vill2- 第12部分

doubtedly　to　relinquish　the　proceeds　to　the　holder　of　the　manor。　Such　treatment　is　eminently　characteristic　of　the　conception　which　lies　at　the　bottom　of　the　whole　institution　of　ancient　demesne。　It　is　undoubtedly　based　on　the　private　privilege　of　royalty。　All　the　numerous　exceptions　and　exemptions　from　public　liabilities　and　duties　flow　from　one　source：　the　king　does　not　want　his　land　and　his　men　to　be　subjected　to　any　vexatious　burdens　which　would　lessen　their　power　of　yielding　income。（19*）　Once　fenced　in　by　royal　privilege；　the　ancient　demesne　manor　keeps　up　its　private　immunity；　even　though　it　ceases　to　be　royal。　And　this　is　the　second　fact；　with　which　one　has　to　reckon。　If　the　privileged　villainage　of　ancient　demesne　is　founded　on　the　same　causes　as　villainage　pure　and　simple；　the　distinguishing　element　of　'privilege'　is　supplied　to　it　by　the　private　interest　of　the　king。　This　seems　obvious　enough；　but　it　must　be　insisted　upon；　because　it　guards　against　any　construction　which　would　pick　out　one　particular　set　of　rights；　or　one　particular　kind　of　relations　as　characteristic　of　the　institution。　Legal　practice　and　later　theory　concerned　themselves　mostly　with　peculiarities　of　procedure；　and　with　the　eventuality　of　a　subject　owning　the　manor。　But　the　peculiar　modes　of　litigation　appropriate　to　the　ancient　demesne　must　not　be　disconnected　from　other　immunities；　and　the　ownership　of　a　private　lord　is　to　be　considered　only　as　engrafted　on　the　original　right　of　the　king。　With　this　preliminary　caution；　we　may　proceed　to　an　examination　of　those　features　which　are　undoubtedly　entitled　to　attract　most　attention；　namely；　the　special　procedure；　which　is　put　in　action　when　questions　arise　in　any　way　connected　with　the　soil　of　ancient　demesne。　　　　　Bracton　says；　that　in　such　cases　the　usual　assizes　and　actions　do　not　lie；　and　the　'little　writ　of　right　close'　must　be　used　'according　to　the　custom　of　the　manor。'　The　writ　is　a　'little　and　a　close'　one；　because　it　is　directed　by　the　king　to　the　bailiffs　of　the　manor　and　not　to　the　justices　or　to　the　sheriff。（20*）　　　　　It　does　not　concern　freehold　estate；　but　only　land　of　base　though　privileged　tenure。　An　action　for　freehold　also　may　be　begun　in　a　manorial　court；　but　in　that　case　the　writ　will　be　'the　writ　of　right　patent'　and　not　'the　little　writ　of　right　close。'（21*）　　　　　The　exclusion　of　the　tenants　from　the　public　courts　is　a　self…evident　consequence　of　their　base　condition；　in　fact；　pleading　ancient　demesne　in　bar　of　an　action　is；　in　legal　substance；　the　same　thing　as　pleading　villainage。（22*）　Of　course；　an　outlet　was　provided　by　the　manorial　writ　in　this　case；　and　there　was　no　such　outlet　for　villains　outside　the　ancient　demesne；　but　as　to　the　original　jurisdiction　in　common　law　courts；　jurisdiction　that　is　in　the　first　instance；　the　position　was　identical。　Though　legally　self…evident；　this　matter　is　often　specially　noticed；　and　sometimes　stress　is　laid　on　peculiarities　of　procedure；　such　as　the　inapplicability　of　the　duel　and　the　grand　assize　（23*）　in　land　to　ancient　demesne；　peculiarities　which；　however；　are　not　universally　found；（24*）　and　which；　even　if　they　were　universally　found；　would　stand　as　consequence　and　not　as　cause。　This　may　be　accounted　for　by　the　observation　that　the　legal　protection　bestowed　on　this　particular　class　of　holdings；　notwithstanding　its　limitations；　actually　imparted　to　them　something　of　the　nature　of　freehold；　and　led　to　a　great　confusion　of　attributes　and　principles。　Indeed；　the　difficulty　of　keeping　within　the　lines　of　privileged　'villainage'　is　clearly　illustrated　by　the　fact　that　the　'little　writ；'　with　all　its　restrictions；　and　quite　apart　from　any　contention　with　the　lord；　recognises　the　tenant　in　ancient　demesne　as　capable　of　independent　action。　　　　　Villains；　or　men　holding　in　villainage；　have　no　writ；　either　manorial　or　extra…manorial；　for　the　protection　or　recovery　of　their　holdings；　and　the　existence　of　such　an　action　for　villain　socmen　is　in　itself　a　limitation　of　the　power　of　lord　and　steward；　even　when　they　are　no　parties　to　the　case。　And　so　the　distinction　between　freehold　and　ancient　demesne　villainage　is　narrowed　to　a　distinction　of　jurisdiction　and　procedure。　This　is　so　much　the　case　that　if；　by　a　mere　slip　as　it　were；　a　tenement　in　ancient　demesne　has　been　once　recovered　by　an　assize　of　novel　disseisin；　the　exclusive　use　of　the　'little　writ'　is　broken；　and　assizes　will　ever　lie　hereafter；　that　is；　the　tenement　can　be　sued　for　as　'freehold'　in　common　law　courts。（25*）　Surely　this　could　happen　only　because　the　tenure　in　ancient　demesne；　although　a　kind　of　villainage；　closely　resembled　freehold。　　　　　One　has　primarily　to　look　for　an　explanation　of　these　great　privileges　to　manors；　which　had　been　granted　by　the　king　to　private　lords。　On　such　lands　the　'little　writ'　lay　both　when　'villain　socmen'　were　pleading　against　each　other；（26*）　and　when　a　socman　was　opposed　to　his　lord　as　a　plaintiff。（27*）　This　last　eventuality　is；　of　course；　the　most　striking　and　important　one。　There　were　some　disputes　and　some　mistakes　in　practice　as　to　the　operation　of　the　rule。　The　judges　were　much　exercised　over　the　question　whether　an　action　was　to　be　allowed　against　the　lord　in　the　king's　court。　The　difficulty　was；　that　the　contending　parties　had　different　estates　in　the　land；　the　one　being　possessed　of　the　customary　tenancy　in　ancient　demesne；　and　the　other　of　the　frank　fee。　There　are　authoritative　fourteenth…century　decisions　to　the　effect　that；　in　such　an　action；　the　tenant　had　the　option　between　going　to　the　court　at　Westminster　or　to　the　ancient　demesne　jurisdiction。（28*）　　　　　The　main　fact　remains；　that　a　privileged　villain　had　'personam　standi　in　judicio'　against　his　lord；　and　actually　could　be　a　plaintiff　against　him。　Court　rolls　of　ancient　demesne　manors　frequently　exhibit　the　curious　case　of　a　manorial　lord　who　is　summoned　to　appear；　distrained；　admitted　to　plead；　and　subjected　to　judgment　by　his　own　court。（29*）　And　as　I　said；　one　looks　naturally　to　such　instances　of　egregious　independence；　in　order　to　explain　the　affinity　between　privileged　villainage　and　freehold。　The　explanation　would　be　insufficient；　however；　and　this　for　two　simple　reasons。　The　passage　of　the　manor　into　the　hands　of　a　subject　only　modifies　the　institution　of　ancient　demesne；　but　does　not　constitute　it；　the　'little　writ　of　right'　is　by　no　means　framed　to　suit　the　exceptional　case　of　a　contention　between　lord　and　tenant；　its　object　is　also　to　protect　the　tenants　against　each　other　in　a　way　which　is　out　of　the　question　where　ordinary　villainage　is　concerned。　The　two　reasons　converge；　as　it　were；　in　the　fact　that　the　'little　writ　of　right'　is　suable　in　all　ancient　demesne　manors　without　exception；　that　it　applies　quite　as　much　to　those　which　remain　in　the　crown　as　to　those　which　have　been　alienated　from　it。（30*）　And　this　leads　us　to　a　very　important　deduction。　If　the　affinity　of　privileged　villainage　and　freehold　is　connected　with　the　'little　writ　of　right'　as　such；　and　not　merely　with　a　particular　application　of　it；　if　the　little　writ　of　right　is　framed　for　all　the　manors　of　ancient　demesne　alike；　the　affinity　of　privileged　villainage　and　freehold　is　to　be　traced　to　the　general　condition　of　the　king's　manors　in　ancient　demesne。（31*）　　　　　Although　the　tenants　in　ancient　demesne　are　admitted　to　use　the　'little　writ　of　right'　only；　their　court　made　it　go　a　long　way；　and　in　fact；　all　or　almost　all　the　real　actions　of　the　common　law　had　their　parallel　in　its　jurisdiction。　The　demandant；　when　appearing　in　court；　made　a　protestation　to　sue　in　the　nature　of　a　writ　of　mort　d'ancestor　or　of　dower（32*）　or　the　like；　and　the　procedure　varied　accordingly；　sometimes　following　very　closely　the　lines　of　the　procedure　in　the　high　courts；　and　sometimes　exhibiting　tenacious　local　usage　or　archaic　arrangements。（33*）　　　　　Actions　as　to　personal　estate　could　be　pleaded　without　writ；　and　as　for　the　crown　pleas　they　were　reserved　to　the　high　courts。（34*）　But　even　in　actions　regarding　the　soil　a　removal　to　these　latter　was　not　excluded。（35*）　Evocation　to　a　higher　court　followed　naturally　if　the　manorial　court　refused　justice　and　such　removal　made　the　land　frank　fee。（36*）　The　proceedings　in　ancient　demesne　could　be　challenged；　and　thereupon　a　writ　of　false　judgment　brought　the　case　under　the　cognizance　of　the　courts　of　common　law。　If　on　examination　an　error　was　found；　the　sentence　of　the　lower　tribunal　was　quashed　and　the　case　had　to　proceed　in　the　higher。（37*）　instances　of　examination　and　revision　are　frequent　in　our　records。（38*）　The　examination　of　the　proceedings　by　the　justices　was　by　no　means　an　easy　matter；　because　they　were　constantly　confronted　by　appeals　to　the　custom　of　the　manor　and　counter　appeals　to　the　principles　of　the　common　law　of　England。　It　was　very　difficult　to　adjust　these　conflicting　elements　with　nicety。　As　to　the　point　of　fact；　whether　an　alleged　custom　was　really　in　usage　or　not；　the　justices　had　a　good　standing　ground　for　decision。　They　asked；　as　a　rule；　whether　precedents　could　be　adduced　and　proved　as　to　the　usage；（39*）　they　allowed　a　great　latitude　for　the　peculiarities　of　customary　law；　but　the　difficulty　was　that　a　line　had　to　be　drawn　somewhere。（40*）　This　procedure　of　revision　on　the　whole　is　quite　as　important　a　manifestation　of　the　freehold　qualities　of　privileged　villainage　as　pleading　by　writ。　Men　holding　in　pure　villainage　also　had　a　manorial　court　to　go　to　and　to　plead　in；　but　its　judicial　organisation　proceeded　entirely　from　the　will　and　power　of　the　lord；　and　it　ended　where　his　will　and　power　ended；　there　was　no　higher　court　and　no　revision　for　such　men。　The　writ　of　false　judgment　in　respect　of　tenements　in　ancient　demesne　shows　conclusively　that　the　peculiar　procedure　provided　for　the　privileged　villains　was　only　an　instance　and　a　variation　of　the　general　law　of　the　land；　maintaining　actionable　rights　of　free　persons。　And　be　it　again　noted；　that　there　was　no　sort　of　difference　as　to　revision　between　those　manors　which　were　in　the　actual　possession　of　the　crown　and　those　which　were　out　of　it。（41*）　Revision　and　reversal　were　provided　not　as　a　complement　to　the　legal　protection　of　the　tenant　against　the　lord；　but　as　a　consequence　of　that　independent　position　of　the　tenant　as　a　person　who　has　rights