feoda, fiefs, fees, or feuds, form a combina- 
tion of words, in the language of these barba- 
rians, signifying a reward or stipend bestowed 
on certain conditions. The condition upon 
which these rewards were given was, that the 
possessors should faithfully serve the person 
from whom they were received, botli at home 
and abroad, in a military capacity. To this 
they engaged themselves by a juramentum 
lidelitatis, 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 feodal 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 be- 
ing 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 tumultu- 
ous 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 sub-, 
ordinate to his immediate superior ; and so- 
jrn succession to the prince himself. In like 
manner a reciprocal bond of defence existed 
down from the prince to the lowest feodists. 
Such were the foundations on which the 
feodal system was properly established; and 
the natural consequence was, a military sub- 
jection 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 pos- 
sessions of eacli person; and the propriety of 
this constitution was soon apparent in the 
strength which ttiese newly-erected kingdoms 
acquired, and the valour with which their con- 
quests were defended. 
Besides these feodal grants, however, which 
were held only on the terms of military ser- 
vice, 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; 
and this freedom was denominated allodiality. 
These allodials, however, were not exempted 
from military service. A part of their free- 
dom 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 feodal and a national 
militia. The free people only were allowed 
to possess property ; the feudal vassals con- 
stituted the army, properly so called ; while 
the national militia was composed of the al- 
lodial proprietors. This allodiality, however, 
was not confined to landed property, but in- 
cluded 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 feodal 
and allodial proprietors, however, there was 
this farther difference, that the latter had no 
concern with any private quarrels which 
VOL. I. 
FEODAL SYSTEM. 
might take place among the lords them- f 
selves; 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 ultimate- 
ly 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 imper- 
fection 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 al- 
ways formidable; but the allodial proprietors 
had scarcely any means of defending them- 
selves. 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 defence ; 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, burthened 
with service, and which might return to the 
person who granted them, were rendered su- 
perior in value to the absolute and uncondi- 
tional possession of a subject. Other consi- 
derations, however, contributed to produce 
the same effect. As in those dark ages no 
right existed but what had its origin in con- 
quest, it thence followed that the greatest 
conqueror or warrior was the most honour- 
able person. The king, in whom the whole 
exploits of the community centred, as being 
their head, was the most honourable person ; 
and 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, there- 
fore, having no pretensions of this kind, were 
treated with contempt. From this disagree- 
able 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 
importance of the nation and dignity of the 
monarch, it was not thought proper to allow 
the allodial proprietors any greater compen- 
sations than what were given to vassals in, 
similar cases. Thus they were exposed to 
continual mortifications in the courts of jus- 
tice; 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 destroy- 
ed by the great ; so that they were without 
resource except from the feodal tenures, and 
were obliged even to solicit the privileges 
which were bestowed in other cases on vas- 
sals. In these unhappy circumstances, they 
were glad to yield up their lands to any supe- 
rior whom they thought most agreeable, and 
to receive them back from him as a feudal 
gift. Thus the landed property was every 
where changed into feudal tenures, and fiefs 
became universal. 
For some time the feodal 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 
4 X 
/ 13 
to their original simple and noble maxims. 
During that period, the lord exercised his 
bounty to the vassal, which the latter repaid 
bv acts of gratitude; so that the intercourse 
betwixt them was of the most tender and af- 
fectionate kind ; and this gave vise to what 
are called the feodal incidents. 
The expectants of lids were educated in 
the hail 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 vas- 
sal, not only protecting his person, but tak- 
ing charge of his education, and directing the 
management of his affairs. lie took plea- 
sure in observing his approach to maturity ; 
and when he came of age, never failed to de- 
liver 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 enter- 
ing on his fief, brought a present to his lord, 
as an acknowledgment of his care of him dur- 
ing 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 ag- 
grandise and augment the importance of his 
family, sought how to find the most advanta- 
geous match for his vassal. 
Sometimes the superior himself was re- 
duced in his circumstances by war or other 
accidents; but from whatever cause his dis- 
tress 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 according to their 
circumstances ; and this was called the inci- 
dent of aid. 
The incident of escheat took place on the 
part of the vassal, w r hen, 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 es- 
cheat. 
While the lords and vassals thus vied with 
one another in mutual acts of friendship and 
benevolence, happiness, liberty, and activity, 
were diffused through the society. The vas- 
sals behaved courteously towards the retain- 
ers, 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 liimself. Thus a re- 
gular, powerful, and compact system of go- 
vernment took place, an unanimity and at- 
tention pervaded the various departments of 
state ; so that while the subjects were free, 
the nation at large w as formidable. 
During this state of affairs, the members 
of the national assembly in every country of 
Europe appeared there in arms, whether 
they came personally or by their representa- 
tives. Sucn particularly was the case under 
the Anglo-Saxon government ; and the hap- 
piness they at that time enjoyed made the 
oppression and tyranny of the Normans ap- 
pear the more intolerable. In process of 
