which now obtains even yet bears marks of its ancient origin: indeed the old rules of real property law are still almost literally preserved in the case of copyholds. We will, consequently, devote our first chapter to a brief inquiry into the earlier modes of tenure, and the way in which they have been modified; by which means we shall also arrive at a knowledge of the different varieties of estates in corporeal hereditaments which exist in our own times.

PART I.

OF CORPOREAL HEREDITAMENTS.

tween the present and

of land tenure.

CHAPTER I.

OF THE EARLIER TENURES OF LAND.

Difference be- IT is well known that the system of land tenure which obtains in this country at the present day permits of former systems land being, practically, the subject of absolute property, so that its owner may do as he pleases with it during his lifetime, and dispose of it unrestrictedly by a will to take effect after his death. But in the earlier systems from which our own is derived no such absolute proprietorship was recognised. If a Tenure by the tribe settled down on a tract of country, part of the family. land was distributed in lots amongst the families who composed the tribe, whilst the rest was allowed to remain uncultivated, and formed the common property of all. At first the portion allotted to each family did not belong to it absolutely, but might be taken from it with a view to a fresh distribution of the land amongst the various members of the State (a). In time, however, each family acquired a right to hold its land in perpetuity, the management of the estate, and its ostensible ownership, belonging to the head of the family. But his interest in it did not extend beyond his own lifetime, and he had no power to prevent it from devolving on his descendants after his death. He had, therefore, that which we now call an

(a) See the account of Irish Gavelkind, 3 Hallam, Con. Hist. 458.

estate for life, whilst the family, as a whole, had that kind of interest from which our present estate tail is derived.

As the tribe grew in importance and became a nation, certain families (those usually who formed the original stock) acquired higher rank than the others; the head of the most important of these became, with varying title, chief of the State, whilst the principal members of the others composed his council. The Distribution of whole of the public land was vested in the chief as representing the State, and he, when a fresh tract of country was acquired, by conquest or otherwise, would retain some of it for his own use, and distribute part of the remainder amongst the principal leaders of the people.

Every great man, in those days, had a certain number of military retainers of his own, and when he received a grant of public land, it was invariably upon condition of his performing military service for the State, whenever required, not only in person, but accompanied also by a certain number of his armed followers.

land.

The land which was distributed in the manner above described was at first held merely during the pleasure of the King or Chieftain, and was then called a Munus or gift; later on it was held for some Munus. definite period, and subsequently for the life of the holder, and it then became known, first as a Beneficium Benefice. or benefice, and afterwards as a Feudum or fee (b). Fee.

The result of a fee being held for life only was that on the death of the tenant it reverted to the sovereign, and was liable to be granted out afresh.

If, however, when the feudatory died, he left an heir Fees become capable of performing military service, the fee would hereditary.

(b) Wright, Ten. 19.

Vassal.

usually be regranted to the heir, to be held by him
on the same terms as his ancestor.
And in process

of time the heir became entitled to succeed to his
ancestor's estate, and thus a fee originally held dur-
ing pleasure might become hereditary, only reverting
to the Crown when the tenant died without heirs, or
forfeited it for some crime or breach of duty.

When the chiefs had thus arrived at acquiring hereditary fees, it became a common practice for them, in their turn, to grant parts of their land to their own vassals, who were to hold on condition of performing services which originally were always military, with the addition of any others that might be agreed upon. This system of granting smaller The Lord and fees was called Subinfeudation, the grantor being called the Lord, from the Teutonic Hlaford—a giver -whilst the retainer was called a Vassal, a word signifying a servant. And by a process similar to that already described in the case of the lords, the vassal also came in time to receive an estate like that of his lord, namely, one which was to endure for his life, and descend to his issue after his death. But although the fee might go in the vassal's family from one generation to another, its ultimate ownership still remained with the lord and his successors; it still formed a part of his seigniory or lordship; the tenant still remained liable to perform various military and other services; and if these were not duly rendered, or if his issue became extinct, his fee formed again the property of that family from whom it had been originally derived. The system which has been thus briefly sketched was that in vogue amongst the Normans in the beginning of the eleventh century, and we will proceed to notice how they put it into practice upon their arrival in this country.

William the
Conqueror

seizes upon

After the battle of Hastings, William the Conqueror seized upon all the former Boc' land or private estates

land.

as his own demesne and

his barons.

of Edward the Confessor, as well as upon the lands of large tracts of those Saxons who had fought on the side of Harold; and the large tracts of land thus placed at his disposal were subsequently increased by the forfeitures consequent on the many rebellions of the Saxons which took place during the years immediately following the Conquest. Of these lands the king, following the He retains part system already described, retained part as his own demesne (c), and out of the rest made large grants to grants fees to the principal chieftains or barons who had accompanied him from Normandy. Each estate granted to a baron, and made up of adjoining lands, was called his manor, and the immense extent of land thus dis- The Manor. posed of by William may be estimated from the fact that, as appears by Domesday Book, the Earl of Moreton (William's brother) received no less than seven hundred and ninety-three manors, whilst many other barons received from one hundred to four hundred apiece (d). These manors were also dealt with according to the feudal system, that is to say, each was divided into two parts. Of these, the baron reserved one part to form his own demesne, cultivating so much of it as he thought fit, and leaving some as forest and marsh land, some (known as the lord's waste) as common grazing ground for the cattle of himself, his vassals, and his dependants. The other part he distributed into fees, which he granted to his vassals.

granted at the

All fees granted at the Conquest, whether to the Tenure of fees barons, or by them to their vassals, were held on con- Conquest. dition of performing military service when required; this being considered the most honourable form of tenure. Its principal characteristics were that the services to be rendered were uncertain, and also free, that is, worthy of being performed by a free man. The chief incidents of the tenure were Fealty and Fealty and Homage.

(c) From the French mesner, to govern.

(d) 1 Ellis, Domesday, 227.