By the Rev. J. Wilkinson. 281 
those who held of the King in capite and their sub-feudatories, the 
vassals and under vassals of the crown. 
The practise frequently was, for the tenant in capite to divide his 
estate into two parts, one of which he himself occupied and culti- 
vated by the services of his villains, or farmed by tenants on other 
than military tenure; while another part of his estate he parcelled 
into knights’ fees, which he granted to those who in return bound 
themselves to serve on horseback the usual time, in other words, 
took on themselves the military obligations which their lord owed 
to the Crown. The custom of the manor (which may have de- 
pended on the quality of the land, and the ancient feoffments under 
the King) determined what number of carucates, from five to near 
fifty, should go to a knight’s fee, and be considered a sufficient re- 
turn for the military services required. But in Broughton it would 
appear that this division was not made by the descendants of the 
ancient feoffees. They held the estate, till they sold it to the Gif- 
fords, entire; and on the sale it went entire, they simply retaining 
the rights which belonged to them as lords superior. These rights 
became gradually weaker. As the authority of the Crown over 
the first tenants decreased, so their authority over their sub-tenants 
decreased. The fief was originally granted as a personal beneficium, 
but it was very soon (so soon that the first step in the process has 
been doubted) improved into, first a hereditary, and then a trans- 
ferable, possession. It was originally granted with duties to be 
performed, and heavy burdens to be borne. The services were 
commuted in Henry II.’s time into escuwage, or a fixed pecuniary 
assessment, to be made, according to Magna Charta, in Parliament, 
which, however adequate at the time, did not rise with the increase 
of the precious metals; whilst all the feudal incidents of aids, re- 
liefs, fines on alienation, escheats, wardship, and marriage, after 
being continually resisted as unreasonable exactions, whenever a 
favourable opportunity occurred, were at last swept away, practi- 
HF cally in the Great Rebellion, legally in the 12 of Charles II. Of 
_ course, all the improvements which the tenants in capite effected in 
_ their condition at the expense of the Crown, were so much gain to 
their sub-tenants. The authority of the suzerain was weakened 
Uv 
