vill3- 第35部分

ut　any　writ　of　right　or　formal　action；　that　an　inquest　may　be　held　as　to　a　part　of　her　messuage　which　is　detained　in　the　hands　of　the　Abbot；　although　she　performs　the　service　due　for　it。　The　inquest　is　held；　and　apparently　ends　in　her　favour；　but　she　is　directed　at　the　same　time　to　go　and　speak　with　the　lord　about　the　matter。　Ultimately　she　gets　what　she　wants　after　this　private　interview。（68*）　The　proceedings　are　irregular　and　interesting：　the　usual　forms　of　action　are　disregarded；　a　verdict　is　given；　but　the　material　decision　is　left　with　the　lord；　and　is　to　be　sought　for　by　private　intercession。　Quite　close　to　this　entry　we　find　an　instance　which　is　in　flagrant　contradiction　with　such　a　considerate　treatment　of　all　parties。　The　jurors　of　the　court　are　called　upon　to　decide　a　question　of　testament　and　succession。　They　say　that　none　of　them　was　present　when　the　testament　was　made；　and　that　they　know　nothing　about　it；　and　will　say　nothing　about　it。　'And　so　leaving　their　business　undone；　and　in　great　contempt　of　the　lord　and　of　his　bailiffs；　they　leave　the　court。　And　therefore　it　is　ordered　that　the　bailiffs　do　cause　to　be　levied　a　sum　of　40s　to　the　use　of　the　lord　from　the　property　of　the　said　jurors　by　distress　continued　from　day　to。　day。'（69*）　This　case　may　stand　as　a　good　example　both　of　the　sturdy　self…will　which　the　peasantry　occasionally　asserted　in　their　dealings　with　the　lord；　and　of　the　opportunities　that　the　lord　had　of　asserting　his　superiority　in　a　very　high…handed　manner。　　　　　But　we　need　not　even　turn　to　any　egregious　instances　in　which　the　lord's　power　is　thus　displayed。　The　usual　forms　of　surrender　are　there　to　show　that；　as　regards　origins；　we　have　the　same　thing　here　as　in　ordinary　manors；　although　the　peculiarities　of　the　ancient　demesne　have　brought　forward　the　features　of　communal　organisation　in　a　very　marked　way；　and　have　held　the　element　of　lordship　in　check。　　　　　We　have　seen　that　there　was　only　one　halimot　in　the　thirteenth　and　the　preceding　centuries；　and　that　the　division　into　customary　court　and　court　baron　developed　at　a　later　time。　We　have　seen；　secondly；　that　this　halimot　was　a　meeting　of　the　community　under　the　presidency　of　the　steward；　and　that　the　relative　functions　of　community　and　steward　became　very　distinct　only　in　later　days。　It　remains　to　be　seen　how　far　the　fundamental　class　division　between　free　tenants　and　villains　affected　the　management　of　the　court。　As　there　was　but　one　halimot　and　not　two；　both　classes　had　to　meet　and　to　act　concurrently　in　it。　The　free　people　now　and　then　assert　separate　claims：　a　chaplain　wages　his　law　on　the　manor　of　Brightwaltham　that　he　did　not　defame　the　lord's　butler；　but　when　he　gets　convicted　by　a　good　inquest　of　jurors　of　having　broken　the　lord's　hedges　and　carried　away　the　lord's　fowls；　he　will　not　justify　himself　of　these　trespasses　and　departs　in　contempt；　doubtless　because　he　will　not　submit　to　the　judgment　of　people　who　are　not　on　a　par　with　him。（70*）　Freeholders　object　to　being　placed　on　ordinary　juries　of　the　manor；（71*）　although　they　will　serve　as　jurors　on　special　occasions；　and　as　a　sort　of　controlling　body　over　the　common　presenters。（72*）　Amercements　are　sometimes　taxed　by　free　suitors。（73*）　But　although　some　division　is　apparent　in　this　way；　and　the　elements　for　a　separation　into　two　distinct　courts　are　gathering；　the　normal　condition　is　one　which　does　not　admit　of　any　distinction　between　the　two　classes。　We　come　here　across　the　same　peculiarity　that　we　have　seen　in　police　and　criminal　law；　namely；　that　the　fundamental　line　of　civil　condition　seems　disregarded。　Even　when　a　court　is　mainly　composed　of　villains；　and　in　fact　called　curia　villanorum；　some　of　its　suitors　may　be　freeholders。（74*）　Even　in　a　court　composed　of　free　people；　like　that　of　Broughton；　there　may　be　villains　among　them。（75*）　The　parson；　undoubtedly　a　free　man；　may　appear　as　a　villain　in　some　rolls。（76*）　Altogether；　the　fact　has　to　be　noticed　as　a　very　important　one；　that　whatever　business　the　freeholders　may　have　had　in　connexion　with　the　manorial　system；　this　business　was　transacted　by　courts　which　consisted　chiefly　of　servile　tenants。（77*）　In　fact　the　presenting　inquests；　on　which　the　free　tenants　refused　to　serve；　would　not　be　prevented　by　their　composition　from　attainting　these　free　tenants。　　　　　This　seems　strange　and　indeed　anomalous。　One　point　remains　to　be　observed　which　completes　the　picture：　although　the　great　majority　of　the　thirteenth　century　peasantry　are　mere　villains；　although　on　some　manors　we　hardly　distinguish　freeholders；　there　is　a　legal　requirement　that　there　should　be　at　least　a　few　freeholders　on　every　manor。　Later　theory　does　not　recognise　as　a　manor　an　estate　composed　only　of　demesne　land　and　copyhold。　Freeholds　are　declared　to　be　a　necessary　element；　and　should　they　all　escheat；　the　manor　would　be　only　a　reputed　one。（78*）　We　have　no　right　to　treat　this　notion　as　a　mere　invention　of　later　times。　it　comes　forward　again　and　again　in　the　shape　of　a　rule；　that　there　can　be　no　court　unless　there　are　some　free　tenants　to　form　it。　The　number　required　varies。　In　Henry　VIII's　reign　royal　judges　were　contented　with　two。　In　John's　time　as　many　as　twelve　were　demanded；　if　a　free　outsider　was　to　be　judged。　The　normal　number　seems　to　have　been　four；　and　when　the　record　of　the　proceedings　was　sent　up　to　the　King's　tribunal　four　suitors　had　to　carry　it。　The　difference　between　the　statement　of　Coke　and　the　earlier　doctrine　lies　in　the　substitution　of　the　manor　for　the　court。　Coke　and　his　authorities；　the　judges　of　Henry　VIII's　reign；　speak　of　the　manor　where　the　older　jurisprudence　spoke　of　the　court。　Their　rule　involves　the　more　ancient　one　and　something　in　addition；　namely；　the　inference　that　if　there　be　no　court　baron　there　is　no　manor。　Now　this　part　of　the　doctrine；　though　interesting　by　itself；　must　stand　over　for　the　present。　Let　us　simply　take　the　assertion　that　free　suitors　are　necessary　to　constitute　a　court；　and　apply　it　to　a　state　of　things　when　there　was　but　one　strictly　manorial　court；　the　halimot。　In　1294　it　is　noted　in　the　report　of　a　trial　that；　'in　order　that　one　may　have　a　court　he　must　have　at　least　four　free　tenants；　without　borrowing　the　fourth　tenant。'（79*）　Now　a　number　of　easy　explanations　seem　at　hand：　four　free　tenants　at　least　were　necessary；　because　four　such　tenants　were　required　to　take　the　record　up　to　the　king's　court　and　to　answer　for　any　false　judgment；　a　free　tenant　could　protest　against　being　impleaded　before　unfree　people；　some　of　the　franchises　could　not　be　exercised　unless　there　were　free　suitors　to　form　a　tribunal。　But　all　these　explanations　do　not　go　deep　enough：　they　would　do　very　well　for　the　later　court　baron；　but　not　for　the　halimot。　It　is　not　asserted　that　free　suitors　are　necessary　only　in　those　cases　where　free　tenants　are　concerned　　it　is　the　court　as　such　which　depends　on　the　existence　of　such　free　suitors；　the　court　which　has　largely；　if　not　mostly；　to　deal　with　customary　business；　and　consists　to　a　great　extent　of　customary　tenants。　And；　curiously　enough；　when　the　court　baron　disengages　itself　from　the　halimot；　the　rule　as　to　suitors；　instead　of　applying　in　a　special　way　to　this　court　baron；　for　which　it　seems　particularly　fitted；　extends　to　the　notion　of　the　manor　itself；　so　that　we　are　driven　to　ask　why　the　manor　is　assumed　to　contain　a　certain　number　of　free　tenants　and　a　court　for　them。　Why　is　its　existence　denied　where　these　elements　are　wanting？　Reverting　to　the　thirteenth　century；　we　have　to　state　similar　puzzling　questions：　thus　if　one　turns　to　the　manorial　surveys　of　the　time；　the　freehold　element　seems　to　be　relatively　insignificant　and　more　or　less　severed　from　the　community；　if　one　takes　up　the　manorial　rolls；　the　halimot　is　there　with　the　emphatically　expressed　features　and　even　the　name　of　a　court　of　villains；　but　when　the　common　law　is　concerned；　this　same　tribunal　appears　as　a　court　of　freeholders。　The　manors　of　the　Abbey　of　Bec　on　English　soil　contained　hardly　any　freeholders　at　all。　Had　the　Abbey　no　courts？　Had　it　no　manors　from　the　standpoint　of　Coke's　theory？　What　were　the　halimots　whose　proceedings　are　recorded　in　the　usual　way　on　its　manorial　rolls？　In　presence　of　these　flagrant　contradictions　I　cannot　help　thinking　that　we　here　come　across　one　of　those　interesting　points　where　the　two　lines　of　feudal　doctrine　do　not　meet；　and　where　different　layers　of　theory　may　be　distinguished。　　　　　Without　denying　in　the　least　the　practical　importance　of　such　notions　as　that　which　required　that　one's　judges　should　be　one's　peers；　or　of　such　institutions　as　the　bringing　up　of　the　manorial　record　to　the　King's　Court；　I　submit　that　they　must　have　exercised　their　influence　chiefly　by　calling　forth　occasions　when　the　main　principle　had　to　be　asserted。　Of　course　they　could　not　create　this　principle：　the　idea　that　the　halimot　was　a　communal　court　constituted　by　free　suitors　meeting　under　the　presidency　of　the　steward；　must　have　existed　to　support　them。　That　idea　is　fully　embodied　in　the　constitution　of　the　ancient　demesne　tribunal；　where　the　suitors　were　admitted　to　be　the　judges；　although　they　were　villains；　privileged　villains　and　nothing　else。　Might　we　not　start　from　the　original　similarity　between　ancient　demesne　and　ordinary　manors；　and　thus　explain　how　the　rule　as　to　the　necessary　constitution　of　the　manorial　court　was　formed？　It　seems　to　me　a　mere　application　of　the　higher　rule　that　a　court　over　free　people　must　contain　free　people；　to　a　state　of　things　where　the　distinction　between　free　and　unfree　was　not　drawn　at　the　same　level　as　in　the　feudal　epoch；　but　was　drawn　at　a　lower　point。　We　have　seen　that　a　villain　was　in　many　respects　a　free　man；　that　he　was　accepted　as　such　in　criminal　and　police　business；　that　he　was　free　against　everybody　but　his　lord　in　civil　dealings；　that　the　frank…pledge　system　to　which　he　belonged　was　actually　taken　to　imply　personal　freedom；　although　the　freeholders　ultimately　escaped　from　it。　I　cannot　help　thinking　that　a　like　transformation　of　meaning　as　in　the　case　of　frank…pledge　did　take　place　in　regard　to　the　free　suitors　of　the　manorial　court。　The　original　requirement　cannot　have　concerned　freeholders　in　the　usual　legal　sense；　but　free　and　lawful　men；　'worthy　of　were　and　wite'　　a　description　whi