The Land Tenure of England.

Thames Star, Volume XII, Issue 3788, 17 February 1881, Page 2

The Land Tenure of England.

11. . < Besides the fealty and homage, the vassal was also compelled to agree to render his lord aid, which, although at first a mere benevolence granted by a vassal to his lord, became to be considered afterwards a matter of right. He was also to pay a tribute called relief, which was a tribute paid to the lord for taking up the estate which had lap/tied and fallen' in by the death of the last tenant; for, while the feuds were not properly hereditary but granted by favor of the lord, and only to' the children of the former possessor, the heir was generally to pay a fine or acknowledgment to the lord, in horses, arms, money, or the like for such renewal of the feud, which was called a "relief" in the words of the ancient feudal writers. The vassal was furthermore bound to pay a fine on alienation whenever he wished to make his land over to another. "Escheat" and forfeiture were two modes by which the relation between lord and vassal might be dissolved. The first was where the tenant in possession of a feud granted for life only, but transmissible by hereditary descent, died without leaving any heir behind him upon whom, according to the terms of the original grant, the feud could any longer descend—in which case it reverted to the lord, that is, the gift, being determined, returned back to the giver. The second case (that of forfeiture) occurred where the tenant committed some act in violation of his duty towards his lord, such as rendered him unfit to be longer trusted as a vassal; the effect of which was that his interest in the feud became forfeited, and returned to tho lord, as for a breach of that condition of fidelity on which the grant was made.

Feuds, therefore, as we have seen, did not originally extend beyond the life of the first vassal, but in process of time became hereditary. Hence arose the baneful system of aereditary succession, or the law of entail, which the public of England will ere long have repealed. When such feud was given to a man and his heirs, in general terms, then a more extended rule of succession took place; and when the feudatory died, his male descendants were admitted to the succession ad infinitum. When any such descendant. v,Tho h.-jd succeeded, died, his male descendants were his legal successors, and, failing issue, the nearest by blood relationship to him. How much misery, uncharitableness, and culpable wickedness of thought, has this same law of hereditary succession caused. In order to maintain estates in one line of primogeniture, how many devices have not been resorted to? Marriages that had rather have been burials, forgeries, and every criminal action, has been indulged in in order to secure the succession of the first born or nearest of kin. Social misery, and in many instances it may be said the gross immorality of the aristocracy of England is traceable to this objectionable law as being the first cause. Spendthrifts who have mortgaged on the property, when succeeding, are enabled by this sweet law to spend their money for the purpose of rolling in lascivious and lustful pleasures, until, with mind and body weakened by the continued strain, an asylum or " gentleman's retreat" is His ultimate end, when he might have been both an honour and a credit to his name and country. Young people have been rendered miserable by being forced into matrimonial alliances both unsuitable and objectionable, hut being useful in order to retain the sovereignty of land. When married, what a term of connubial misery is their lot, as a rule ! Totally unsuited to one another iv tastes or inclinations, the wife picks up questionable companions from the males, who horde round the rich—often ending in shame and disgrace ; the husband pursues the same course with the opposite sex, until the Divorce Court is resorted to, or deeds of separation arranged. The grossest immoralities may be said, in the large majority of cases, to have been brought about by this law. But, to continue.

These were the prineipa 1 and very simple qualities of the genuine or original feuds, which were all of a military nature and in the hands of military persons; though the feudatories being under frequent incapacities of cultivating* and manuring their own lands soon found it necessary to commit part of them to inferior tenants, obliging them to sucb returns in service, corn, cattle, or money as might enable the chief feudatories to. attend to the military duties without distinction which returns, or reditas, were the original of rents. And by these means the feudal polity was greatly extended, these inferior feudatories being under similar obligations of fealthy to do suit of court to answer the stipulated renders or rent service, and to promote the welfare of their lords. In consequence of the inability of the proprietors to tell his own land, and his employment of others to do the work these tenures began to be divided into proper and improper feuds. • This feudal polity was not introduced

into England until the time of William the Conqueror. There is little doubt, however, that although this precise kind of'feudal system was not in vogue in England prior to the advent of the Norman King, that .the Saxons who inhabited the island had some such system, although probably based on very different principles. The Saxons were settled in Great Britain as early as the year 6CO A.D., and it was not until the 12th century of the Christian era that feuds arrived at their full vigour and maturity even on the continent of Europe. In our next we will gire a short account of the establishment of the feudal system in England.