lect05-第2节

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！








first　Revolution　was　this：　the　land…law　of　the　people　superseded






the　land…law　of　the　nobles；　In　England　the　converse　process　has






been　gone　through；　and　what　has　occurred　is　obviously　in　harmony






with　much　else　in　English　history。　The　system　of　the　nobles　has






become　in　all　essential　particulars　the　system　of　the　people。　The






rule　of　primogeniture；　which　once　applied　only　to　knightly






holdings；　came　to　apply　to　the　great　bulk　of　English　tenures；






except　the　Gavelkind　of　Kent　and　some　others　of　merely　local






importance。　This　part　of　the　change　took　place　at　a　remote　epoch；






and　its　circumstances　are　involved　in　much　obscurity；　and　we　know






little　more　of　it　with　certainty　than　that　it　was　rapidly






proceeding　between　the　time　at　which　Glanville　and　the　time　at






which　Bracton　wrote。　Glanville；　probably　not　earlier　than　the






thirty…third　year　of　Henry　the　Second's　reign；　expresses　himself






as　if　the　general　rule　of　law　caused　lands　held　by　free






cultivators　in　socage　to　be　divided　equally　between　all　the　male






children　at　the　death　of　the　last　owner；　Bracton；　probably　not






later　than　the　fifty…second　year　of　Henry　the　Third；　writes　as　if






the　rule　of　primogeniture　applied　universally　to　military　tenures






and　generally　to　socage　tenures。　But　another　branch　of　the






process　was　postponed　almost　to　our　own　day。　Possibly　not　many






Englishmen　have　recognised　with　as　much　clearness　as　a　recent






French　writer　（Doniol；　'La　Revolution　Fran鏰ise　et　la　F閛dalit*'）






that　the　transmutation　of　customary　and　copyhold　into　freehold






property；　which　has　been　proceeding　for　about　forty　years　under






the　conduct　of　the　Copyhold　and　Enclosure　Commissioners；　is　the






peaceful　and　insensible　removal　of　a　grievance　which　did　more






than　any　other　to　bring　about　the　first　French　Revolution　and　to






prevent　the　re…establishment　of　the　ancient　political　order。　But






long　before　there　was　a　Copyhold　Commission；　the　great　mass　of






English　landed　property　had　assumed　certain　characteristics　which






strongly　distinguished　it　from　the　peasant　property　of　the






Continent　as　it　existed　before　it　was　affected　by　the　French






Codes；　and　as　it　is　still　found　in　some　countries。　This　last　form






of　proprietorship　was　very　generally　fettered　by　the　duty　of






cultivation　in　some　particular　way；　and；　as　a　rule；　could　not　be






dealt　with　so　as　to　bar　the　rights　reserved　to　the　children　and






widow　of　the　owner　by　the　law　of　succession。　The　traces　of　a






similar　species　of　ownership；　probably　once　widely　diffused；　may






still　be　here　and　there　discerned　through　the　customs　of






particular　English　manors。　I　repeat　the　opinion　which　I　expressed






three　years　ago；　that　our　modern　English　conception　of　absolute






property　in　land　is　really　descended　from　the　special






proprietorship　enjoyed　by　the　Lord；　and　more　anciently　by　the






tribal　Chief；　in　his　own　Domain。　It　would　be　out　of　place　to






enter　here　on　a　discussion　of　the　changes　which　seem　to　me






desirable　in　order　to　make　the　soil　of　England　as　freely






exchangeable　as　the　theory　now　generally　accepted　demands；　but　to






the　principle　of　several　and　absolute　property　in　land　I　hold






this　country　to　be　committed。　I　believe　I　state　the　inference






suggested　by　all　known　legal　history　when　I　say　that　there　can　be






no　material　advance　in　civilisation　unless　landed　property　is






held　by　groups　at　least　as　small　as　Families；　and　I　again　remind






you　that　we　are　indebted　to　the　peculiarly　absolute　English　form






of　ownership　for　such　an　achievement　as　the　cultivation　of　the






soil　of　North　America。






　　　　Before　describing　to　you　the　new　light　which　the　Ancient　Laws






of　Ireland　throw　on　the　primitive　condition　of　the　institutions






of　which　I　have　been　speaking；　let　me　give　you　one　word　of






caution　as　to　the　statements　of　modern　Irish　writers　respecting






the　original　relations　of　the　Irish　Tribe　and　of　the　Irish　Tribal






Chief。　Unhappily　the　subject　has　been　discussed　in　the　spirit　of






the　later　agrarian　history　of　Ireland。　On　the　one　hand；　some






disputants　have　thought　to　serve　a　patriotic　purpose　by






contending　that　the　land　of　each　Tribe　belonged　absolutely　to






itself　and　was　its　common　property；　and　that　the　Chief　was　a　mere






administrative　officer；　rewarded　for　his　services　in　making　a






fair　distribution　of　the　territory　among　the　tribesmen　by　a






rather　larger　share　of　its　area　than　the　rest；　which　was　allotted






to　him　as　his　domain。　Contrariwise；　some　writers；　not　perhaps






actuated　by　much　kindliness　to　the　Irish　people；　have　at　least






suggested　that　they　were　always　cruelly　oppressed　by　their






superiors；　and　probably　by　their　natural　chiefs　more　than　any






others。　These　authors　point　to　the　strong　evidence　of　oppression






by　the　Chiefs　which　the　books　of　the　English　observers　of　Ireland






contain。　Edmund　Spenser　and　Sir　John　Davis　cannot　have　merely






intended　to　calumniate　the　Irish　native　aristocracy　when　they






emphatica1ly　declared　that　the　'chiefs　do　most　shamefully






rackrent　their　tenants；'　and　spoke　with　vehement　indignation　of






the　exactions　from　which　the　tribesmen　suffered；　the　'coshering；'






and　the　'coin　and　livery；'　which　occur　over　and　over　again　in






their　pages。　A　third　school；　of　a　very　different　order　from






these；　has　representatives　among　the　most　learned　Irishmen　of　our






day。　They　resent　the　assertion　that　the　land　belonged　to　the






tribe　in　common　as　practically　imputing　to　the　ancient　Irish　that






utter　barbarism　to　which　private　property　is　unknown。　They　say






that　traces　of　ownership　jealously　guarded　are　found　in　all　parts






of　the　Brehon　laws；　and　they　are　on　the　whole　apt　to　speak　of　the






vassalage　to　the　Chief　which　these　laws　attribute　to　the






tribesmen　as　if　it　implied　something　like　modern　tenancy　in　the






latter　and　modern　ownership　in　the　former。　But　they　say　that　the






relation　of　landlord　and　tenant　was　regulated　by　careful　and






kindly　provisions；　and　they　ascribe　the　degradation　of　the






system；　like　the　other　evils　of　Ireland；　to　English　cupidity　and






ignorance。　The　Norman　nobles　who　first　settled　in　Ireland　are






well　known　to　have　become　in　time　Chieftains　of　Irish　Tribes；　and






it　is　suggested　that　they　were　the　first　to　forget　their　duties






to　their　tenants　and　to　think　of　nothing　but　their　privileges。






Nor　is　there　anything　incredible　in　this　last　assumption。　An






English　settler　in　India　who　buys　land　there　is　often　reputed　a






harder　landlord　than　the　native　zemindars；　his　neighbours；　not






because　he　intends　to　be　harsher　（indeed　in　some　things　he　is






usually　far　more　considerate　and　bountiful）；　but　because　he　is






accustomed　to　a　stricter　system　and　cannot　accommodate　himself　to






the　loose　and　irregular　play　of　relations　between　native






landowner　and　native　tenant。






　　　　I　cannot　wholly　concur　in　any　one　of　these　theories






concerning　Chief　and　Tribe。　Each　seems　to　me　to　contain　a　portion






of　truth；　but　not　the　whole。　Let　me　first　say　that　the　whole






land…system　shadowed　forth　in　the　Brehon　laws　does　seem　to　me　to






have　for　its　basis　the　primary　ownership　of　the　tribe…land　by　the






Tribe。　It　is　also　true　that　the　Chief　appears　to　exercise　certain






administrative　duties　in　respect　of　this　land；　and　that　he　has　a






specific　portion　of　the　tribe…land　allotted　to　him；　in　the






vicinity　of　his　residence　or　stronghold；　for　the　maintenance　of






his　household　and　relatives。　But　this　is　not　all。　As　we　see　the






system　through　the　law；　it　is　not　stationary；　but　shifting；






developing；　disintegrating；　re…combining。　Even　according　to　the






texts　apparently　oldest；　much　of　the　tribal　territory　appears　to






have　been　permanently　alienated　to　sub…tribes；　families；　or






dependent　chiefs；　and　the　glosses　and　commentaries　show　that；






before　they　were　written；　this　process　had　gone　very　far　indeed。






Whatever；　again；　may　have　been　the　original　dignity　and　authority






of　the　Chief；　they　are　plainly　growing；　not