and an inroad being once made upon their constitution, it subjected them, in a course of time, to great varieties and innovations. Feuds began to be bought and sold, and deviations were made from the old fundamental rules of tenure and succession: which were held no longer sacred, when the feuds themselves no longer continued to be purely military. Hence these tenures began now to be divided into feoda propria et impropria, proper and improper feuds ; under the former of which divisions were comprehended such, and such only, of which we have before spoken; and under that of improper or derivative feuds were comprised all such as do not fall within the other descriptions; such, for instance, as were originally bartered and sold to the feudatory for a price; such as were held upon base or less honourable services, or upon a rent, in lieu of military service; such as were in themselves alienable, without mutual licence; and such as might descend indifferently either to males or females. But, where a difference was not expressed in the creation, such new created feuds did in all respects follow the nature of an original, genuine, and proper feud.

But as soon as the feudal system came to be considered in the light of a civil establishment, rather than as a military plan, the ingenuity of the same ages, which perplexed all theology with the subtilty of scholastic disquisitions, and bewildered philosophy in the mazes of metaphysical jargon, began also to exert its influence on this copious and fruitful subject: in pursuance of which the most refined and oppressive consequences were drawn from what was originally a plan of simplicity and liberty, equally beneficial to both lord and tenant, and prudently calculated for their mutual protection and defence. From this one foundation, in different countries of Europe, very different superstructures have been raised: what effect it has produced on the landed property of England may be gathered from the following pages.

QUESTIONS.

With whom did the feudal system originate?
Explain the word "feoda "-(feuds or fees.)
What was the oath of fealty?

What effect was produced upon the princes of Europe, by

observing the wisdom of the feudal system introduced by the northern nations?

What system of laws in Europe were superseded by the feudal laws?

Who introduced this system formally and nationally into England? Were feuds known here before the reign of this king?

Were feuds suddenly or gradually introduced?

What was Doomsday Book, and when and why compiled ?

What was the difference between the introduction of feuds into England and France?

What was the fundamental maxim of our English tenures, after the introduction of feuds ?

Were the incidents of the feudal system, soon after its establishment in England, found to be easy or burthensome?

What led to the exacting of Magna Charta ?

How was the relation of Lord and Vassal enacted?
What was homage?

What service was due from the vassal to the lord?

Explain the progress of feuds from being merely gratuitous, and held at the lord's will, to being hereditary?

What led to the division of feuds into "proper" and "improper?"

THE ANCIENT ENGLISH TENURES.

ALMOST all the real property of this kingdom is by the policy of our laws supposed to be granted by, dependent upon, and holden of, some superior lord, by and in consideration of certain services to be rendered to the lord by the tenant or possessor of this property. The thing holden is therefore styled a "tenement," the possessors thereof “tenants,' and the manner of their possession a "tenure." Thus all the land in the kingdom is supposed to be "holden," mediately or immediately, of the king, who is styled the lord paramount, or above all. Such tenants as held under the king immediately, when they granted out portions of their lands to inferior persons, became also lords with respect to those inferior persons, as they were still tenants with respect to the king and, thus partaking of a middle nature, were called mesne, or middle, lords. So that if the king granted a manor to A, and he granted a portion of the land to B, now B was said to hold of A, and A of the king; or in other words, B held his lands immediately of A, but mediately of the king. The king therefore was styled lord paramount; A was both tenant and lord, or was a mesne lord: and B was called tenant paravail, or the lowest tenant; being he who was supposed to make avail, or profit, of his land. In this manner are all the lands of the kingdom holden, which are in the hands of subjects: for, according to sir Edward Coke, in the law of England we have not properly allodium*; which, we have seen, is the name by which the feudists abroad distinguish such estates of the subject, as are not holden of any superior. So that at the first glance we may observe, that our lands are either plainly feuds, or partake very strongly of the feudal nature.

There are, or were, some remnants of allodial possession in the Shetland Islands, where the persons holding the allodial lands were denominated Udallers.

There seems to have subsisted among our ancestors four principal species of lay tenures, to which all others may be reduced the grand criteria of which were the natures of the several services or renders, that were due to the lords from their tenants. The services, in respect of their quality, were either free or base services: in respect of their quantity, and the time of exacting them, were either certain or uncertain. Free services were such as were not unbecoming the character of a soldier, or a free man to perform; as to serve under his lord in the wars, to pay a sum of money, and the like. Base services were such as were only fit for peasants, or persons of a servile rank; as to plough the lord's land, to make his hedges, to carry out his dung, or other mean employments. The certain services, whether free or base, were such as were stinted in quantity, and could not be exceeded on any pretence; as, to pay a stated annual rent, or to plough such a field for three days. The uncertain depended upon unknown contingencies; as, to do military service in person, to pay an assessment in lieu of it, when called upon; or to wind an horn whenever the Scots invaded the realm: which are free services or to do whatever the lord should command; which is a base or villein service.

From the various combinations of these services have arisen the four kinds of lay tenure which subsisted in England till the middle of the last century; and three of which subsist to this day. Of these Bracton, who wrote under Henry the third, seems to give the clearest and most compendious account, of any author ancient or modern; of which the following is the outline, or abstract: first, where the service was free but uncertain, as military service with homage, that tenure was called the tenure in chivalry, per servitium militare, or by knight-service. Secondly, where the service was not only free, but also certain, as by fealty only, by rent and fealty, &c. that tenure was called liberum socagium, or free socage. These were the only free tenures: the others were villenous or servile, as thirdly, where the service was base in its nature, and uncertain as to time or quantity, the tenure was purum villenagium, absolute or pure villenage. Lastly, where the service was base in its nature, but reduced to a certainty, this was still villenage, but distinguished from the other by the name of privileged villenage, villenagium privilegiatum; or it might

be still called socage, from the certainty of its services, but degraded by their baseness into the inferior title of villanum socagium, villein-socage.

I. The first, most universal, and esteemed the most honourable species of tenure, was that by knight-service.

This tenure of knight-service had all the marks of a strict and regular feud: it was granted by words of pure donation, dedi et concessi; was transferred by investiture, or delivering corporal possession of the land, usually called livery of seisin; and was perfected by homage and fealty. It also drew after it these seven fruits and consequences, as inseparably incident to the tenure in chivalry; viz. aids, reliefs, primer seisin, wardship, marriage, fines for alienation and escheat.

1. Aids were originally mere benevolences granted by the tenant to his lord, in times of difficulty and distress; but in process of time they grew to be considered as a matter of right, and not of discretion. These aids were principally three: first, to ransom the lord's person, if taken prisoner: a necessary consequence of the feudal attachment and fidelity; insomuch that the neglect of doing it, whenever it was in the vassal's power, was, by the strict rigour of the feudal law, an absolute forfeiture of his estate. Secondly, to make the lord's eldest son a knight; a matter that was formerly attended with great ceremony, pomp, and expense. This aid could not be demanded till the heir was fifteen years old, or capable of bearing arms; the intention of it being to breed up the eldest son and heir apparent of the seignory, to deeds of arms and chivalry, for the better defence of the nation. Thirdly, to marry the lord's eldest daughter, by giving her a suitable portion; for daughters' portions were in those days extremely slender; few lords being able to save much out of their income for this purpose; nor could they acquire money by ⚫other means, being wholly conversant in matters of arms; nor, by the nature of their tenure, could they charge their lands with this or any other incumbrances. From bearing their proportion to these aids no rank or profession was exempted: and therefore even the monasteries, till the time of their dissolution, contributed to the knighting of their founder's male heir (of whom their lands were holden) and the marriage of his female descendants. And one cannot but observe, in this particular, the great resemblance