；　villains　are　grouped　under　an　institution　which；　even　by　its　name；　according　to　the　then　accepted　etymology；　was　essentially　a　free　institution。　The　system　of　frank　pledge　（plegium　liberale）；　which　should　have　included　every　one　'worthy　of　his　were　and　his　wite；'　is；　as　a　matter　of　fact；　a　system　which　all　through　the　feudal　period　is　chiefly　composed　of　villains。　Free　men　possessed　of　land　are　not　obliged　to　join　the　tithing　because　they　are　amenable　to　law　which　has　a　direct　hold　on　their　land；*　and　so　the　great　mass　of　free　men　appear　to　be　outside　these　arrangements；　for　the　police　representation　of　the　free；　or；　putting　it　the　other　way；　feudal　serfs　actually　seem　to　represent　the　bulk　of　free　society。　The　thirteenth…century　arrangements　do　not　afford　a　clue　to　such　paradoxes；　and　one　has　to　look　for　explanation　to　the　his　tory　of　the　classes。　　　　　The　frankpledge　system　is　a　most　conspicuous　link　between　both　sections　of　society　in　this　way　also；　that　it　directly　connects　the　subjugated　population　with　the　hundred　court；　which　is　the　starting…point　of　free　judicial　organisation。　Twice　a　year　the　whole　of　this　population；　with　very　few　exceptions；　has　to　meet　in　the　hundred　in　order　to　verify　the　working　of　the　tithings。　Besides　this；　the　class　of　villains　must　appear　by　representatives　in　the　ordinary　tribunals　of　the　hundred　and　the　shire：　the　reeve　and　the　four　men；　mostly　unfree　men；*　with　their　important　duties　in　the　administration　of　justice；　serve　as　a　counterpoise　to　the　exclusive　employment　of　'liberi　et　legales　homines'　on　juries。　　　　　And　now　I　come　to　the　most　intricate　and　important　part　of　the　subject　　to　the　civil　rights　and　disabilities　of　the　villain。　After　what　has　been　said　of　the　villain　in　other　respects；　one　may　be　prepared　to　find　that　his　disabilities　were　by　no　means　so　complete　as　the　strict　operation　of　general　rules　would　have　required。　The　villain　was　able　in　many　cases　to　do　valid　civil　acts；　to　acquire　property　and　to　defend　it　in　his　own　name。　It　is　true　that；　both　in　theory　and　in　practice；　it　was　held　that　whatever　was　acquired　by　the　bondman　was　acquired　by　the　lord。　The　bondman　could　not　buy　anything　but　with　his　lord's　money；　as　he　had　no　money　or　chattels　of　his　own。*　But　the　working　of　these　rules　was　limited　by　the　medieval　doctrine　of　possession。　Land　or　goods　acquired　by　the　serf　do　not　eo　ipso　lapse　into　his　lord's　possession；　but　only　if　the　latter　has　taken　them　into　his　hand。*　If　the　lord　has　not　done　so　for　any　reason；　for　want　of　time；　or　carelessness；　or　because　he　did　not　choose　to　do　so；　the　bondman　is　as　good　as　the　owner　in　respect　of　third　persons。　He　can　give　away*　or　otherwise　alienate　land　or　chattels；　he　has　the　assize　of　novel　disseisin　to　defend　the　land；　and　leaves　the　assize　of　mort　d'ancestor　to　his　heirs。　In　this　case　it　would　be　no　good　plea　to　object　that　the　plaintiff　is　a　villain。　In　fact　this　objection　can　be　raised　by　a　third　person　only　with　the　addition　that；　as　villain；　the　plaintiff　does　not　hold　in　his　own　name；　but　in　the　name　of　his　lord。*　A　third　person　cannot　except　against　a　plaintiff　merely　on　the　ground　of　his　personal　status。　As　to　third　persons；　a　villain　is　said　to　be　free　and　capable　to　sue　all　actions。*　This　of　course　does　not　mean　that　he　has　any　action　for　recovering　or　defending　his　possession　of　the　tenements　which　he　holds　in　villainage；　but　this　disability　is　no　consequence　of　his　servile　blood；　for　he　shares　it　with　the　free　man　who　holds　in　villainage；　it　is　a　consequence　of　the　doctrine　that　the　possession　of　the　tenant　in　villainage　is　in　law　the　possession　of　him　who　has　the　freehold。　It　may　be　convenient　for　a　villain　as　defendant　to　shelter　himself　behind　the　authority　of　his　lord；*　and　it　was　difficult　to　prevent　him　from　doing　so；　although　some　attempts　were　made　by　the　courts　even　in　this　case　to　distinguish　whether　a　person　had　been　in　possession　as　a　dependant　or　not。　But　there　was　absolutely　nothing　to　prevent　a　villain　from　acting　in　every　respect　like　a　free　man　if　he　was　so　minded　and　was　not　interrupted　by　his　l