April 1. 1854.] 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



309 



ed. Jelf, i. 419.) Cap. xxviii. is tbe one intended, 

 and there is no corruption whatsoever. 



7. Joseph Bingham was only closely following 

 Barrow. The first edition of l)e la Bigne's Bib- 

 liotheca Patrum, torn, i., also has the evidently 

 senseless reading, " ista quidam ego,'" instead of 

 " nego," about which see Comber's Roman For- 

 geries, ii. 187. For MSS. of the Epistles of Pope 

 Symmachus, your correspondent may consult the 

 Carmelite Lud. Jacob a. S. Carolo's Bibliotheca 

 Pontijicia, p. 21G. ; or, much more successfully, 

 De Montfaucon's Bibliotheca Bibliothecarum Ma- 

 nuscriptorum, Paris, 1739. B. G. 



Should Mr. Bichard Bingham not yet have 

 verified the reference to Erasmus, I beg to furnish 

 him with the means of doing so ; but I am toler- 

 ably certain that I recollect having met with an- 

 other place in which this admirable writer more 

 fully censures those preachers of his Church who, 

 at the commencement of their sermons, called 

 upon the Virgin Mary for assistance, in a manner 

 somewhat similar to that in which heathen poets 

 used to invoke the Muses. The following passage, 

 however, may be quite sufficient for your corre- 

 spondent's purpose : 



" Sed si est fons gratia?, quid opus est illi dicere Ora 

 pro nobis ? Non est probabile earn consuetudinem a 

 gravibus viris inductam, sed ab inepto quopiam, qui, 

 quod didicerat apud Poetas propositioni succedere in- 

 vocationem, pro Musa supposuit Mariam." — Des. 

 Erasmi Iloterod. Apologia advtrsus Rhapsodias ca- 

 lumniosarum querimoniarum Alberti Pit, quondam Car- 

 porum Principis, p. 168. Basil, in off. Froben. 1531. 



B.G. 



ANCIENT TENURE OF LANDS. 



(Vol. IX., p. 173.) 



About the close of the tenth century (and 

 perhaps much earlier) there began to arise two 

 distinct modes of holding or possessing land : the 

 one a feud, i. e. a stipendiary estate ; the other 

 allodium, the phrase applied to that species of 

 property which had become vested by allotment 

 in the conquerors of the country. The stipendiary 

 held of a superior ; the allodialist of no one, but 

 enjoyed his land as free and independent property. 

 The interest of the stipendiary did not originally 

 extend beyond his own life, but in course of time 

 it acquired an hereditary character which led to 

 the practice of subinfeudation ; for the stipendiary 

 or feudatory, considering himself as substantially 

 the owner, began to imitate the example of his 

 lord by carving out portions of the feud to be 

 held of himself by some other person, on the 

 terms and conditions similar to those of the ori- 

 ginal grant. Here B. must be looked upon as only 

 vassal to A., his superior or lord ; and although 



feuds did not originally extend beyond the life 

 of the first vassal, yet in process of time they were 

 extended to his heirs, so that when the feudatory 

 died, his male descendants were admitted to the 

 succession, and in default of them, then such of 

 his male collateral kindred as were of the blood 

 of the first feudatory, but no others; therefore, 

 in default of these, it would consequently revert 

 to A., who had a reversionary interest in the feud 

 capable of taking effect as soon as B.'s interest 

 should determine. If the subinfeudatory lord 

 alienated, it would operate as a forfeiture to the 

 person in immediate reversion. W. T. T. 



As a very brief reply to the queries of J. B., 

 permit me to make the following observations. 



The Queen is lady paramount of all the lands 

 in England ; every estate in land being holden, 

 immediately or mediately, of the crown. This 

 doctrine was settled shortly after the Norman 

 Conquest, and is still an axiom of law. 



Until the statute Quia Emptores, 18 Edw. I., a 

 tenant in fee simple might grant lands to be holden 

 by the grantee and his heirs of the grantor and his 

 heirs, subject to feudal services and to escheat ; 

 and by such subinfeudation manors were created. 



The above-named statute forbade the future sub- 

 infeudation of lands, and consequently hindered 

 the further creation of manors. Since the statute 

 a seller of the fee can but transfer his tenure. 

 There are instances in which one manor, is holden 

 of another, both having been created before the 

 statute. 



In the instance mentioned by J. B. it is pre- 

 sumed that the hamlet escheated to the heirs of 

 A. on failure of the heirs of B. (See the statute 

 De Donis Conditionalibus, 13 Edw. I.) 



It is not, and never was, necessary, or even 

 possible, that the lord of a manor should be the 

 owner of all the lands therein ; on the contrary, 

 if he were, there would be no manor; for a manor 

 cannot subsist without a court baron, and there 

 can be no such court unless there are freehold 

 tenants (at least two in number) holding of the 

 lord. The land retained by the lord consists of 

 his own demesne and the wastes, which last com- 

 prise the highways and commons. If the lord 

 should alienate all the lands, but retain his lord- 

 ship, the latter becomes a seignory in gross. 



Such was and is the tenure of lands in England, 

 so far as concerns the queries of J. B. He will 

 find the subject lucidly explained at great length 

 in the second volume of Blackstone's Commen- 

 taries. I. Ctus. 



Lincoln's Inn. 



I think that J. B. will find in Blackstone, or any 

 elementary book on the law of real property, all 

 the information which he requires. The case 

 which he puts was, I suppose, the common case 



