Villainage in England: Essays in English Mediaeval History. Paul Vinogradoff
Чтение книги онлайн.

Читать онлайн книгу Villainage in England: Essays in English Mediaeval History - Paul Vinogradoff страница 15

Название: Villainage in England: Essays in English Mediaeval History

Автор: Paul Vinogradoff

Издательство: Public Domain

Жанр: Юриспруденция, право

Серия:

isbn:

isbn:

СКАЧАТЬ 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 own79. 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 hand80. 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 away81 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 lord82. 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 actions83. 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 lord84, 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 lord. There was no need of any accessory action to make his acts complete and legal85. Again we come to an anomaly: the slave is free against everybody but his lord.

      Convention with the lord.

      Even against his lord the bondman had some standing ground for a civil action. It has rightly been maintained, that he could implead his master in consequence of an agreement with him. The assertion is not quite easy to prove however, and has been put forward too sweepingly86. At first sight it seems even that the old law books, i.e. those of Bracton and his followers, teach the opposite doctrine. They deal almost exclusively with the case of a feoffment made by the lord to a villain and his heirs, and give the feoffee an action only on the ground of implied manumission. The feoffor enfranchises his serf indirectly, even if he does not say so in as many words, because he has spoken of the feoffee's heirs, and the villain has no other heirs besides the lord87. The action eventually proceeds in this case, because it is brought not by a serf but by a freed man. One difficult passage in Bracton points another way; it is printed in a foot-note88. There can be no doubt, that in it Bracton is speaking of a covenant made by the lord not with a free man or a freed man, but with a villain. This comes out strongly when it is said, that the lord, and not the villain, has the assize against intruders, and when the author puts the main question—is the feoffor bound to hold the covenant or not? The whole drift of the quotation can be understood only on the fundamental assumption that we have lord and villain before us. But there are four words which militate against this obvious explanation; the words 'sibi et heredibus suis.' We know what their meaning is—they imply enfranchisement and a freehold estate of inheritance. They involve a hopeless contradiction to the doctrine previously stated, a doctrine which might be further supported by references to Britton, Fleta and Bracton himself89. In short, if we accept them, we can hardly get out of confusion. Were our text of Bracton much more definitely and satisfactorily settled than it is90, one would still feel tempted to strike them out; as it is we have a text studded with interpolations and errors, and it seems quite certain that 'sibi et heredibus suis' has got into it simply because the compositor of Tottell's edition repeated it from the conclusion of the sentence immediately preceding, and so mixed up two cases, which were to be distinguished by this very qualification. The four words are missing in all the MSS. of the British Museum, the Bodleian and the Cambridge University Library91. I have no doubt that further verification will only confirm my opinion. On my assumption Bracton clearly distinguishes between two possibilities. In one case the deed simply binds the lord as to a particular person, in the other it binds him in perpetuity; and in this latter case, as there ought not to be any heirs of a bondman but the lord, bondage is annihilated by the deed. It is not annihilated when one person is granted a certain privilege as to a particular piece of land, and in every other respect the grantee and all his descendants remain unfree92:—he has no freehold, but he has a special covenant to fall back upon. This seems to lie at the root of what Bracton calls privileged villainage by covenant as distinguished from villain socage93.

      Legal practice as to conventions.

      The reader may well ask whether there are any traces of such an institution in practice, as it is not likely that Bracton would have indulged in mere theoretical disquisitions on such an important point. Now it would be difficult to find very many instances in point; the line between covenant and enfranchisement was so easily passed, and an incautious step would have such unpleasant consequences for landlords, that they kept as clear as possible of any deeds which might indirectly destroy their claims as to the persons of their villains94. On the other hand, even privileged serfs would have a great difficulty in vindicating their rights on the basis of covenant if they remained at the same time under the sway of the lord in general. The difficulties on both sides explain why Fleta and Britton endorse only the chief point of Bracton's doctrine, namely, the implied manumission, and do not put the alternative as to a covenant when heirs are not mentioned. Still I have come across some traces in legal practice95 of contracts in the shape of the one discussed. A very interesting case occurred in Norfolk in 1227, before Martin Pateshull himself. A certain Roger of Sufford gave a piece of land to one of his villains, William Tailor, to hold freely by free services, and when Roger died, his son and heir William of Sufford confirmed the lease. When it pleased the lord afterwards to eject the tenant, this latter actually brought an assize of novel disseisin and recovered possession. Bracton's marginal note to the case runs thus: 'Note, that the son of a villain recovered by an assize of novel disseisin a piece of land which his father had held in villainage, because the lord of the villain by his charter gave it to the son [i.e. to the plaintiff], even without manumission96.' The court went in this case even further than Bracton's treatise would have warranted: the villain was considered as having the freehold, and an assize of novel disseisin was granted; but although such a treatment of the case was perhaps not altogether sound, the chief point on which the contention rested is brought out clearly enough. There was a covenant, and in consequence an action, although there was no manumission; and it is to this point that the marginal note draws special attention97.

      Waynage.

      Again, we find in the beginning of Bracton's treatise a remark98 which is quite out of keeping with the doctrine that the villain had no property to vindicate against his lord; it is contradicted by other passages in the same book, and deserves to be considered the СКАЧАТЬ

<p>79</p>

Bract. Note-book, pl. 1256: 'Et Ricardus dicit quod assisa non debet inde fieri quia predictus Iohannes dedit terram illam cuidam uillano ipsius Ricardi, et ipse uillanus reddidit terram illam domino suo sicut emptam catallis domini sui, et quod ita ingressum habuit per uillanum illum in terram illam ponit se super iuratam.' Liber Assisarum, ann. 41. pl. 4. f. 252, shows that the statute de religiosis could be evaded by the lord entering into his villain's acquest. 'Levesque d'Exester port un Assise de no. diss. vers le tenaunt et Persey pur Leuesque en euidence dit, que un A. que fuit villeine le Evesque come de droit de sa Eglise purchase les tenements a luy et ses heyres et morust seisie, apres que mort entra B. come fitz et heire, sur que possession pur cause de villeinage entra Leuesque.—Wich. Home de religion ne puit pas recoverer per assise terre si title de droit ne soit troue en luy, et ou le title que est trouue en Leuesque est pur cause de la purchace de son villein, en quel cas Leuesque ne fuit compellable de entre sil nust vola mes puit auer eu ses seruices, et le statute voit Quod terrae et tenementa ad manum mortuam nullo modo deueniant, per que il semble que nous ne possomus pas doner iudgement pur Leuesque en ceo cas. Sanke: de son villein ne puit il pas leuer ses seruices, ne accepter lesse par sa maine, car a ceo que ieo entend par acceptacion de homage ou de fealty per sa maine il serra enfraunchi, per quey necessite luy arcte dentre, et le statut nestoit pas fait mes de restreindre purchaus a faire de nouel, et non pas a defaire ceo qe fuit launcien droit dez eglises. Et sur ceo fuerent aiournes en common bank, et illonque le judgement done pur Leuesque sans difficultie,' etc. (See also the report of the same case in Y.B. Mich. 41 Edw. III, pl. 8. f. 21.)

<p>80</p>

Bracton, f. 25: 'Si … stipulatus sit servus sibi ipsi, et non domino, id non statim acquiritur domino, quamuis illud (corr. ille) sit sub voluntate et potestate sua, antequam dominus apprehensus fuerit possessionem. Quod quidem impune facere poterit, si voluerit, propter exceptionem,' etc. Fitz. Abr. Vill. pl. 22 (Pasch. 35 Edw. III): 'Si le villen le roy purchase biens ou chatteux le properte de eux est en le roy sauns seisier. Mes auter est de auter home, etc. Mes sil purchas terre le roy doit seisier, etc. car Thorp. dit que terre demurt terre tout temps, mes biens come boefs ou vache puit estre mange.'

<p>81</p>

Bracton, f. 25 b: 'Sic constat, quod qui sub potestate alterius fuerit, dare poterit. Sed qualiter hoc cum ipse, qui ab aliis possidetur, nihil possidere possit? Ergo videtur quod nihil dare possit, quia non potest quis dare quod non habet, et nisi fuerit in possessione rei dandae. Respondeo, dare potest qui seisinam habet qualemcunque, et servus dare potest,' etc. In case of an execution for debt due to the king the goods of the villain were to be taken only when the lord's goods were exhausted. Dialog. de Scacc. ii. 14. p. 229.

<p>82</p>

Bracton, f. 190: 'Et non competit alicui hujusmodi exceptio de villenagio, praeterquam vero domino, nisi utrumque probet, scilicet quod villanus sit et teneat in villenagio, cum per hoc sequatur, quod ad ipsum non pertineat querela sive assisa, sed ad verum dominum, et ideo cadit assisa quantum ad personam suam et non quantum ad personam domini.' Cf. Britton, i. 325.

<p>83</p>

Britton, i. 199; Littleton, 189; Bract. Note-book, pl. 1025: 'Assisa venit recognitura utrum una uirgata terre cum pertinenciis in R. sit libera elemosina pertinens ad ecclesiam Magistri Iohannis de R. de R. an laicum feodum Gaufridi Beieudehe. Qui venit et dicit quod non debet inde assisa fieri quia antecessores sui feoffati fuerunt a conquestu Anglie ita quod tenerent de ecclesia illa et redderent ei per annum x. solidos.... Iuratores dicunt quod terra illa est feodum eiusdem ecclesie ita quod idem G. et antecessores sui semper tenuerunt de ecclesia.... Et dicunt quod idem Gaufridus est natiuus Comitis Warenne et de eo tenet in uilenagio aliud tenementum. Postea uenit Gaufridus et cognouit quod est uillanus Comitis Warenne. Postea concordati sunt,' etc.

<p>84</p>

Example, Fitz. Abr. Villen. 16. The proper reply to such a plea is shown by Bract. Note-book, pl. 1833: 'Et Iohannes dicit quod hoc ei nocere non debet, quia quicquid idem dicat de uillenagio, ipsemet ut liber homo sine contradiccione domini sui terram illam dedit Iohanni del Frid patri istius Iohannis pro homagio et seruicio suo … Consideratum est quod predictus Iohannes recuperauit seisinam suam, et Richerus in misericordia.' Liber Assis. ann. 43. pl. 1. f. 265 gives the contrary decision: 'Lassise agarde et prise, per quel il fuit troue quil [le defendant] fuit villein al Counte.... mes troue fuit ouster que le Counte ne fut unques seisie de la terre, ne onques claima riens en la terre, et troue fuit que le plaintif fuit seisie et disseisie. Et sur ceo, le quel le plaintif recouerer, ou que le brief abateroit sont ajornes deuant eux mesmes a Westminster. A que jour per opinion de la Court le briefe abatu, per que le plaintif fuit non sue,' etc.

<p>85</p>

A different view is taken by Stubbs, i. 484.

<p>86</p>

Digby, Real Property, 3rd ed. p. 128. I may say at once that I fail to see any connexion between copyhold tenure and any express agreements between lord and villain.

<p>87</p>

Bracton, 192 b: 'Si autem dominus ita dederit sine manumissione, servo et heredibus suis tenendum libere, presumi poterit de hoc quod servum voluit esse liberum, cum aliter servus heredes habere non possit nisi cum libertate et ita contra dominum excipientem de villenagio competit ei replicatio.' Cf. 23 b and Britton, i. 247; Fleta, 238; Littleton, secs. 205, 207.

<p>88</p>

Bracton, 24 b: 'Si autem in charta hoc tantum contineatur, habendum et tenendum tali (cum sit servus) per liberum servitium huiusmodi verba non faciunt servum liberum nec dant ei liberum tenementum … Quia tenementum nichil confert nec detrahit personae, nisi praecedat, ut dictum est, homagium vel manumissio, vel quod tantundem valet de concessione domini, scilicet quod villanus libere teneat et quiete et per liberum servitium, sibi et haeredibus suis. Si autem hoc solum dicatur, quod teneat per liberum servitium [sibi et heredibus suis], si ejectus fuerit a quocunque non recuperet per assisam noue disseisine, ut liberum tenementum, quia domino competit assisa et non villano. Si tamen dominus ipsum ejecerit, quaeritur, an contra dominum agere possit de conventione, cum prima facie non habet personam standi in judicio ad hoc, quod dominus teneat ei conventionem, videtur quod sic, propter factum domini sui, ut si agat de conventione, et dominus excipiat de servitute, replicare poterit de facto domini sui, sicut supra dicitur de feoffamento. Nec debent jura juvare dominum contra voluntatem suam, quia semel voluit conventionem, et quamvis damnum sentiat, non tamen fit ei injuria et ex quo prudenter et scienter contraxit cum servo suo, tacite renunciavit exceptionem villenagii.'

<p>89</p>

The freehold would be given and still 'non recuperet per assisam no. diss. quia domino competit assisa et non villano.'

<p>90</p>

See my article, 'The Text of Bracton,' in the Law Quarterly Review, i. 189, et sqq.; and Maitland, Introduction to the Note-book of Bracton, 26 sqq.

<p>91</p>

The Cambridge MSS. have been inspected for me by Mr. Maitland.

<p>92</p>

Comp. Bracton, f. 194 b: 'Quia ex quo mentionem fecit de heredibus praesumitur vehementer, quod dominus voluit servum esse liberum quod quidem non esset, si de heredibus mentionem non fecerit.'

<p>93</p>

Bracton, f. 208 b: 'Est etiam villenagium non ita purum, sive concedatur libero homini vel villano ex conventione tenendum pro certis servitiis et consuetudinibus nominatis et expressis, quamvis servitia et consuetudines sunt villanae. Et unde si liber ejectus fuerit vel villanus manumissus vel alienatus (corr. alienus best MSS.) recuperare non poterunt ut liberum tenementum, cum sit villenagium et cadit assisa, vertitur tamen in juratam ad inquirendum de conventione propter voluntatem dimittentis et consensum, quia si quaerentes in tali casu recuperarint villenagium, non erit propter hoc domino injuriatum propter ipsius voluntatem et consensum, et contra voluntatem suam jura ei non subveniunt, quia si dominus potest villanum manumittere et feoffare multo fortius poterit ei quandam conventionem facere, et quia si potest id quod plus est, potest multo fortius id quod minus est.' We have here another difficulty with the text. The wording is so closely allied to the passage on 24 b. just quoted, and the last sentences seem to indicate so clearly that the case of a privileged villain is here opposed to manumission and feoffment, that the 'villanus manumissus vel alienus' looks quite out of place. Is it a later gloss? Even if it is retained, however, the passage points to a very material limitation of the lord's power. The holding in question can certainly not be described as being held 'at will.' To me the words in question look like a gloss or an addition, although very probably they were inserted early, perhaps by Bracton himself, who found it difficult to maintain consistently a villain's contractual rights against the lord. Another solution of the difficulty is suggested to me by Sir Frederick Pollock. He thinks 'villanus manumissus vel alienus' correct, and lays stress on the fact, that personal condition does not matter in this case: that even though the tenant be free or quoad that lord as good as free, the assize lies not and there shall only be an action on the covenant. If we accept this explanation which saves the words under suspicion, we shall have to face another difficulty: the text would turn from villanus (suus) to villanus alienus and back to villanus (suus) without any intimation that the subject under discussion had been altered.

<p>94</p>

The later practice is well known. Any agreement with a bondman led to a forfeiture of the lord's rights. It may be seen at a glance that such could not have been the original doctrine. Otherwise why should the old books lay such stress on the mention of heirs?

<p>95</p>

Besides the case from the Note-book which I discuss in the text, Bracton, f. 199, is in point: 'Item esto quod villanus teneat per liberum servitium sibi tantum, nulla facta mentione de heredibus, si cum ejectus fuerit proferat assisam, et cum objecta fuerit exceptio villenagii, replicet quod libere teneat et petat assisam, non valebit replicatio, ex quo nulla mentio facta est de heredibus, quia liberum tenementum in hoc casu non mutat statum, si fuerit sub potestate domini constitutus. Ut in eodem itinere (in ultimo itinere Martini de Pateshull) in comitatu Essex, assisa noue disseisine, si Radulphus de Goggenhal.' The villain fails in his assize and there has been no manumission, still it seems admitted that in this case the villain has acquired liberum tenementum by the lord's act. How can this be except on the supposition that there is a covenant enforceable by the villain against the lord?

<p>96</p>

Bract. Note-book, pl. 1814: 'Nota quod filius villani recuperat per assisam noue disseisine terram quam pater suus tenuit in villenagio quia dominus villani illam dedit filio suo per cartam suam eciam sine manumissione.'

<p>97</p>

F.W. Maitland tells me, that Concanen's Report of Rowe v. Brenton describes bond conventioners in Cornwall.

<p>98</p>

Bracton, f. 6: 'Et in hoc legem habent contra dominos, quod stare possunt in judicio contra eos de vita et membris propter saevitiam dominorum, vel propter intollerabilem injuriam, ut si eos destruant, quod salvum non possit eis esse waynagium suum. [Hoc autem verum est de illis servis, qui tenent de antiquo dominico coronae, sed de aliis secus est, quia quandocunque placuerit domino, auferre poterit a villano suo waynagium suum et omnia bona sua.] Expedit enim reipublicae ne quis re sua male utatur.'