established usage. Such, lastly, are many particular customs within the city of London, with regard to trade, apprentices, widows, orphans, and a variety of other matters. "All these are contrary to the general law of the land, and are good only by special usage; though the customs of London are also confirmed by act of Parliament."-BLACKSTONE'S Commentaries, i. 74, 75. CHAPTER II. THE FEUDAL SYSTEM OF CONSOLIDATED MILITARY POWER. ORIGIN OF THE FEUDAL SYSTEM-NATURE OF THE FEUDAL TENURE OF LAND IN CONSIDERATION OF MILITARY SERVICE-SOCAGE-HOMAGE—ALLEGIANCE AMOUNT OF SERVICE-SCUTAGE-RELIEFS-HERIOTS-FINES ON ALIENATION ESCHEATS-AIDS-WARDSHIP-MARRIAGE-CONVERSION OF ALLODIAL LANDS THE Saxon and the feudal systems were exact antipodes. The former, as we have already shown, was one of independent local sovereignties in the hands of freemen. The latter was a rising series of consolidated military powers, reaching its climax in a central monarchy which tolerated not one freeman. The feudal system sprang up upon the continent of Europe, among the German tribes of Normans, Franks, Burgundians, Visigoths, and Lombards, who swept down upon the falling Roman Empire, and divided its vast territories among themselves. It is not our purpose to give its history. It doubtless had its moving cause in the custom of the German warriors, which we have mentioned in the previous chapter, of joining themselves to military chiefs, whom for their martial glory they regarded with an almost superstitious reverence. In their invasions of the south, these chiefs in like manner united under various leaders, who on their conquest of the several provinces, became their kings. Here it was not long ere the civilization of the vanquished gained upon the victors, who without much difficulty adopted the religion and laws of the Empire. Under the teachings of the Christian priesthood-always forward in supporting kingly and imperial prerogative-the sovereigns and their subjects learned to look upon the royal office in a yet more lofty point of view. The ceremonies of the church in the anoint ing and investiture of these barbarian princes made a strong impression on the warm imaginations of the newly converted Northmen. Henceforth the king became to them God's representative in civil matters, as the priest was in the matters of the faith, and, next to God and holy church, they gave implicit submission to the anointed king, who was supposed to hold his office by divine appointment. Meanwhile, jurists learned in the law were not behind the priesthood in supporting and increasing the pretensions. of the kings. They taught that these barbarian sovereigns were the successors of the Caesars, and that all the high prerogatives of the imperial crown were now legitimately vested in them. Moreover, they had gained their title by conquest, and had consequently every right claimed by the emperors in subjugated territories. Hence the lands they had subdued were the king's individual property. This was a mighty cornerstone of the feudal system; and upon this, with the other notion, that the king's right was a right divine, that is, a right of God, the whole tremendous fabric may be said to have been based. But though he was the absolute proprietor of all the lands within his territories, it was impossible on any system for a single man personally to enjoy so wide a domain. The lands of the kingdom were therefore distributed among the warriors who had followed him. Not that they thereby were invested with the ownership of these lands. The ownership (dominium directum) rested with the king. But they received the actual possession and profitable use of them (dominium utile). Thus the king was able to reward his faithful retainers, by making to them grants of land under the name of benefices. Under these beneficial grants we find the first historic traces of the feudal system. The benefice was not an absolute gift vesting the recipient with the ultimate ownership; that still remained in the king, and the grant was liable to be revoked at any disloyal or hostile act of the beneficiary. In return for this gift to him from the monarch, the subject was bound to give the king, when called upon, his military service and aid, from time to time, as they should be required. Thus the favored subject entered into the possession of the land, and enjoyed all of its benefits as though he were the absolute owner: still, as he was not the absolute owner, he was said, in the subsequent language of the feudal law, to hold the land of his sovereign; and the method or relation by which he thus held was denominated a tenure, or holding. (Poм. p. 255). Sometimes the grant was for the life of the grantor; but more generally for that of the grantee. At what time custom or agrcement made the enjoyment of the property hereditary in the family of the grantee, we have no means of accurately ascertaining in any country. As late as the end of the sixth century, the lands which had been parcelled out returned in most European states to the prince, and were only continued to the family as an act of favor, and by a new gift; although undoubtedly instances of hereditary tenure occurred even at this early date. Now a benefice (beneficium), or grant of land by a chief to his followers upon condition of military service, was called a fief, feud, fee, or feo (from feo, wages, and od, land), and it constituted the grantee a feudatory, or vassal of the chief or superior to whom he owed service in consideration of the land. The use of the land was his wages, which he earned for doing service to his master, the owner or grantor of the land. This, we repeat, is the cornerstone of the feudal system. It is the root from which all its peculiarities spring. Attempts have been made to deduce the feudal relations from other sources. It has been said that traces of it are to be found in the customs of the Germans and Saxons; and the relation of chief and follower was no doubt the moving cause which led those hardy people to adopt the system so universally. But it is to be remembered that the companions of the chief cannot be likened to vassals, to whom, indeed, they bear a very faint resemblance; and that, in their primitive abode, payment of any kind, and certainly in land, was altogether wanting. Some have imagined that the feudal relation is to be traced in the Roman connection of patrons and clients—a a practice, among men of consequence and power, of taking under their protection inferior persons, who rendered in return such services as were within their means, often paying money, and not unfrequently bequeathing property, to their patron. But no real resemblance exists between the two cases; for here, again, in the Roman custom there is no holding of land in consideration of allegiance and service. The only case which resembles feudal service in the early history of Europe is to be found in the reign of Alexander Severus at the beginning of the third century, who settled some barbarous tribes along the Danube, making to them grants of land on the express condition of their serving him in wars against the neighboring tribes. This was a simple feudal tenure, arising out of circumstances identical with those out of which the feudal relation grew and became general two centuries later; and on reflection it seems probably the most natural form in which the custom of free companionship prevailing in the unsettled German tribes could coalesce with the imperial power appropriated by their chiefs, on their establishment as settled rulers of the conquered Romans and provincials. When a chief, then, established himself and parcelled out the lands seized, the leading companions of the expedition shared some of the lands taken, on condition of allegiance and military service. When the feuds became hereditary and the favor of succeeding princes had increased the grants, the comites or counts possessing large tracts exercised great influence in the state. For the acquisition of feuds, when the tenures became hereditary, and perhaps even sooner, was attended with another operation. As the practice of renting land was unknown, whoever had more land given him than he could cultivate, whether a count or any inferior person, was obliged to make a similar grant to other persons, in return for which they were to do him service. Thus every one who had a considerable estate given him, retained part for himself, and parcelled out the rest among inferiors, who rendered him the same service as he rendered to the chief or prince-following him in war when he followed the prince, assisting him in peace, and attending his courts. The practice of making these inferior grants of land was called sub-infeudation, and originally there was no limit to it. The smaller proprietors had of course fewer inferior vassals, or subfeudatories; but, like the counts and other important vassals of the crown, they had the same courts and administration of justice over their vassals as the king himself over his tenants in capite, or tenants in chief. From this distribution of land among the crown's vassals, and by them among their dependants, arose the great power of the |