The History of English Law before the Time of Edward I. Frederic William Maitland

of Y, who holds of X, who holds of V, who holds . . . of A, who holds of the king. Let us take one real instance:—in Edward I.’s day Roger of St. German holds land at Paxton in Huntingdonshire of Robert of Bedford, who holds of Richard of Ilchester, who holds of Alan of Chartres, who holds of William le Boteler, who holds of Gilbert Neville, who holds of Devorguil Balliol, who holds of the king of Scotland, who holds of the king of England.⁴ A feudal ladder with so many rungs as this has is uncommon; but theoretically there is no limit to the possible number of rungs, and practically, as will be seen hereafter, men have enjoyed a large power, not merely of adding new rungs to the bottom of the ladder, but of inserting new rungs in the middle of it. The person who stands at the lower end of the scale, the person who seems most like an owner of the land, and who has a general right of doing what he pleases with it, is said to hold the land in demesne; Z tenet terram in dominico, or in dominico suo.⁵ We suppose that he holds it of Y; in that case Y is the lord (dominus) of Z, and Z is the tenant (tenens) of Y. But Y again is said to hold the land; he holds it however not in demesne but in service (tenet terram illam, non tamen in dominico sed in servitio); and Y again must hold it of someone—let us say of X —whose tenant he will be, who will be his lord, and who also will be said to hold the land in service. Ultimately we shall reach the king; A, or some other person, will hold the land immediately of the king and be his tenant in chief (in capite). Every person who stands between the king and him who holds in demesne, every mesne lord or mesne, is both [p.212] lord and tenant, lord as regards those who stand below him, tenant as regards those who stand above.⁶

Universality of dependent tenure.Before attempting to analyze this notion of dependent and derivative tenure, let us first observe how universally it has been applied.⁷ Not only has every acre of land been brought within its scope, so that the English lawyer cannot admit even a bare possibility of land being holden of no one, but the self-same formula has been made to cover relationships which have little in common. An Earl of Chester, who may at times behave like a sovereign prince, holds his county palatine of the king; the cottier, who like enough is personally unfree, holds his little croft of some mesne lord, or of the king himself. Even when of late a new mode of cultivating the soil has made its appearance and lords have let land to farmers for terms of years at substantial money rents, this new relationship has been brought within the old formula: the lessee holds the land of the lessor. Even when the tenant has no rent to pay, no temporal service to perform, even when the land has been devoted to God and the saints and is possessed by a religious house in free alms, still the formula has been found equal to the occasion: the religious [p.213] community holds the land of the donor. We see at once therefore that the formula must be very elastic, that the notion of tenure must be in the highest degree an abstract notion. In England tenure is no mark of a class, and we may say the same of “feudal” tenure.

Feudal tenure.The term feodum, which in Anglo-French is represented by fe, fie, fee and in English by fee, is one of the words which came in with the Conqueror, and perhaps for a short while it carried about with it a sense of military or noble tenure; but very soon it was so widely used as to imply no more than heritability.⁸ This is its settled sense in the thirteenth century. To say of a tenant that he holds in fee (tenet in feodo) means no more than that his rights are inheritable. He does not hold for life, he does not hold for a term of years, he does not hold as guardian of an heir, or as one to whom the land has been gaged as security for money; he holds heritably and for his own behoof.⁹ But nothing more is implied as to the terms of his holding, the relation between him and his lord. His duties to his lord may be onerous or nominal, noble or humble, military or agricultural, but if his rights are heritable, then he holds in fee and the land is feodum suum, at all events if his tenure has about it no taint of villeinage.¹⁰ Thus we cannot, as continental writers do, treat feudal law as distinct from the ordinary law of the land, a law to be administered by special courts, a law which regulates some but not all of the proprietary [p.214] rights that men have in land. We can hardly translate into English the contrast which Germans draw between Lehnrecht and Landrecht. Our Landrecht is Lehnrecht; in so far as feudalism is mere property law, England is of all countries the most perfectly feudalized. But this truth has another aspect:—our Lehnrecht is Landrecht; feudal law is not a special law applicable only to one fairly definite set of relationships, or applicable only to one class or estate of men; it is just the common law of England. That extensive application of the feudal formula (Y tenet in feodo de X) which is characteristic of England, and which perhaps was possible only in a conquered country, must have impaired its intensive force.¹¹ If it has to describe the relation between the king and the palatine earl, the relation (slight enough in England) between the pious founder and the religious house that he has endowed, the relation between the lord of a manor and the tenants who help to plough and reap his fields, the mere “cash nexus” between a lessor and a lessee who has taken the land heritably at a full money rent, it cannot mean very much. But this collection of the most diverse relationships under one head will have important effects; the lower “tenures” will be assimilated to the higher, the higher to the lower; the “feud” must lose half its meaning by becoming universal.¹²

Analysis of dependent tenure.It is clear then that of dependent or of feudal tenure in general, little can be said: but still some analysis of it is possible. We may at least notice that it seems to be a complex of personal rights and of real rights. On the one hand, the lord has rights against his tenant, [p.215] the tenant rights against his lord: the tenant owes services to his lord, the lord, at least normally, owes defence and warranty to his tenant. On the other hand, both lord and tenant have rights in the land, in the tenement, the subject of the tenure.¹³ The tenant in demesne, the tenant on the lowest step of the feudal scale, obviously has rights in the land, amounting to a general, indefinite right of using it as he pleases. But his lord also is conceived as having rights in the land. We have not adequately described his position by saying that he has a right to services from his tenant. Of him as well as of his tenant it may be said that he holds the land, not indeed in demesne but in service, that the land is his land and his fee, and even that he is seised, that is, possessed of the land.¹⁴ What has been said of the demesne tenant’s immediate lord, may be said also of that lord’s lord; he also has rights in the land and the land is in some sort his. This, when regarded from the standpoint of modern jurisprudence, is perhaps the most remarkable characteristic of feudalism:—several different persons, in somewhat different senses, may be said to have and to hold the same piece of land. We have further to conceive of the service due from the tenant to his lord as being a burden on the tenement. It is service owed by the tenement. This idea is so deeply engrained in the law that the tenement is often spoken of as though it were a person who could be bound by obligations and perform duties: hides and virgates must send men to the war, must reap and mow and do suit of court; “these two half-hides ought to carry the king’s writs whenever they [p.216]come into the county.”¹⁵ But the vast liberty that men have enjoyed of creating new tenures and sub-tenures gives us wonderful complications: the obligation of the tenement has to be kept distinct from the obligation of the tenant. The tenement may be burdened with military service, and yet, as between lord and tenant, the lord and not the tenant may be bound to do it: all the same the land itself is burdened with the duty and the lord’s overlord may have his remedy against the land.

Obligations of the tenant and of the tenement.To take a simple case:—The king has enfeoffed A to hold by military service; A can now proceed to enfeoff B (whether he can do so without the king’s leave is a question which we postpone), and may enfeoff B by some quite other service; B for example is to pay A a money rent. Now as regards the king, the land is burdened with and owes the military service, the king can enforce the service by distraining the land for its performance, that is, by