vill2- 第14部分

　the　king's　bailiffs。　　　　　According　to　current　notions　the　demesnes　of　the　crown　ought　not　to　have　been　alienated　at　all。　Although　alienated　by　one　king　they　were　considered　as　liable　to　be　resumed　by　his　successors。（65*）　And　as　a　matter　of　fact　such　resumptions　were　by　no　means　unusual。　Edward　I　gave　an　adequate　expression　to　this　doctrine　when　he　ordered　an　inquisition　into　the　state　of　the　tenantry　at　Stoneleigh：　　he　did　not　wish　any　encroachment　made　on　the　old　constitution　of　the　manor；　for　he　had　always　in　mind　the　possibility　that　his　royal　rights　would　be　resumed　by　himself　or　by　one　of　his　successors。（66*）　　　　　If　we　turn　to　the　court　rolls　of　a　manor　which　is　actually　in　the　king's　hand　and　compare　them　with　those　of　a　manor　which　he　has　granted　to　some　convent　or　some　private　lord；　we　see　hardly　any　difference　between　them。　The　rolls　of　the　manor　of　Havering　at　the　Record　Office；　although　comparatively　late；　afford　a　good　insight　into　the　constitution　of　a　manor　retained　in　the　king's　own　hand。　They　contain　a　good　many　writs　of　right；　and　though；　naturally　enough；　the　tenants　do　not　bring　actions　against　the　king；　we　find　an　instance　in　which　the　king　brings　an　action　against　his　tenant；　and　pleads　before　a　court　which　is　held　in　his　own　name。（67*）　This　is　good　proof　that　the　condition　of　the　tenants　was　by　no　means　dependent　on　the　arbitrary　action　of　the　manorial　officers。　When　King　Henry　II　granted　Stoneleigh　to　the　Cistercians　he　displaced　a　number　of　'rustics'　from　their　holdings；　and　while　doing　this　he　recognised　their　right　and　enjoined　the　sheriff　of　Warwickshire　to　give　them　an　equivalent　for　what　they　had　lost　in　consequence　of　the　grant。（68*）　The　notion　from　which　all　inquiry　consequent　upon　a　'Monstraverunt'　starts　is　always　this；　that　the　tenants　were　holding　by　certain　（i。e。　by　fixed）　services　at　the　time　when　the　manor　was　in　the　king's　own　hand。　The　certainty　is　not　created　by　the　fact　that　the　manor　passes　away　from　the　king　to　some　one　else；　it　exists　when　the　land　is　royal　land　and　therefore　cannot　be　destroyed　on　land　that　has　been　alienated。　So　true　is　this　that　Bracton　and　Britton　give　their　often　cited　description　of　privileged　villainage　without　alluding　to　the　question　whether　or　no　the　manor　is　still　in　the　king's　hand；（69*）　Britton　even　applies　this　description　primarily　to　the　king's　own　possessions　by　his　way　of　stating　the　law　as　the　direct　utterance　of　the　king's　command。　The　well…known　fact　that　the　'ferm'　or　rent　of　royal　manors　was　not　always　fixed；　that　we　constantly　hear　of　an　increased　rental　（incrementum）　levied　in　addition　to　the　old　'ferm'；　（assisa　redditus　antiquitus　assisus）；　can　be　easily　reconciled　with　this　doctrine。（70*）　The　prosperity　of　the　country　was　gradually　rising；　both　in　agricultural　communities　and　in　towns　new　tenements　and　houses；　new　occupations　and　revenues　were　growing；　and　it　was　not　the　interest　either　of　the　communities　or　of　the　lord　to　compress　this　development　within　an　unelastic　bond。　In　principle　the　increased　payments　fell　on　this　new　growth　on　the　demesne；　although　this　may　in　some　cases　have　been　due　to　exactions　against　which　the　people　could　remonstrate　only　in　the　name　of　immemorial　custom；　and　only　by　way　of　petition　since　nobody　could　judge　the　king。　In　principle；　too；　certainty　of　condition　was　admitted　as　to　the　privileged　villains　on　the　king's　demesnes。（71*）　　　　　This　serves　to　explain　the　procedure　followed　by　the　court　when　a　question　of　services　was　raised　by　a　writ　of　'Monstraverunt。'　The　first　thing；　of　course；　was　to　ascertain　whether　the　manor　was　ancient　demesne　or　not；　and　for　this　purpose　nothing　short　of　a　direct　mention　in　Domesday　was　held　to　be　sufficient。（72*）　When　this　question　had　been　solved　in　the　affirmative；　a　jury　had　to　decide　what　the　customs　and　duties　were；　by　which　the　ancestors　of　the　plaintiffs　held　at　the　time　when　the　crown　was　possessed　of　the　manor。　In　principle　it　was　always　considered　that　such　had　been　the　services　at　the　time　of　the　Conquest；（73*）　but　practically；　of　course；　there　could　be　no　attempt　to　examine　into　such　ancient　history。　The　men　of　King's　Ripton　actually　pleaded　back　to　the　time　of　King　Cnut；　and　maintained　that　no　prescription　was　available　against　their　rights　as　no　prescription　could　avail　against　the　king。（74*）　The　courts　naturally　declined　to　go　higher　than　men　could　remember；　but　they　laid　down　this　limitation　entirely　as　one　of　practice　and　not　of　principle。（75*）　Metingham　demanded　that　the　claimants　should　make　good　their　contention　even　for　a　single　day　in　Richard　Coeur　de　Lion's　time。（76*）　The　men　of　Wycle　combine　both　assertions　in　their　contention　against　Mauger；　they　appeal　to　the　age　of　the　first　Norman　kings；　but　offer　to　prove　the　certainty　of　their　services　in　the　reigns　of　Richard　and　John。（77*）　　　　　Now　all　that　has　been　said　hitherto　applied　to　'the　tenants　in　ancient　demesne'　indiscriminately；　without　regard　to　any　diversity　of　classes　among　them。　Hitherto　I　have　not　noticed　any　such　diversity；　and　in　so　doing　I　am　warranted　by　the　authorities。　Those　authorities　commonly　speak　of　'men'　or　'tenants　in　ancient　demesne'　without　any　further　qualification。（78*）　Sometimes　the　expression　'condition　of　ancient　demesne'　also　is　used。　But　closer　examination　shows　a　variety　of　classes　on　the　privileged　soil；　and　leads　to　a　number　of　difficult　and　interesting　problems。　　　　　To　begin　with；　the　nature　of　the　tenancy　in　general　has　been　much　contested。　As　to　the　law　of　later　times　Mr　Elton　puts　the　case　in　this　way：　'There　is　great　confusion　in　the　law　books　respecting　this　tenure。　The　copyholders　of　these　manors　are　sometimes　called　tenants　in　ancient　demesne；　and　land　held　in　this　tenure　is　said　to　pass　by　surrender　and　admittance。　This　appears　to　be　inaccurate。　It　is　only　the　freeholders　who　are　tenants　in　ancient　demesne；　and　their　land　passes　by　common　law　conveyances　without　the　instrumentality　of　the　lord。　Even　Sir　W。　Blackstone　seems　to　have　been　misled　upon　this　point。　There　are　however；　as　a　rule；　in　manors　of　ancient　demesne；　customary　freeholders　and　sometimes　copyholders　at　the　will　of　the　lord；　as　well　as　the　true　tenants　in　ancient　demesne。'（79*）　Now　such　a　description　seems　strangely　out　of　keeping　with　the　history　of　the　tenure。　Blackstone　speaks　of　privileged　copyhold　as　descended　from　privileged　villainage；（80*）　and　as　to　the　condition　in　the　thirteenth　century　of　those　'men'　or　'tenants　in　ancient　demesne'　of　whom　we　have　been　speaking；　there　can　be　no　doubt。　Bracton　and　his　followers　lay　down　quite　distinctly　that　their　tenure　is　villainage　though　privileged　villainage。　The　men　of　ancient　demesne　are　men　of　free　blood　holding　in　villainage。（81*）　And　to　take　up　the　special　point　mentioned　by　Mr　Elton　　conveyance　by　surrender　and　admittance　is　a　quite　necessary　feature　of　the　tenure：（82*）　conveyance　by　charter　makes　the　land　freehold　and　destroys　its　ancient　demesne　condition。（83*）　But　although　this　is　so　clear　in　the　authorities　of　the　thirteenth　century；　there　is　undoubtedly　a　great　deal　of　confusion　in　later　law　books；　and　reasons　are　not　wanting　which　may　account　for　this　fact　and　for　the　doctrine　propounded　by　Mr　Elton　in　conformity　with　certain　modern　treatises　and　decisions。　　　　　We　may　start　with　the　observation；　that　privileged　villains　or　villain　socmen　are　not　the　only　people　to　be　found　on　the　soil　of　the　ancient　demesne。　There　are　free　tenants　there　and　pure　villains　too。（84*）　Free　socage　is　often　mentioned　in　these　manors；　and　it　is　frequently　pleaded　in　order　to　get　a　trial　transferred　to　the　Common　Law　Courts。　When　the　question　is　raised　whether　a　tenement　is　free　or　villain　socage；　the　fact　that　it　has　been　conveyed　by　feoffment　and　charter　is　treated；　as　has　just　been　pointed　out；　as　establishing　its　freehold　character　and　subjecting　it　to　the　ordinary　common　law　procedure。（85*）　On　the　other　hand；　registers　and　extents　of　ancient　demesne　manors　sometimes　treat　separately　of　'nativi'　or　'villani'　as　distinguished　from　the　regular　customary　tenants；　and　describe　their　services　as　being　particularly　base。（86*）　In　trials　it　is　quite　a　common　thing　for　a　lord；　when　accused　of　having　altered　the　services；　to　plead　that　the　plaintiffs　were　his　villains　to　be　treated　at　will。　Attempts　were　made　in　such　cases　to　take　advantage　of　the　general　term　'men　of　ancient　demesne；'　and　to　argue　that　all　the　population　on　the　crown　manors　must　be　of　the　same　condition；　the　difference　of　rank　applying　only　to　the　amount　and　the　kind　of　services；　but　not　to　their　certainty；　which　ought　to　be　taken　for　granted。（87*）　But　strictly　and　legally　the　lord's　plea　was　undoubtedly　good：　the　courts　admitted　it；　and　when　it　was　put　forward　proceeded　to　examine　the　question　of　fact　whether　the　lord　had　been　actually　seised　of　certain　or　of　uncertain　services。（88*）　It　is　of　considerable　importance　to　note　that　the　difference　between　villains　pure　and　villains　privileged　was　sometimes　connected　with　the　distinction　between　the　lord's　demesne　and　the　tenant's　land　in　the　manor。（89*）　The　demesne　proper　was　frank　fee　in　the　hands　of　the　lord；　and　could　be　used　by　him　at　his　pleasure。　If　he　chose　to　grant　it　away　to　villains　in　pure　villainage；　the　holdings　thus　formed　could　have　no　claim　to　rank　as　privileged　land。　It　was　assumed　that　some　such　holdings　had　been　formed　at　the　very　beginning；　as　it　were；　that　is　at　a　time　beyond　memory　of　man；　but　tenements　at　will　could　be　created　at　a　later　time　on　approved　waste　or　on　soil　that　had　escheated　to　the　lord　and　in　this　way　passed　through　his　demesne。（90*）　One　of　the　reasons　of　later　confusion　must　be　looked　for　in　the　fact　that　the　pure　villain　holdings　gradually　got　to　be　recognised　at　law　as　copyhold　or　base　customary　tenures。　They　were　thus　brought　dangerously　near　to　ancient　demesne　socage；　which　was　originally　nothing　but　base　customary　tenure。　The　very　fact　of　copyhold　thus　gaining　on　villain　socage　may　have　pushed　this　last　on　towards　freehold。　Already　the　Old　Natura　Brevium　does　not　know　exactly　how　to　make　distinctions。　It　speaks　of　three　species　of　socagefree；　ancient　demesne；　and　base。　The　line　is　soon　drawn　between　the　first　two；　but　the　third　kind　is　said　to　be　held　by　uncertain　services；　and　sued　by　writ　of　'Monstraverunt'　instead　of　havi