M 



FEUDAL STSTKM. 



FEUDAL 8YST 



most acceptable is from Je or/, which H ii said signifies wages or pay 

 for wrrice, the word orf or <xM, to which the signification of pomaaion 

 or property U assigned, bring combined with it. Sir Francis Palgrave 

 (' Ri and Progrew of EngL Com.,' pp. 204-207) doabta if the word 

 ft* Jam ever existed. The true word seems to be fmiun, or frflum. 

 fltr or frf (latinised into fa-nllum, which iome contracted into 

 /rncfmn, and others, by omitting the r, into feodtm) he conceived to be 

 ttef, or pktttf, and that again to be a colloquial abbreviation of cm/ifii/- 

 tntit, pronounced rmpkylt/ta, a well-known term of the Roman law 

 for an estate granted to be held not absolutely, but with the ownership 

 .-till in the grantor and the usufruct only in the hands of the grantee. 

 It is certain that rmpkytctuii was used in the middle ages as synony- 

 mous with prttaria ; that prtrariir, and also pnetlil r, 

 (literally loans), were the same with beneficia ; and that benrfcia under 

 i>oron were the same or near the same as fiefi. The word frit, 

 which in Scotland means an estate held of a superior or lord, for which, 

 at explained by Emkine (' Principles,' b. ii., tit. 4), a rent, or feu- 

 duty, as it is called, is always paid, has " a strong resemblance to the 

 Roman empkyteutu, In the nature of the right, the yearly duty ] 

 by the vassal, the penalty in the case of not punctual payment, and the 

 restraint frequently laid upon vassals not to alien without the superior')) 

 consent." 



The origin of the system of feuds has been a fertile subject of specu- 

 lation and dispute. If we merely seek for the existence of a kind of 

 landed tenure resembling that of the fief in its essential principle, it is 

 probable that such may be discovered in various ages and parts of the 

 world. But feuds alone are not the feudal system ; they are only one 

 of the elements out of which that system grew. In its entireness, it is 

 certain that the feudal system never subsisted anywhere before it 

 arose in the middle ages in those parts of Europe in which the 

 Germanic nations settled themselves after the subversion of the 

 Roman empire. 



Supposing feud to be the same word with the Roman emphy- 

 teusia, it does not follow that the Germanic nations borrowed the 

 notion of this species of tenure from the Romans. It is perhaps more 

 probable that it was the common form of tenure among them 

 before their settlement in the Roman provinces. It is to be observed 

 that the emphyteusis, the precaria, the beneficium, only subsisted 

 under the R .nnan scheme of polity in particular instances, but they 

 present themselves as the very genius of the Germanic scheme. What 

 was only occasional under the one became general under the other. 

 In other words, if the Romans had feuds, it was their Germanic con- 

 querors who first established a system of feuds; upon their first 

 settlement in the conquered provinces. 



We know so little with certainty respecting the original institutions 

 of the Germanic nations, that it is impossible to say how much they 

 may have brought with them from their northern forests, or how much 

 they may have borrowed from the imperial polity, of the other chief 

 element which enters into the system of feudalism, the connection 

 subsisting between the grantor and the grantee of the fief, the person 

 having the property and the person having the usufruct, or, as they 

 were respectively designated, the suzerain or lord, and the tenant or 

 vassal. Tenant may be considered as the name given to the latter in 

 reference to the particular nature of his right over the land as the 

 holder oi it, in short; vassal, that denoting the particular nature of his 

 personal connection with his lord. The former has been already 

 explained ; the consideration of the latter introduces a new view. By 

 some writers the feudal vassals have been derived from the comitet, or 

 officers of the Roman imperial household [COUNT] ; by others from the 

 comitet, or companions, mentioned by Tacitus ('German.' 13, Ac.) as 

 attending upon each of the German chiefs in war. The latter opinion 

 U ingeniously maintained by Montesquieu (xxx. 3). One fact appears 

 to be certain, and is of some importance, namely, that the original 

 vassali or vasii were merely noblemen who attached themselves to the 

 court and to attendance upon the prince, without necessarily holding 

 any landed estate or beneficium by royal grant. In this sense the 

 words occur in the early part of the 9th century. Vassal has been 

 derived from the Celtic gmu, and from the German getell, which are 

 probably the same word, and of both of which the original signifi- 

 cation seems to be a helper, or subordinate associate, in labour ol 



kind. 



If the vasial was at first merely the associate of or attendant upon 

 bU lord, nothing could be more natural than that, when the latter 

 came to have land to give away, be should most frequently bestow it 

 upon his vassals, both as a reword for their past and a bond by whirl 

 he might secure their future services. If the peculiar form of tenure 

 constituting the lief did not exist before, here was the very case which 

 would suggest it At all events, nothing could bo more perfectly 

 adapted to the circumstances. The vassal was entitled to a renom- 

 pense ; at the same tune it was not the interest of the prince to sever 

 their connexion, and to allow him to become independent ; probably 

 that was as little the dwirc of the vassal himself ; he was conveniently 

 and appropriately rewarded therefore by a fief, that is, by a loan o 

 land, the profits of which were left to him as entirely as if he ha< 

 obtained the ownership of the land, but his precarious and revocable 

 tenure of which, at the same time, kept him bound to bit lord in the 

 same dependence M before. 



Here then we have the union of the feud and vassalage two tilings 



which remained intimately and inseparably combined so long as the 

 eudal system existed. They may have originally been quite distinct, 

 rely been thrown into combination by circumstances. It is 

 xjssible that there were vassals who were not feudatories, or feuda- 

 ories who were not vassals. But when the advantage of the asracU- 

 ion of the two characters came to be perceived, it would be established 

 as essential to the completeness of each. Every vassal would have a 

 fief, and every person to whom a fief was granted would be a vassal, 

 and thus a vassal and the holder of a fief come to signify one and the 

 same thing. 



Fiefs are supposed to have been at first entirely precarious, that is to 

 y, resumable at any time at the pleasure of the grant"!-. Hut if this 

 state of things ever existed, it probably did not last I . from 



.he first it is most probable that many fiefs were granted for a c 

 term of years or for life. And in those of all kinds a substitute 



precariousness of the tenure was soon found, which while it 

 equally secured the rights and interests of the lord, was much more 

 lonourable and in every way more advantageous for the vassal. This 

 ras the method of attaching him by certain oaths and solemn forms, 

 vliieh, besides their force in a religious point of view, were so con- 

 rived as to appeal also to men's moral feelings, and which therefore it 

 was accounted not only impious but infamous to violate. The r. 

 linding the vassal to bin lord was made to wear all the appearance of a 

 mutual interchange of benefits, of bounty and protection on tl. 

 land, of gratitude and service due on the other; and so strongly <iiil 

 .his view of the matter take possession of men's minds, that in the 

 eudal ages even the ties of natural relationship were looked upon as of 

 nferior obligation to the artificial bond of vassalage. 



As soon as the position of the vassal had thus been made nt.il . 

 secure, various changes would gradually introduce themselves. The 

 vassal would begin to have his fixed rights as well as 1> 

 oath which he had taken measuring and determining both these 

 and his duties. The relation between the two parties would cease to 

 >e one wholly of power and dominion on the one hand, and of mere 

 obligation and dependence on the other. If the vassal performed that 

 which he had sworn, nothing more would be required of him. Any 

 attempt of his lord to force him to do more would be considered an 

 injustice. Their connection would now assume the appearance of a 

 mutual compact, imposing corresponding obligations upon both, and 

 making protection as much a duty in the lord as gratitude and sen-ice 

 in the vassal. 



Other important changes would follow this fundamental change, or 

 would take place while it was advancing to completion. After the fief 

 liad come to be generally held for life, the next step would be for tin 

 eldest son usually to succeed his father. His right so to succeed would 

 next be established by usage. At a later stage fiefs would become, as 

 they did, descendible in the collateral as well as in the direct lino. At 

 a still later, they became inheritable by females as well as by males. 

 It much difference of opinion, however, as to the dates at which 

 these several changes took place. itcrs conceive that fief* 



first became hereditary in France under Charlemagne ; others, however, 

 with whom Mr. Hallain agrees, maintain that there were hereditary 

 tiefi under the first race of French kings. It is supposed not to have 

 been till the time of the first Capets in the end of tin 1 Kith century 

 that the right of the son to succeed the father was established by law 

 in France. Conrad II., aurnamed the Salic, who became euii 



-JI. in generally believed to have first established the hereditary 

 character of fiefs in Germany. 



Throughout the whole of this progressive development of the .-. . 

 however, the original nature of the fief was nev. 

 mate property was still held to be in the lord ; and that fact wa 

 distinctly signified, not only by the expressive language of forms and 

 symbols, but by certain liabilities of the tenure that gave .-till sharper 

 intimation of its true character. Even aft ilc-<-ndiblu 



to heirs in the most comprehensive sense, and by the most fixed rule, 

 every new occupant of the estate had still to make solemn ;: 

 ment of his vassalage, and thus to obtain, as it were, a renewal of the 

 grant from the lord. He became bound to discharge all services and 

 other dues as fully as the first grantee had been. Above all, in certain 

 circumstances, as, for example, if the tenant committed treason or 

 felony, or if he left no heir, the estate would still return by forfeiture 

 or escheat to the lord, as to its original owner. 



Originally fiefs were granted only by sovereign princes ; but after 

 estates of this description, by acquiring the hereditary quality, came 

 to be considered as property to all practical intents and purposes, their 

 holders proceeded, on the strength of this completeness of possession, 

 themselves to assume the character and to exercise tl i lords, 



by the practice of what was called mibinfencl.it' n.tli.it is, the alien- 

 ation of portions of their fiefs to other parties, who thereupon were 

 placed in the same or a similar relation to them a* that in which they 

 stood to the prince. The vassal of the prince became the loi 

 other vassal* ; in this latter capacity he was called a mesne (that is, an 

 intermediate) lord; he was a lord and a vassal at the same time. In 

 the same manner the vassal of a inesne lord might become also the 

 lord of other arrere vassals, as those vassals that held of a me.-, 

 were designated. This process sometimes produced curious results ; 

 for a lord might in this way actually become the vassal of his own 

 vassal, and a vassal lord over his own lonl. 



