登陆注册
5252000000020

第20章

Matters would be greatly simplified if the distinction could really be traced through the authorities. In point of fact it turns out to be a late one. We may start from Coke in tracing back its history. His commentary upon Littleton certainly has a passage which shows that he came across opinions implying a difference of status between villains regardant and villains in gross. He speaks of the right of the villain to pursue every kind of action against every person except his lord, and adds: 'there is no diversity herein, whether he be a villain regardant or in gross, although some have said to the contrary,* (Co. Lit. 123b). Littleton himself treats of the terms in several sections, and it is clear that he never takes them to indicate status or define variation of condition. As has been pointed out by Hallam, he uses them only in connexion with a diversity in title, and a consequent diversity in the mode of pleading. If the lord has a deed or a recorded confession to prove a man's bondage, he may implead him as his villain in gross; if the lord has to rely upon prescription, he has to point out the manor to which the party and his ancestors have been regardant, have belonged, time out of mind.* As it is a question of title and not of condition, Littleton currently uses the mere 'villain' without any qualification, whereas such a qualification could not be dispensed with, if there had been really two different classes of villains. Last but not least, any thought of a diversity of condition is precluded by the fact, that Littleton assumes the transfer from one sub-division to the other to depend entirely on the free will of the lord (sections 175, 181, 182, 185). But still, although even Littleton does not countenance the classification I am now analysing, it seems to me that some of his remarks may have given origin to the prevalent misconception on the subject.

Let us take up the Year Books, which, even in their present state, afford such an inestimable source of information for the history of legal conceptions in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. An examination of the reports in the age of the Edwards will show at once that the terms regardant and in gross are used, or rather come into use, in the fourteenth century as definitions of the mode of pleading in particular cases. They are suggested by difference in title, but they do not coincide with it, and any attempt to make them coincide must certainly lead to misapprehension. I mean this the term 'villain regardant' applied to a man does not imply that the person in question has any status superior to that of the 'villain in gross,' and it does not imply that the lord has acquired a title to him by some particular mode of acquisition, e.g. by prescription as contrasted with grant or confession; it simply implies that for the purpose of the matter then in hand, for the purpose of the case that is then being argued, the lord is asserting and hoping to prove a title to the villain by relying on a title to a manor with which the villain is or has been connected-title it must be remembered is one thing, proof of title is another. As the contrast is based on pleading and not on title, one and the same person may be taken and described in one case as a villain regardant to a manor, and in another as a villain in gross. And now for the proof.

The expression 'regardant' never occurs in the pleadings at all, but 'regardant to a manor' is used often. From Edward III's time it is used quite as a matter of course in the formula of the 'exceptio' or special plea of villainage.* That is, if the defendant pleaded in bar of an action that the plaintiff was his bondman he generally said, I am not bound to answer A, because he is my villain and I am seised of him as of my villain as regardant to my manor of C. Of course there are other cases when the term is employed, but the plea in bar is by far the most common one and may stand for a test. This manner of pleading is only coming gradually into use in the fourteenth century, and we actually see how it is taking shape and spreading. As a rule the Year Books of Edward I's time have not got it. The defendant puts in his plea unqualified. 'He ought not to be answered because he is our villain' (Y.B. 21/22 Edward I, p. 166, ed. Horwood). There is a case in 1313 when a preliminary skirmish between the counsel on either side took place as to the sufficiency of the defendant's plea in bar, the plaintiff contending that it was not precise enough. Here, if any where, we should expect the term 'regardant,' but it is not forthcoming1. What is more, and what ought to have prevented any mistake, the official records of trials on the Plea Rolls up to Edward II always use the plain assertion, 'villanus... et tenet in villenagio.'* The practice of naming the manor to which a villain belonged begins however to come in during the reign of Edward II, and the terminology is by no means settled at the outset; expressions are often used as equivalent to 'regardant' which could hardly have misled later antiquaries as to the meaning of the qualification.* In a case of 1322, for instance, we have 'within the manor' where we should expect to find 'regardant to the manor.'* This would be very nearly equivalent to the Latin formula adopted by the Plea Rolls, which is simply ut de manerio.* Every now and then cases occur which gradually settle the terminology, because the weight of legal argumentation in them is made to turn on the fact that a particular person was connected with a particular manor and not with another. A case from 1317 is well in point. B.P. the defendant excepts against the plaintiff T.A. on the ground of villainage (qil est nostre vileyn, and nothing else). The plaintiff replies that he was enfranchised by being suffered to plead in an assize of mort d'ancestor against B.P.'s grandmother.

同类推荐
热门推荐
  • 胜鬘经挟注

    胜鬘经挟注

    本书为公版书,为不受著作权法限制的作家、艺术家及其它人士发布的作品,供广大读者阅读交流。汇聚授权电子版权。
  • 重生之仙武道

    重生之仙武道

    龙珠世界修仙?这画面太美,你敢不敢看?热血龙珠,我淡定修仙。谁敢装逼?脸给他打烂!原书名《龙珠仙武道》,现在改成这个不影响观看和内容!
  • 年少的你有少年

    年少的你有少年

    本故事讲述了一群少年的成长历程,从中学的青春时代一直到成熟的步入社会,有关友情,爱情,亲情。也许我们做的不够好,但我们一直在成长。
  • 不管你是谁

    不管你是谁

    宁馨爱上了网路上意外邂逅的Ryan,Ryan的幽默和体贴都让宁馨陷入了甜蜜的感情中不可自拔。然而一次意外,宁馨发现了Ryan的真实身份和真实目的,他带着那么多的秘密接近她,是一时寂寞还是爱慕已久?面对宁馨的质问,Ryan百口莫辩……
  • 静候玲珑心

    静候玲珑心

    云淡风轻的相守还是横扫天下的躁动,如果可以选择……
  • 王火文集·第七卷:心上的海潮 隐私权 众生百态

    王火文集·第七卷:心上的海潮 隐私权 众生百态

    《王火文集·第七卷》为中短篇和小小说合集,共分为三个部分。第一部分为中篇小说集《心上的海潮》,由七篇小说组成。多为不同时代背景下婚姻与爱情主题的故事,讲述主人公或因价值观,或因误会,或因懦弱,或因金钱,或因性格等的悲剧。第二部分为中篇小说《隐私权》,探讨爱人之间隐私权的尺度。第三部分为短篇和小小说集《众生百态》,由四十余篇小说组成,作品涉及领域广泛。有人生哲理,有对世事的慨叹与礼赞,刻画了种种人物,构成了丰富多彩的社会画面。
  • 错嫁权臣:倾国聘红妆

    错嫁权臣:倾国聘红妆

    自幼指婚,楚芊眠进京履约,却误惹豪门贵公子。京都大乱国破家亡,襁褓太子嗷嗷待哺。楚芊眠挺身而出,与贵公子合力抚养太子,山林里来,江河上去,携手恢复故国。贵公子要求婚?虽有纨绔夫婿,却有严谨婚约,不需要援手。贵公子上官知认真严肃:非也,二人同行不避男女,姑娘要对我清白负责。楚芊眠很想踹他万里之外,但太子需要贵公子,只能留下他。真心换真心,楚芊眠满意的交出情意。〖楚芊眠回京,一:与指腹为婚的夫婿相见,二:是否嫁他。出身高门的这位是什么鬼?楚芊眠的父母回京,一:为女儿定女婿,二:为家族挽回声誉。国舅之子少年才俊是什么鬼?上官知:岳父岳母在上,小婿不是纨绔,鉴定完毕。〗小剧场:〖上官知振振有词:我的壮志凌云,就是娶你。楚芊眠:拒绝。上官知:拒绝的都是好姑娘,再求。〗〖上官知:国泰民安,求亲成亲一条龙。楚芊眠:考虑。上官家:加定礼。楚家:考虑。小太子挥手:打开国库,倾国而聘,倾国而嫁。〗一对一,喜欢的亲收藏了。
  • 女配当道之丹音尸

    女配当道之丹音尸

    她很丑,而且很不温柔!手捧炼丹炉,脚踏七弦琴,身边还跟了一只骗吃骗喝的魔修大能……作为一只僵尸,苏裳自认为很低调。各路男修,她从不主动招惹。作为一名合格的金手指女配,苏裳自认为残暴得恰到好处,她从没在即墨子寒嘴里抢过食!僵尸当道,恶女来劫!诸位道友,拴好灵兽,捂好乾坤袋,前面正有一大泼僵尸来袭。
  • 攻心36计:男神只宠你

    攻心36计:男神只宠你

    那一年,他是军人,救下了她。这一年,她是心理医生,一心只想救下他。而他,貌似是想拿下她?“炎总,你有病。”“炎总,该吃药了。”“炎总,你脑子……”“女人,我的病,只有你能治!”
  • 猎户家的俏媳妇

    猎户家的俏媳妇

    从大公司老板成为小乡村农户新媳妇,爹不疼,娘早亡,继母搞冷暴力,一大家子都不待见;做点小生意,全家都不想干活,只想拿钱占便宜,还想将方子卖了换钱,一个个的眼皮子怎么就那么浅呢?东窗事发又想赖到她男人的头上!呵,小女不才有句MMP,不知当讲不当讲!分家!必须分家!分完了家,夫妻俩盖新房,做买卖,帮扶友邻,发家致富喜不胜收,极品亲人们再想占便宜就一个字——怼!怼!怼!怼出天际!走好不送!不服?来战!--情节虚构,请勿模仿