[feud was given to a man, and his heirs, in general terms, then, upon the death of the feudatory, his male descendants in infinitum were admitted to the succession. When any such descendant, who had thus succeeded, died, his male descendants were also admitted in the first place, and, in defect of them, such of his male collateral kindred as were of the blood or lineage of the first feudatory, but no others. For this was an unalterable maxim in feudal succession, that "none was capable of inheriting a feud but such as was of the blood of, that is, lineally descended from, the first feudatory" (2). And the descent, being thus confined to males, originally extended to all the males alike; all the sons, without any distinction of primogeniture, succeeding to equal portions of the father's feud. But this was found upon many accounts inconvenient, particularly by dividing the services, and thereby weakening the strength of the feudal union; and, moreover, honorary feuds, or titles of nobility, being now introduced, which were not of a divisible nature, but could only be inherited by the eldest son; in imitation of these last, military feuds (or those we are now describing) began also in most countries to descend, according to the rule of primogeniture, to the eldest son, in exclusion of all the rest (a).

The original feuds were all of a military nature, and in the hands of military persons. But these feudatories found it necessary to commit parts of their feuds to inferior tenants, obliging the latter to such returns in service, corn, cattle, or money, as might enable the chief feudatories to attend to their military duties without distraction; which returns, or reditus, were the origin of rents. by this means, the feudal polity was greatly extended, these inferior feudatories being under similar obligations of fealty, to do suit of court, to answer the stipulated renders or rent-service, and to promote the welfare of their

() Wright, Tenures, 183.

(a) Ibid. 32.

And

[immediate superiors or lords (b). And in process of time, feuds came to be divided into feuda propria et impropria, the feud proper comprehending the military feud, and the feud improper comprising all the others, such, for instance, as had been originally sold to the feudatory for a price, such as were held upon a money rent, or upon other base and less honourable services, in lieu of military service, such as were alienable without mutual licence, and such as might descend indifferently either to males or females (c).

The feudal system was not received, at least not universally received, in England, till the reign of William the Norman (d). And in fact, it was not until the eleventh or twelfth century that feuds arrived to their full vigour and maturity, even on the continent of Europe (e). Moreover, the introduction of the feudal tenures into England by King William does not seem to have been effected immediately after the Conquest, but to have been gradually established by the Norman barons, and others, in such forfeited lands as they received from the gift of the Conqueror. But we learn from the Saxon Chronicle (f), that in the nineteenth year of King William's reign, an invasion being then apprehended from Denmark, the country was found to be defenceless, which occasioned the king to bring over a large army of Normans and Bretons, who were quartered upon every landowner, and greatly oppressed the people. So soon, therefore, as the danger was over, the king held a great council to inquire into the state of the nation (g); the immediate consequence of which was the compiling of the great survey called Doomsday Book, which was finished in the next. year. And in the latter end of that very year, the king was attended by all his nobility at Sarum; where all the

(b) Wright, Tenures, 20. (c) Ibid. 36.

(d) Spelm. Gloss. 218.

(e) Hallam, Middle Ages, vol. i. p. 179 (12th ed.).

f) A.D. 1085 (ed. Thorpe, i.

353).

(g) "After this had the king 'much counsel and very deep "speech with his witan about this "land; how it was set, and with "what men."- Chron. Sax. ib.

[principal landowners submitted their lands to the yoke of military tenure, became the king's vassals, and did homage and fealty to his person (h). The feudal system was in this way formally introduced into this country; and that it now became the almost universal tenure appears by a statute attributed to the same monarch:"Omnes comites, et barones, et milites, et servientes, et - universi liberi homines totius regni nostri prædicti, habeant et teneant se semper bene in armis et in equis, ut decet et oportet; et quod sint semper prompti et bene parati ad servitium suum integrum nobis explendum, et peragendum, cum opus fuerit; secundum quod nobis debent de feodis et tenementis suis de jure facere; et sicut illis statuimus per commune concilium totius regni nostri prædicti" (i).]

It is probable that, by thus consenting to the introduction of feudal tenures, our English ancestors meant no more than to put the kingdom in a state of defence by establishing a military system, and to oblige themselves, in respect of their lands, to maintain the king's title and territories with equal vigour and fealty, as if they had received their lands from his bounty upon these express conditions, as pure, proper, beneficiary feudatories. But, whatever their meaning was, the Norman interpreters, skilled in all the niceties of the feudal constitutions, gave a very different construction to this proceeding; and thereupon took a handle to introduce, not only the rigorous feudal doctrines which prevailed in the Duchy of Normandy, but also such fruits and dependencies, such hardships and services, as were never known to other nations (). [The Norman Conqueror, and his son, William Rufus, kept up with a high hand all the rigours

()" And there his witan came "to him, and all the landholding "men of weight, whosesoever men "they were; and all bowed down "to him, and became his men, "and sware him oaths, that they "would hold to him against all

"other men. -Chron. Sax. A.D.

1086.

(i) Wilkins, Leg. Anglo-Sax. LL. Guil. Con. ch. 8, p. 288. (k) Spelm. Feuds, ch. 28; Wright, Tenures, 81.

[of the feudal doctrines. But their successor, Henry the First, found it expedient, when he set up his pretensions to the Crown, to promise a restitution of the laws of King Edward the Confessor, or ancient Saxon system; and accordingly, in the first year of his reign, granted a charter, whereby he gave up the greater grievances, but still reserved the fiction of feudal tenure, for the same military purposes which engaged his father to introduce it (1). But this charter was gradually broken through, and the former grievances were revived and aggravated, by himself and succeeding princes; till in the reign of King John, they became so intolerable, that they occasioned his barons, or principal feudatories, to rise up in arms against him. This insurrection at length produced the famous charter of Runing-mead, which, with some alterations, was confirmed by his son Henry the Third and also by subsequent kings (m), is commonly called Magna Carta, and is now cited as 9 Hen. III.

The general introduction of the feudal system into this country gave rise to the fundamental maxim of the law of England, that all land belonging to any subject is holden of some superior, and either mediately or immediately of the Crown (n); for in this realm, according to Sir E. Coke, we have not allodium (0). And as all lands in England are holden, they are consequently called tenements, the possessors thereof tenants, and the manner of their possession a tenure (p). Where the tenure is of the Crown immediately, it is said to be in capite, or in chief. But the holding may also be mediate, that is, in the way of subinfeudation; for such tenants as held under the king immediately, when they granted out portions of their lands to inferior persons, became also

(2) Wilkins, Leges Anglo-Sax. LL. Hen. 1, ch. 1 (pp. 233-4).

(m) Sir E. Coke reckons above thirty instances wherein the charter granted by King John was solemnly

ratified. (Co. Litt. 81, and 2
Inst. 1.)

(n) Co. Litt. 1, 65 a.
(0) Ibid. 1b.
(p) Ibid.

[lords with respect to those inferior persons, as they were still tenants with respect to the king. And, thus partaking of a middle nature, they were called mesne or middle lords. So that if the king granted a manor to A., and A. 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 a tenant paravail, or the lowest tenant (q). In this manner are all the lands of the kingdom holden, which are in the hands of subjects.

There seem to have subsisted among our ancestors four principal species of lay tenures, distinguished respectively by the services which were required to be rendered in respect thereof. For the services, in respect of their quality, were either free or base; and in respect of their quantity, and the time of exacting them, they were either certain or uncertain. Free services were such as were not unbecoming the character of a soldier, or a freeman 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 fit only 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. 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. Uncertain services depended upon unknown contingencies; as to do military service in person, or pay an assessment in lieu of it, when called upon; or to wind a 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.

(7) 2 Inst. 296.