of or belonging to a FEUD or FEE.

FEODAL System, the constitution of FEIFS or FEUDS.

About 12 centuries ago, this system was so universally received in Europe, that Sir Henry Spelman calls it the law of nations in our western world. Hence it deserves our attention in a particular manner; a knowledge of the different feuds being indispensably requisite for a proper understanding either of the civil government of our own country, or the laws by which its landed property is regulated.

The military policy of the Celtic or northern nations, known by the names of Goths, Vandals, Franks, Hunns, and Lombards, furnished the original constitution or system of feuds. These people pouring out in vast multitudes from the same officina gentium or "storehouse of nations," over-ran all the European countries on the declension of the Roman empire. They brought the feudal system along with them from the countries out of which they emigrated; and, supposing it to be the most proper method of securing their new conquests, they introduced it into their more southerly colonies.

According to this system, the victorious general allotted considerable tracks of land to his principal officers; while they, in like manner, divided their possessions among the inferior officers, and even those common soldiers who were thought to be the most deserving. Allotments of this kind were named feoda, feefs, feet, or feuda, from a combination of words, in the language of these barbarians, signifying a reward or stipend bestowed on certain conditions (a). The condition upon which these rewards were given was, that the possessors should faithfully serve the person from whom they were received, both at home and abroad, in the military way. To this they engaged themselves by a juramentum fidelitatis, or oath of fealty*; in the event of a breach of which, either by not performing the service agreed upon, by deserting their lord in time of battle, &c., the lands were to return to their original possessor.

Thus the possessors of feudal allotments became interested in the defence of them; and not only the receivers, but those who gave them, were equally and mutually bound to defend their possessions, none of them being able to pretend any right but that of conquest. For this purpose, government and subordination were absolutely necessary; it being impossible to conduct any system of defence where every thing was tumultuous and irregular. Every person, therefore, who was a feudatory, i.e. who had received lands, was bound to do every thing in his power to defend the lord of his fee; while, on the other hand, the latter was no less subordinate to his immediate superior; and so on to the prince himself. In like manner a reciprocal bond of defence existed down from the prince to the lowest feudists.

Such were the foundations on which the feudal system was properly established; and the natural consequence was, a military subjection throughout the whole community. The prince could always collect an army of feudatories ready to defend not only the kingdom in general, but the particular possessions of each person; and the propriety of this constitution was soon apparent in the strength which these newly created kingdoms acquired, and the valour with which their conquests were defended.

Besides these feudal grants, however, which were held only on the terms of military service above mentioned, there were others called allodial, which were given upon more enlarged principles. To these every free man had a title; and could not only claim his territory as well as the rest, but dispose of it at his pleasure.

(a) We are informed by Pontopiddan, that odh in these northern languages is the same with proprietas, and all with totum in the Latin. Hence, among the northern nations, he tells us, that odhall signifies right: see Mac- and hence we may conjecture, that the udal right in Finland is derived*. By transposing these two northern syllables, we form the word allodh; whence we have the etymology of the allodium or absolute property claimed by the holders of fees or feuds; and by combining odh, signifying "property," with the word fee, signifying, "a conditional stipend or reward," we have the word feodh, signifying, "a property given by way of stipend or reward upon a certain condition." pleasure (b); and this freedom was denominated allodiality. These allodials, however, were not exempted from military service. A part of their freedom consisted in liberty to go to the wars; for this, in the barbarous times we speak of, was the only way to acquire any degree of renown. Only the slaves were destined to follow the arts of peace; while every free person was not only at liberty to defend his country, but under an obligation to do it in case of any urgent necessity.

Thus there was a feudal and a national militia. The free people only were allowed to possess property; the feudal vassals constituted the army, properly so called; while the national militia was composed of the allodial proprietors. This allodiality, however, was not confined to landed property, but included likewise moveable estates or money; so that proprietors of the latter kind were obliged also in times of danger to bear arms and appear in the field. Between the feudal and allodial proprietors, however, there was this farther difference, that the latter had no concern with any private quarrels which might take place among the lords themselves; so that they were never obliged to appear in the field unless when called forth by the sovereign against the enemies of the nation at large. This circumstance we might suppose to be an advantage, but it ultimately operated otherwise; becoming the means of changing the allodial right into a feudal tenure. For some time the holders of fiefs had an eminent advantage over the allodial proprietors. This was owing to the imperfection of government in those days; so that the nobles had it in their power to revenge their own quarrels, while the weak were equally exposed to the insults of both parties. The lord and his vassals therefore were always formidable; but the allodial proprietors had scarce any means of defending themselves. The reason of this was, in the first place, that the law did not allow them to commit any hostilities; and in the next, they were too distant and unconnected to form any proper league for mutual defense; and hence proceeded the necessity already hinted at, of converting allodial property into feudal tenure. This was indeed owing in a great measure to the absurdity and violence of the times, by which gifts of property, burdened with service, and which might return to the person who granted them, were rendered superior in value to the absolute and unconditional possession of a subject. Other considerations, however, besides that just mentioned, contributed to produce the same effect. As in those dark ages no right existed but what had its origin in conquest, it thence followed, that the greatest conqueror or warrior was the most honourable person. The king, in whom the whole exploits of the community centred, as being their head, was the most honourable person; all others derived from him that portion of honour which they enjoyed, and which was most nicely adjusted in proportion as they approached him. Allodial proprietors therefore having no pretensions of this kind, were treated with contempt as a kind of poltroons. From this disagreeable situation they wished to free themselves, by converting their allodial property into feudal tenures; while the princes, supposing it their interest to extend those tenures as much as possible, discouraged the allodial possessions. As the feodists supported the Conversion importance of the nation and dignity of the monarch, it was not thought proper to allow the allodial proprietors any greater compensations than what were given to vassals in similar cases. Thus they were exposed to continual mortifications in the courts of justice; they were neglected by the king; denied sufficient protection from the laws; exposed not only to continual insults, but to have their property on all occasions destroyed by the great: so that they were without resource except from the feudal tenures, and were obliged even to solicit the privileges which were bestowed in other cases on vassals. In these unhappy circumstances, they were glad to yield up their lands to any superior whom they thought most agreeable, and to receive them back from him as a feudal gift.

(b) The author of *A View of Society in Europe*, has traced the remote sources of the feudal laws in an elegant and spirited manner (Book I. Chap. II. Sect. I.) Tacitus informs us, that the individuals of each of the German nations cultivated by turns a track of land proportionable to their number, for the use of the whole; after which each individual received such an allotment of the cultivated track as his dignity seemed to require. These nations had not altered their political principles at the time they over-ran the Roman empire; and hence the provinces of it were then divided after the same manner. The most considerable allotment was bestowed on the king, as being the most dignified person in the community, and this allotment was styled his domain; while the shares of citizens and warriors, which were likewise in proportion to the merit or dignity of each, constituted what was called allodiality. But as it often happened that all the land was not exhausted by these partitions, what remained was considered as the property of the community, and in the barbaric codes was called the lands of the fief. In such German nations as had thus obtained a settlement, it was necessary that there should be a more close connection between the sovereign and the chiefs, as well as between the chiefs and people, than in others. This was effected by means of the lands of the fief; for of these the sovereign took possession, dealing them out to the chiefs under the burthen of appearing in arms whenever he should please to call; while the chiefs in like manner dealt out lands to those called their retainers, who were also obliged to supply them with military assistance in cases of necessity. Hence a political system was founded, which had a prodigious effect on society in all those countries where it prevailed. The intention and tendency of this system was to render the nation independent both at home and abroad; for while the people were all armed in their common defence, individuals were also properly guarded against the attacks of despotism. The power of the chiefs, who formed a regular nobility, was a counterpoise to that of the sovereign; while the number of the retainers and vassals, constituting the greatness and power of the nobility, was a proper barrier against aristocratical oppression; for a chief who oppressed his vassals evidently acted against his own interest. Thus the landed property was everywhere changed into feudal tenures, and fiefs became universal (c).

For some time the feudal system was not only useful in itself, but honourable in its principles; but this continued no longer than while the importers of it into Europe adhered to their original simple and noble maxims. During that period, the lord exercised his bounty to the vassal, which the latter repaid by acts of gratitude; so that the intercourse betwixt them was of the most tender and affectionate kind; and this gave rise to what are called the feudal incidents.

The expectants of fiefs were educated in the hall of the superior, while the tenures were precarious or only for life: and even when they became hereditary, the lord took care of the son and estate of his deceased vassal; not only protecting his person, but taking charge of his education, and directing the management of his affairs. He took pleasure in observing his approach to maturity; and when he came of age, never failed to deliver to him the lands, with the care of which he had been entrusted, and which he had been careful to improve. This was called the incident of wardship.

The incident of relief was founded upon the gratitude of the vassal; who, upon entering on his fief, brought a present to his lord, as an acknowledgment of his care of him during the early part of his life, and in order to conciliate his future regard.

The incident of marriage proceeded also upon the principle of gratitude on the part of the vassal. The latter, conscious of the favours he had received, did not choose to ally himself with a family inimical to his chief: while the superior himself, ambitious to aggrandise and augment the importance of his family, fought how to find the most advantageous match for his vassal.

Sometimes the superior himself was reduced in his circumstances by war or other accidents; but from whatever cause his distress proceeded, even though it had arisen from his own extravagance or prodigality, or when only destitute of means to support his ambition or grandeur, his vassals were bound to support and relieve him.

(c) It has been an object of inquiry to the learned, in what nation of barbarians fiefs had their origin? But it is probable, that they took place in all of these nations nearly about the same time, on the same principles, and were continued by reason of a similarity of manners, conquests, &c. So that we cannot ascribe the prevalence of them to imitation.

In France, we find mention made of fiefs as early as the age of Childebert. They were introduced into Italy by the Lombards; among whom the customs and laws relating to fiefs seem very early to have made rapid advances*. They were introduced into Spain before the invasion of the Moors or Saracens in the year 710. Lands were granted for service and attachment among the Goths; among whom also the person who received the gift was the retainer of him who granted it. If he refused his service, the grant was forfeited, and he was said to receive it in patronio: he also swore fealty to his lord; and on this footing the national militia was regulated†. There can be very little doubt that the feudal law was known in England in the Saxon times, as is mentioned in the text‡. In Scotland, however, the history of fiefs is still more uncertain than any where else; which has been ascribed partly to the mutilated state of the Scottish records, and partly to the want of able antiquaries in the nation. But, according to a late writer§, allodiality and feudality have existed ever since the foundation of the Scottish monarchy, and have most probably arisen from a similarity of the manners and customs in Scotland to those of other nations. It has indeed been supposed, that these customs were introduced from some foreign model by Malcolm II. According to some, they were introduced directly from England; and the policy of Malcolm in establishing them has been highly extolled: but, according to our author, there is no foundation for any notion of that kind. Both the opinions just mentioned either directly assert or imply, that the feudal maxims were introduced into this country upon the principle of imitation; but it is very improbable that they could be imported from one people to another, on account of their excessive contrariety to the common usages and precepts of government among mankind. It must undoubtedly have been very absurd, if not altogether impracticable, to transplant the feudal tenures when the grants of land were precarious, or depending entirely on the will of the prince, to a country which had never known superiority or vassalage. This would have required an alteration of all the orders of society from the king to the peasant; while the whole chain of customs, as well as the jurisdiction of the kingdom, both high and low, must have sustained a corresponding alteration, in order to conform them to the new system. It is likewise obvious, that no conquest could be made on purpose to obtain a settlement by any nation who had already received the knowledge of fiefs. The establishment of them implied, that the people had already a fixed and settled residence; and accordingly history does not furnish us with any account of a nation among whom fiefs were known, who ever migrated from the country they already possessed, to seek for one in which they might settle. Feudal institutions must have originated wherever they have been observed to flourish. Scotland was formerly a feudal kingdom, and we know pretty nearly the time when the fiefs were hereditary there: but in that form they could not be introduced by the sovereign; and there was not any nation among whom fiefs were already known who conquered, or made an establishment by conquest, in Scotland. Fiefs therefore must have gradually advanced to such a state of perfection. The progress they made may be likewise easily pointed out. At first they were precarious, or at the pleasure of the lord; afterwards they were granted for life; then for a course of years longer than the natural life of a man; and, lastly, they became hereditary, which was their most perfect stage. This progress has been observed in every country where feudal tenures exist; and the same must have been known in Scotland, though in considering it we are necessarily carried back to periods of remote antiquity; for as fiefs were hereditary as early as the time of Malcolm II., they must have been in their precarious state several centuries before. lieve him according to their circumstances; and this was called the incident of aid.

The incident of efcheat took place on the part of the vassal, when, through cowardice, treachery, or any remarkable misbehaviour, he rendered himself unworthy of his fief. In that case, the taking it from him, and giving it to one more worthy, was called an efcheat.

While the lords and vassals thus vied with one another in mutual acts of friendship and benevolence, universal happiness, liberty, and activity, were diffused thro' the society. The vassals behaved courteously towards the retainers, who were immediately below them; while they again were courted by the lords as constituting their importance and strength; the lords, lastly, giving a like importance and dignity to the sovereign himself. Thus a regular, powerful, and compact system of government took place; an unanimity and attention pervaded the various departments of state; so that while the subjects were free, the nation at large was formidable.

During this happy state of affairs, the members of the national assembly in every country in Europe appeared there in arms, whether they came personally or by their representatives. Such particularly was the case under the Anglo-Saxon government; and the happiness they at that time enjoyed made the oppression and tyranny of the Normans appear the more intolerable. In process of time, however, the state of society began to suffer a remarkable alteration. The high and disinterested notions, from which the happiness above mentioned took its origin, declined; the romantic ideas of chivalry * ceased; and much more interested notions of property came in their stead. The separation of the interests of the lords from their vassals was the first step towards the destruction of the feudal system. Thus the incidents, which, as has just now been mentioned, promoted their happiness, did the very reverse. Property being now looked upon as a distinction superior to personal merit, naturally introduced the most mercenary views. In consequence of these the infant ward, the care of whom was wont to be considered as a sacred and honorary trust, was now only looked upon as a mean of procuring emolument to the superior. The latter now regarded the profits of his vassals as so many diminutions of his own wealth. Instead of taking care to improve the estate of his ward as formerly, he impoverished it; not only neglecting the education of the heir, but offering insults to himself; inasmuch that the relations of the unfortunate vassal were frequently obliged to ransom from the avaricious superior both his person and effects. By merchandise of this kind the coffers of princes were filled, and wardships let out to strangers, who might exercise their rapacity with greater freedom. When the vassal at last attained the years of maturity, he came to the possession of his lands without any of that joy and festivity which usually took place on the occasion. He received an inheritance wasted and destroyed, while new grievances daily presented themselves to augment the horrors of his situation. All the incidents, which in former times were so many expressions of gratitude on the part of the vassal, were now changed into taxes which might be exacted at the pleasure of the lord. Before the vassal was invested in his land, the superior exacted from him a certain sum or other gift, to be measured only by his own capacity; and in case of delay or inability to pay this demand, the superior continued in possession of the estate. Such scandalous oppressing could not but produce the greatest discontent and clamour. Applications were made to the law without success; nor were even the laws regarded which were fabricated on purpose for their relief. The incidents of marriage now proved a source of the most dreadful oppressing. The lord assumed a right of marrying his vassal to whom he pleased; and he not only exerted this right himself, but would sell it to a stranger, or allow the vassal to buy it himself; while the penalty annexed to a marriage without the consent of the superior involved no less punishment than the loss of the estate itself, or some grievous infliction as for a crime of the first magnitude. The case was still worse with a female ward; whose beauty and accomplishments became a source of gain to the superior, or were sacrificed to please his whim or caprice; so that her relations were frequently obliged to buy from him the privilege of marrying her to the person she or they thought most proper. In like manner the aid, which was formerly a voluntary gift from the vassal in cases of distress happening to his lord, now became an unavoidable tax. An aid formerly was demanded when the eldest daughter of the superior was married, when his eldest son was knighted, or when the superior himself was taken prisoner in battle. These were the only legal causes of making a demand of this kind; but in the subsequent times of degeneracy, the most frivolous pretences were every day made use of by the prince to oppress the lords, and by the lords to oppress their vassals; demanding subsidies at pleasure, which their inferiors were always obliged to comply with. Lastly, the efcheat, which in former times took place only in cases of cowardice, treachery, or some other heinous crime, was now inflicted on the most trifling occasions. If the vassal happened to be too long in attending the court of his superior to take the oath of fealty; if he committed any action which could in the least be construed an infringement of the oath; if he neglected to give his lord warning of any misfortune which he might suppose was about to befall him; revealed any thing concerning him; made love to his sister or daughter, &c.; or even if he should grant a tenure of land to another person in form different from that in which he held his own; all these, nay others still more ridiculous, were judged sufficient reasons for the superior to seize on the estate of the vassal, and involve him and his family in ruin.

Notwithstanding these oppressions, however, the vassal was still obliged to submit to his lord; to own him as his superior; and even, in appearance, to pay him the same respect as formerly when the greatest unanimity and cordial affection subsisted between them. Still he was obliged to perform the same military service; because a failure in that respect would have subjected him to a forfeiture of lands according to the original agreement. A vast difference, however, now took place in the valour and activity which inspired the army. The vassals, forced into the field with desponding hearts, were indifferent as to the success of the cause in which they were engaged, and frequently obstructed instead of forwarding the operations of the field. field. Hence the sovereign found himself embarrassed; and, though nominally at the head of a martial and powerful people, was frequently unable to effect anything by reason of the mutual hatred and dissension which everywhere prevailed.

Thus the feudal states of Europe became unnaturally weak: a remedy was necessary; and it is remarkable, that the same remedy was applied all over the continent. This was, in short, the making fiefs hereditary, which till now had only been granted for a long term of years; and, in return, burdening the lands with a certain number of soldiers, which were not to be refused upon any pretence whatever. Hence was derived the tenure of knight-service. A certain portion of land, burdened with the service of one soldier or knight, was called a knight's fee; and thus an estate, furnishing any number of soldiers, was said to contain as many knight's fees; so that now the manors, baronies, &c., became powerful according to the number of soldiers they were bound to furnish. In the grants from the crown, the nobility were obliged to furnish a certain number of soldiers for the service of the sovereign; and in those from the nobility to their vassals, the like service was required. Even the commons who had grants from the crown furnished a certain proportion of knights. The force of the nation was called into action by grants in capitae, or from the sovereign and nobility. A numerous and powerful army was instantly assembled, and at once ready for action. Of this army the king was the general, the nobility the officers, and the vassals soldiers; the whole being exactly arranged, and capable of entering upon any expedition without the least delay.

Thus a remedy was found in some measure for the weaknesses of the feudal sovereigns; but though the knights-tenure could accomplish this, it could not bring back the former affection and cordiality which subsisted between the various ranks of people. On the contrary, by uniting them more firmly to one another by legal ties, it rendered matters rather worse. The oppression originating from the operation of the feudal incidents, still continued with unremitting violence. The grants of knights-tenure were attended with the same oaths of homage and fealty; the same incidents of relief, wardship, marriage, aid, and escheat, with the feudal tenures. The princes promised to abate somewhat of their rigour in demanding the feudal prerogatives, but did not keep their word. Laws were occasionally promulgated, and for some time had an effect; but palliatives soon became ineffectual, and a new state of weakness began to commence.

The two remarkable eras in the feudal history are, the time before the invention of knight-service (d), and that during which it continued. Fiefs were in a state of fluctuation from the destruction of the Roman empire till the ninth century; but they were rendered perpetual in France about the year 877, and were generally become so in every country of Europe about the beginning of the tenth. Du Cange, voce Militia, gives us an example of a knight-fee in the year 880. By the year 987, when Hugh Capet was raised to the throne of France, knight-service was become general all over Europe, and was introduced into England after having made its appearance in other countries (e). In England, however, there have been several doubts and inquiries among the learned concerning the introduction of the feudal laws. Many are of opinion, that they were first introduced by William the Conqueror; and, consequently, that they were entirely unknown to the land Anglo-Saxons; but others think, that they existed among the latter in the same form under which they were continued by the Normans. Dr Stuart is of opinion, that the Saxons who settled in England could not be strangers to fiefs. He supposes the conformity of manners, which undoubtedly prevailed between the Saxons and other barbarians, a sufficient proof that the hereditary grant of land, as well as the fluctuating state of feudal tenures which preceded it, were known to the former. Collateral proofs are derived from the spirit and tenure of the Anglo-Saxon laws, but especially from the grants of hereditary estates on condition of military service (f). The condition of fiefs under the Anglo-Saxons was very different from what it was afterwards. In their times we find no mention made of those oppressions of which so much notice has already been

(d) For the difference between the knights produced by this service and the more ancient ones, or knights of honour, see the article Knight.

(e) Dr Stuart informs us, that it appears from the records of Malcolm IV. in 1153, that knights-service was known in Scotland, and that it was not a novelty at that time. The same author thinks it even probable, that it was known in the time of David I.

(f) The use of entails was known to the Anglo-Saxons; and this practice, as well as the succession to allodial estates, must have contributed very much to establish hereditary fiefs. This opinion seems also to be confirmed by the accounts we have of the great power of many of the nobility among the Anglo-Saxons, and the natural tendency that fiefs must have, in the course of things, to become perpetual, though analogical arguments cannot entirely be depended upon in this case. There is indeed positive evidence that the territory which anciently constituted the kingdom of Mercia belonged to Ethelred as an hereditary fief and earldom. The grant was given him by Alfred when he married his daughter Ethelhilda; and it is likewise attested by Camden, that in the time of Ethelred the earldom of Leicester was an inheritance, and the regular succession of its earls is still known. We are informed also by creditable historians, that Bernicia and Deireland were feudal and inheritable earldoms among the Saxons. The same was true of the county of Cumberland when possessed by the Scottish monarchs. This last appears from the Saxon Chronicle; in which the grant was conveyed by Edmund king of England to Malcolm of Scotland in the following terms: "Edmundus rex totam Cumberland praedavit et contrivit, et commendavit eam Malcomo regi Scotiae; hoc pacto, quod in auxilio sibi foret terra et mari." From the use of the word commendavit, indeed, Spelman takes occasion to say, that a feudal homage was not intended; but the contrary may be proved by the original Saxon from which the foregoing... been taken; and this may easily be accounted for from the alteration of the feudal spirit in different ages. During the time that a warm and generous affection subsisted between the feudal superiors and vassals, the incidents were marks of generosity on the one part, and gratitude on the other; but as soon as a variance had taken place, by reason of the interested disposition which the introduction of luxury produced, the same incidents became sources of the most flagrant oppression. This was remarkably the case in the time of William the Conqueror; and, during the reign of king John, matters were come to such a crisis, that the people everywhere complained loudly, and demanded the restoration of the laws of Edward the Confessor (a). "What these laws of Edward the Confessor were (says Mr Hume), which the English every reign during a century and a half desired so passionately to have restored, is much disputed by antiquarians; and our ignorance of them seems one of the greatest defects of the ancient English history." Dr Stuart has offered an explanation; but this is in fact no more than a conjecture, that "by the laws or customs of the Confessor, that condition of felicity was expressed which had been enjoyed during the fortunate state of the feudal association. The cordiality, equality, and independence, which then prevailed among all ranks in society, continued to be remembered in less prosperous times, and occasioned an ardent desire for the revival of those laws and usages which were the sources of so much happiness."

Besides the great distinction (of which an account concerning fiefs in the Anglo-Saxons and under the Normans, they were on and no less distinguished by the introduction of knight- service. Hitherto the refinement of the English had been obstructed by the invasion of the Danes, and the infar situation of the kingdom; but after the Norman conquest the fiefs were made perpetual. Still, however, the knight-fee and knight-service were altogether unknown. William, the fifth prince who enjoyed the duchy of Normandy, was well acquainted with everything relating to fiefs; for that duchy had experienced all the variety incidental to them from the time of its being granted to Rollo by Charles the Simple in the year 912, to the year 1066, when William was put in possession of England by the battle of Hastings.

On his accession to the throne, a number of forfeitures took place among those who had followed the fortune of Harold. Their estates were to be disposed of at the pleasure of the conqueror; and it was natural to suppose that he would follow the method practised in his own country. Hence the origin of knight- service in England. A grant of land, to any person whatever, was estimated at a certain number of knights' fees; and each of these required the service of a knight. The grants of lands were even renewed to the old tenants under this tenure; so that by degrees the whole military people in the kingdom acquired in it. To accomplish this, Domesday Book is supposed to have been compiled, which contained an exact account of all the landed property of the kingdom. Hence it is to be concluded, not that William introduced fiefs into England, as some have imagined, but that he brought them to their ultimate state of perfection by the introduction of knight-service. This is evident from the laws enacted during his reign. In these it is not only mentioned that knight-service was enacted; but that it was done expressly with the consent of the common council of the nation; which at that time was equivalent to an act of parliament (b).

The invention of knight-service proved generally agreeable; for as only few of the Anglo-Saxon fiefs were hereditary, the advancement of the right to perpetuity, under the tenure of knight-service, must have been accounted an acquisition of some importance; as not only augmenting the grandeur and dignity of the sovereign, but securing the independence of the subject, and improving his property. In the idea of the happy state of the feudal association, there was indeed feudal necessity for the knight's fee; but when the discordance and oppression so often mentioned began to take place, it became then necessary to point out particularly every duty of the vassal, as well as of the lord; and this was fully done by the invention of knight-service. The nobles possessed duchies, baronies, and earldoms; which extensive possessions were divided into as many fees, each of them to furnish a knight for the service of the king, or of the superior: so that every feudal state could command a numerous army.

---

(a) The laws which are now extant under the name of Edward, are generally allowed to be of doubtful authenticity; nor are they, even supposing them to be genuine, of any use in answering the present question. They determine indeed the existence of fiefs among the Anglo-Saxons; and Dr Stuart is of opinion, that the compilation which goes under the name of this prince, though posterior to the date it bears, nevertheless merits greater attention than has usually been bestowed upon it. M. Honard, a foreign lawyer, is the latest writer who has made it his study; but he is better acquainted with the Norman than the Anglo-Saxon customs.

(b) The following law of William the Conqueror not only makes express mention of the knight's fee and service, but alludes to a former law of William and his parliament, by which this tenure was actually established.

"Statuimus etiam et firmiter praecipimus, ut omnes comites, et barones, et milites, et servientes, et universi liberi homines totius regni nostrí prædicti, habeant et teneant fe semper bene in armis, et in equis, ut decet et oportet, et quod sint semper prompti et bene parati ad servitium suum integrum nobis splendendum, et pera gendum, cum semper opus adfuerit, secundum quod nobis debent de feudis et tenementis suis de jure facere, et sient illis statuimus per commune consilium totius regni nostrí prædicti, et dedimus et concedimus in scodo jure læreditario." L.L. Guill. c. 58. and militia to support and defend it in case of any emergency. The knights were also bound to assemble in complete armour whenever the superior thought proper to call, and to hold themselves in readiness for action whenever the king or superior found it convenient to take the field; so that thus the militia might be marched at the shortest notice to defend or support the honour of the nation.

The knights were usually armed with an helmet, sword, lance, and shield; and each was besides obliged to keep a horse. This last requisite was owing to the contempt into which the infantry had fallen through the prevalence of tournaments and luxuries of various kinds, though it was by means of the infantry that the barbarians had originally distinguished themselves in their wars with the Romans, and become able to cope with these celebrated warriors. All proprietors of fees or tenants by knight-service fought on foot; the cavalry were distinguished by the name of battle; and the success of every encounter was supposed to depend on them alone. They only were completely armed; the infantry, being furnished by the villages under the jurisdiction of the barons, had at first only bows and slings; though afterwards they were found worthy of much greater attention.

While the feudal association remained in perfection, the superior could at any time command the military service of his vassals; but in the subsequent degeneracy this service could neither be depended upon when wanted, nor was it of the same advantage when obtained as formerly. The invention of knight-service tended in a great degree to remedy this inconvenience. Those who were possessed of knights fees were now obliged to remain 40 days in the field at their own expense; and this without exception, from the great crown vassals to the smallest feudatories; but if longer service was required, the prince was obliged to pay his troops. In those times, however, when the fate of nations was frequently decided by a single battle, a continuance in the field for 40 days was sufficient for ordinary occasions.

Thus matters seemed once more to be restored nearly to their former state. It was now, as much as ever, the interest of the nation to act with unanimity in its defence, not only against foreign enemies, but against the tyranny of the prince over his subjects, or of one part of the subjects over the other. New inconveniences, however, soon began to take place, owing to the gradual improvements in life and the refinement of manners. From the first institution of military service, a fine had been accepted instead of actual appearance in the field. In the times of barbarity, however, when men accounted rapine and bloodshed their only glory, there were but few who made an offer of this compensation; but as wealth and luxury increased, and the manners of people became softer, a general unwillingness of following the army into the field became also prevalent. A new tenure, called escuage, was therefore introduced; by which the vassal was only obliged to pay his superior a sum of money annually instead of attending him into the field*. Hence originated taxes and their misapplication; for as the king was lord paramount of the whole kingdom, it thence happened that the whole escuage money collected throughout the nation centred in him. The princes then, instead of recruiting their armies, frequently filled their coffers with the money, or dissipated it otherwise, hiring mercenaries to defend their territories when threatened with any danger. These being composed of the dregs of the people, and disbanded at the end of every campaign, filled all Europe with a disbanding orderly banditti, who frequently proved very dangerous to society. To avoid such inconveniences, standing armies were introduced, and taxations began to be raised in every European kingdom. New inconveniences arose. The sovereigns in most of these kingdoms, having acquired the right of taxation, as well as the command of the military power, became completely despotic; but in England the sovereign was deprived of this right by Magna Charta, which was extorted from him, as related under the article England, n° [153]; so that, though allowed to command his armies, he could only pay them by the voluntary contributions of the people, or their submitting to such taxations as were virtually imposed by themselves.