vill2- 第7部分

ey　are　borne　out　in　a　general　way　by　legal　practice。　But　if　from　the　general　we　turn　to　the　particular；　if　we　analyse　the　thirteenth…century　decisions　which　are　at　the　bottom　of　Bracton's　teaching；　we　shall　find　in　many　cases　notions　cropping　up；　which　do　not　at　all　coincide　with　the　received　views　on　the　subject。　In　fact　we　come　across　many　apparent　contradictions　which　can　be　attributed　only　to　a　state　of　fermentation　and　transition　in　the　law　of　the　thirteenth　century。　　　　　Martin　of　Bestenover's　case　is　used　by　Bracton　in　his　treatise　as　illustrating　the　view　that　tenure　has　no　influence　on　status。*　It　was　a　long　litigation；　or　rather　a　series　of　litigations。　Already　in　the　first　year　of　King　John's　reign　we　hear　of　a　final　concord　between　John　of　Montacute　and　Martin　of　Bestenover　as　to　a　hundred　acres　held　by　the　latter。*　The　tenant　is　ejected　however；　and　brings　an　assize　of　mort　d'ancestor　against　Beatrice　of　Montacute；　who；　as　holding　in　dower；　vouches　her　son　John　to　warranty。　The　latter　excepts　against　Martin　as　a　villain。　A　jury　by　consent　of　the　parties　is　called　in；　and　we　have　their　verdict　reported　three　times　in　different　records。*　They　say　that　Martin's　father　Ailfric　held　of　John　Montacute's　father　a　hundred　acres　of　land　and　fifty　sheep　besides；　for　which　he　had　to　pay　20s。　a　year；　to　be　tallaged　reasonably；　when　the　lord　tallaged　his　subjects；　and　that　he　was　not　allowed　to　give　his　daughter　away　in　marriage　before　making　a　fine　to　the　lord　according　to　agreement。　We　do　not　know　the　decision　of　the　judges　in　John's　time；　but　both　from　the　tenor　of　the　verdict　and　from　what　followed；　we　may　conclude　that　Martin　succeeded　in　vindicating　his　right　to　the　land。　Proceedings　break　out　again　at　the　beginning　of　Henry　III's　reign。　　　　　In　1219　John　of　Montacute　is　again　maintaining　that　Martin　is　his　villain；　in　answer　as　it　seems　to　an　action　de　libertate　probanda　which　Martin　has　brought　against　him。　The　court　goes　back　to　the　verdict　of　the　jury　in　John's　time；　and　finds　that　by　this　verdict　the　land　is　proved　to　be　of　base　tenure；　and　the　person　to　be　free。　The　whole　is　repeated　again　on　a　roll　of　1220；　whether　we　have　two　decisions；　one　of　1219　and　the　other　of　1220；　or　merely　two　records　of　the　same　decision；　is　not　very　clear；　nor　is　it　very　important。　But　there　are　several　interesting　points　about　this　case。　The　decision　in　1220　is　undoubtedly　very　strong　on　the　distinction　between　status　and　tenure：　'nullum　erat　placitum　in　curia　domini　Regis　de　villenagio　corporis　ipsius　Martini　nisi　tantum　de　villenagio　et　consuetudinibus　terre；'　etc。　As　to　tenure；　the　court　delivers　an　opinion　which　is　entitled　to　special　consideration；　and　has　been　specially　noticed　by　Bracton　both　in　his　Notebook　and　in　his　treatise。　'If　Martin；'　say　the　judges　on　the　roll　of　1219；　'wishes　to　hold　the　land；　let　him　perform　the　services　which　his　father　has　been　performing；　if　not；　the　lord　may　take　the　land　into　his　hands。'*　The　same　thing　is　repeated　almost　literally　on　the　roll　of　1220。　Bracton　draws　two　inferences　from　these　decisions。　One　is　suggested　by　the　beginning　of　the　sentence；　'If　Martin　wishes　to　hold　the　land。'　Both　in　the　Note…book　and　in　the　treatise　Bracton　deduces　from　it；　that　holding　and　remaining　on　the　land　depended　on　the　wish　of　Martin；　who　as　a　free　man　was　entitled　to　go　away　when　he　pleased。*　The　judgment　does　not　exactly　say　this；　but　as　to　the　right　of　a　free　person　to　leave　the　land　there　can　be　no　doubt。　　　　　The　second　conclusion　is；　that　if　a　free　man　hold　in　villainage　by　villain　services　he　cannot　be　ejected　by　the　lord　against　his　will；　provided　he　is　performing　the　services　due　from　the　holding。　What　Bracton　says　here　is　distinctly　implied　by　the　decisions　of　1219　and　1220；　which　subject　the　lord's　power　of　dealing　with　the　land　to　a　condition　　non…performance　of　services。*　There　can　be　no　question　as　to　the　importance　of　such　a　view；　it　contains；　as　it　were；　the　germ　of　copyhold　tenure。*　It　places　villainage　substantially　on　the　same　footing　as　freehold；　which　may　also　be　forfeited　by　discontinuance　of　the　services；　although　the　procedure　for　establishing　a　forfeiture　in　that　case　would　be　a　far　more　elaborate　one。　And　it　must　be　understood　that　Bracton's　deduction　by　no　means　rests　on　the　single　case　before　us。　He　appeals　also　to　a　decision　of　William　Raleigh；　who　granted　an　assize　of　mort　d'ancestor　to　a　free　man　holding　in　villainage。*　Unfortunately　the　original　record　of　this　case　has　been　lost。　The　decision　in　a　case　of　1225　goes　even　further。　It　is　an　assize　of　novel　disseisin　brought　by　a　certain　William　the　son　of　Henry　against　his　lord　Bartholomew　the　son　of　Eustace。　The　defendant　excepts　against　the　plaintiff　as　his　villain；　the　court　finds；　on　the　strength　of　a　verdict；　that　he　is　a　villain；　and　still　they　decide　that　William　may　hold　the　land　in　dispute；　if　he　consents　to　perform　the　services；　if　not；　he　forfeits　his　land。*　Undoubtedly　the　decision　before　us　is　quite　isolated；　and　it　goes　against　the　rules　of　procedure　in　such　cases。　Once　the　exception　proved；　nothing　ought　to　have　been　said　as　to　the　conditions　of　the　tenure。　Still　the　mistake　is　characteristic　of　a　state　of　things　which　had　not　quite　been　brought　under　the　well…known　hard　and　fast　rule。　And　the　best　way　to　explain　it　is　to　suppose　that　the　judges　had　in　their　mind　the　more　familiar　case　of　free　men　holding　in　villainage；　and　gave　decision　in　accordance　with　Martin　of　Bestenover　v。　Montacute；　and　the　case　decided　by　Raleigh。*　All　these　instances　go　clean　against　the　usually　accepted　doctrine；　that　holding　in　villainage　is　the　same　as　holding　at　the　will　of　the　lord：　the　celebrated　addition　'according　to　the　custom　of　the　manor'　would　quite　fit　them。　They　bring　home　forcibly　one　main　consideration；　that　although　in　the　thirteenth　century　the　feudal　doctrine　of　non…interference　of　the　state　between　lord　and　servile　tenantry　was　possessed　of　the　field；　its　victory　was　by　no　means　complete。　Everywhere　we　come　across　remnants　of　a　state　of　things　in　which　one　portion　at　least　of　the　servile　class　had　civil　rights　as　well　as　duties　in　regard　to　the　lord。　　　　　Matters　were　even　more　unsettled　as　to　customs　and　services　in　their　relation　to　status　and　tenure。　What　services；　what　customs　are　incompatible　with　free　status；　with　free　tenure？　Is　the　test　to　be　the　kind　of　services　or　merely　their　certainty？　Bracton　remarks　that　the　payment　of　merchet；　i。e。　of　a　fine　for　giving　away　one's　daughter　to　be　married；　is　not　in　keeping　with　personal　freedom。　But　he　immediately　puts　in　a　kind　of　retractation；*　and　indeed　in　the　case　of　Martin　of　Bestenover　it　was　held　that　the　peasant　was　free　although　paying　merchet。　To　tenure；　merchet；　being　a　personal　payment；　should　have　no　relation　whatever。　In　case　of　doubt　as　to　the　character　of　the　tenure；　the　inquiry　ought　to　have　been　entirely　limited　to　the　question　whether　rents　and　services　were　certain　or　not；*　because　it　was　established　that　even　a　free　tenement　could　be　encumbered　with　base　services。　In　reality　the　earlier　practice　of　the　courts　was　to　inquire　of　what　special　kind　the　services　and　customs　were；　whether　merchet　and　fine　for　selling　horses　and　oxen　had　been　paid；　whether　a　man　was　liable　to　be　tallaged　at　will　or　bound　to　serve　as　reeve；　whether　he　succeeded　to　his　tenancy　by　'junior　right'　（the　so…called　Borough　English　rule）；　and　the　like。　　　　　All　this　was　held　to　be　servile　and　characteristic　of　villainage。*　I　shall　have　to　discuss　the　question　of　services　and　customs　again；　when　I　come　to　the　information　supplied　by　manorial　documents。　It　is　sufficient　for　my　present　purpose　to　point　out　that　two　contradictory　views　were　taken　of　it　during　the　thirteenth　century；　'certain　or　uncertain？'　was　the　catchword　in　one　case；　'of　what　kind？'　in　the　other。　A　good　illustration　of　the　unsettled　condition　of　the　law　is　afforded　by　the　case　Prior　of　Ripley　v。　Thomas　Fitz…Adam。　According　to　the　Prior；　the　jurors　called　to　testify　as　to　services　and　tenures　had；　while　admitting　the　payment　of　tallage　and　merchet；　asked　leave　to　take　the　advice　of　Robert　Lexington；　a　great　authority　on　the　bench；　whether　a　holding　encumbered　by　such　customs　could　be　free。　　　　　The　subject　is　important；　not　only　because　its　treatment　shows　to　what　extent　the　whole　law　of　social　distinctions　was　still　in　a　state　of　fermentation；　but　also　because　the　classification　of　tenures　according　to　the　nature　of　customs　may　afford　valuable　clues　to　the　origin　of　legal　disabilities　in　economic　and　political　facts。　The　plain　and　formal　rule　of　later　law；　which　is　undoubtedly　quite　fitted　to　test　the　main　issue　as　to　the　power　of　the　lord；　is　represented　in　earlier　times　by　a　congeries　of　opinions；　each　of　which　had　its　foundation　in　some　matter　of　fact。　We　see　here　a　state　of　things　which　on　the　one　hand　is　very　likely　to　invite　an　artificial　simplification；　by　an　application　of　some　one…sided　legal　conception　of　serfdom；　while　on　the　other　hand　it　seems　to　have　originated　in　a　mixture　and　confusion　of　divers　classes　of　serfs　and　free　men；　which　shaded　off　into　each　other　by　insensible　degrees。　　　　　The　procedure　in　trials　touching　the　question　of　status　was　decidedly　favourable　to　liberty。　To　begin　with；　only　one　proof　was　accepted　as　conclusive　against　it　　absolute　proof　that　the　kinsfolk　of　the　person　claimed　were　villains　by　descent。*　The　verdict　of　a　jury　was　not　sufficient　to　settle　the　question；*　and　a　man　who　had　been　refused　an　assize　in　consequence　of　the　defendant　pleading　villainage　in　bar　had　the　right　notwithstanding　such　decision　to　sue　for　his　liberty。　When　the　proof　by　kinship　came　on；　two　limitations　were　imposed　on　the　party　maintaining　servitude：　women　were　not　admitted　to　stand　as　links　in　the　proof　because　of　their　frailty　and　of　the　greater　dignity　of　a　man；　and　one　man　was　not　deemed　sufficient　to　establish　the　servile　condition　of　the　person　claimed。*　If　the　defendant　in　a　plea　of　niefty；　or　a　plaintiff　in　an　action　of　liberty；　could　convincingly　show　that　his　father　or　any　not　too　remote　ancestor　had　come　to　settle　on　the　lord's　land　as　a　stranger；　his　liberty　as　a　descendant　was　sufficiently　proved。*　In　this　way　to　prove　personal　villainage　one　had　to　prove　villainage　by　birth。　Recognition　of　servile　status　in　a