F E O 
F E O 
F E O 
715 
time that a warm and generous affection sub- 
sisted between the feudal superiors and vas 
sals, the incidents were marks of genero- 
sity on the one part and gratitude on the 
other; but as soon as a variance had taken 
place, from the interested disposition which 
the introduction of luxury produced, the 
same incidents became sources of the most 
flagrant oppression. This was remarkabh 
the case in the time of William the Con- 
queror ; and during the reign of king John 
matters were come to such a crisis, that the 
people every where complained loudly, and 
demanded the restoration of the laws of lid- 
ward tire Confessor. “ What these laws or 
Edward the Confessor were (says Mr. Hume) 
which the English, every reign during a cen- 
tury 'and a half, desired so passionately to 
have restored, is much disputed by antiqua- 
rians ; and our ignorance ot them seems one 
of the greatest defects of the antient English 
•history.” Dr. Stuart has offered an expla- 
nation ; but this is in fact no more than a 
conjecture, that “ by the laws or customs of 
the Confessor, that condition of felicity w ( as 
expressed which had been enjoyed during 
the fortunate state of the feodal association. 
The cordiality, equality, and independance, 
which then prevailed among all ranks in so- 
ciety, continued to be remembered in less 
prosperous times, and occasioned an ardent 
desire for the revival of those laws and usages 
which were the sources of so much happi- 
ness.” 
Besides the great distinction (of which an 
account has already been given) between the 
state of fiefs under the Anglo-Saxons and un- 
der the Normans, they were no less distin- 
guished by the introduction of knight’s-ser- 
vice. Hitherto the refinement of the Eng- 
lish had been obstructed by the invasion of 
■the Danes, and the insular situation of the 
kingdom; but after the Norman conquest 
the fiefs w-ere made perpetual. Still, how- 
ever, the knight’ s-fee and knight’s-service were 
altogether unknown. William, the sixth 
prince who enjoyed the duchy of Norman- 
dy, was well acquainted with every thing re- 
lating to fiefs; for that duchy had experi- 
enced all the variety incidental to them, 
from the time of its being granted to Iloilo 
by Charles the Simple, in the year 912, to 
the year 1066, w-hen William was put in pos- 
session of England by the battle of Hast- 
ings. 
On his accession to the throne, a number 
of forfeitures took place among those who 
had followed the fortunes of Harold. Their 
estates were to be disposed of at the pleasure 
of the conqueror; and it was natural to sup- 
pose that he would follow' the method prac- 
tised in his own country. Hence the origin 
of knight’s-service in England. A grant of 
land to any person whatever, was estimated 
at a certain number of knight’s-fees ; and each 
of these required the service of a knight. The 
grants of lands were even renew ed to the old 
tenants under this tenure ; so that by de- 
grees the whole military people in the king- 
dom acquiesced in it. 1 o accomplish this, 
Domesday-book is supposed to have been 
compiled, which contained an exact account 
of all the landed property in the kingdom. 
Hence it is to be concluded, not that W il- 
ltam introduced fiefs into England, as some 
have imagined, but that he brought them to 
their ultimate state of perfection by the in- 
troduction of knight’s-service. This is evident 
from the laws enacted during his reign. In 
these it is not only mentioned that knight’s- 
service was enacted, but that it was done ex- 
pressly with the consent of the common 
council of the nation ; which at that time was 
equivalent to an act of parliament. 
The invention of knight’s-service prov- 
ed generally agreeable: lor, as few' of "the 
Anglo-riaxon fiefs were hereditary, the ad- 
vancement of the rest to perpetuity, under 
the tenure of knight’s-service, must have been 
accounted an acquisition of some import- 
ance, as not only augmenting the grandeur 
and dignity of the sovereign, but securing 
the independance of the subject, and im- 
proving his property. In the happy state of 
the feodal association, there was indeed no 
necessity for the knight’s-fee ; but when the 
discordance and oppression so often men- 
tioned began to take place, it became then 
necessary to point out particularly every 
duty of the vassal as well as of the lord ; and 
this was fully done by the invention of 
knight’s-service. The nobles possessed du- 
chies, baronies, and earldoms, which exten- 
sive possessions were divided into as many 
fees, each of them to furnish a knight for the 
service of the king or of the superior; so 
that every feodal state could command a nu- 
merous army arid militia, to support and de- 
fend it in "case of any emergency. The 
knights were also bound to assemble in com- 
plete armour whenever the superior thought 
proper to call, and to hold themselves in rea- 
diness for action whenever the king or supe- 
rior found it convenient to take the field ; 
so that thus the militia might be marched at 
the shortest notice to defend or support the 
honour of the nation. 
The knights were usually armed with an 
helmet, sword, lance, and shield ; and each 
was besides obliged to keep a horse. This 
last requisite w'as owing to the contempt into 
which the infantry had fallen, through the 
prevalence of tournaments and luxuries of 
various kinds, though it was by means of the 
infantry that the barbarians had originally 
distinguished themselves in their wars with 
the Romans, and become able to cope with 
those celebrated warriors. All proprietors of 
fees or tenants by knight’s-service fought on 
horseback ; the cavalry were distinguished by 
the name of battle, and the success of every 
encounter w T as supposed to depend on them 
alone. They only were completely armed; 
the infantry, being furnished by the villages 
under the jurisdiction of the barons, had at 
first only bows and slings, though afterwards 
they were found worthy of much greater at- 
tention. 
While the feodal association remained in 
perfection, the superior could at any time 
command the military service of his vassals ; 
but, in the subsequent degeneracy, this ser- 
vice could neither fje depended upon when 
wanted, nor was it of the same advantage 
when obtained as formerly. The invention 
of knight’s-service tended in a great degree to 
remedy this inconvenience. Those who were 
possessed of knight’s-fees were now obliged 
to remain 40 days in the field at their own 
expence; and this without exception, from 
the great crown vassals to the smallest feu- 
datories ; but if longer service was required, 
the prince was obliged to pay his troops. In 
4X2 
those times, however, when the fate of na- 
tions w 7 as frequently decided by a single bat- 
tle, a continuance in the field for 40 days was 
sufficient for ordinary occasions. 
Thus matters seemed once more to be restor- 
ed nearly to their former state. It was now, 
as much as ever, the interest of the nation to 
act with unanimity in its defence, not only 
against foreign enemies, but against the ty- 
ranny of the prince over his subjects, or of 
one part of the subjects over the other. New 
inconveniences, however, soon began to 
take place, owing to the gradual improve- 
ments in life and the refinement of manners. 
From the first institution of military service, 
a fine had been accepted instead of actual 
appearance in the field. In the times of bar- 
barity, however, when men accounted rapine 
and bloodshed their only glory, there were but 
few who made an offer of this compensation ; 
but as wealth and luxury increased, and the 
manners of people became softer, a general 
unwillingness of following the army into the 
field became also prevalent. A new tenure, 
called escuage, vta.s therefore introduced, by 
which the vassal was only obliged, to pay his 
superior a sum of money annually instead of 
altendiifjg him into the field. Hence origi- 
nated taxes and their misapplication ; for as 
the king w r as lord paramount of the w hole 
kingdom, it thence happened that the whole 
escuage-money collected throughout the na- 
tion centred in him. The princes, then, 
instead of recruiting their armies, filled their 
coffers with the money, or dissipated it other- 
wise, hiring mercenaries to defend their ter- 
ritories when threatened with any danger. 
These being composed of the dregs of the 
people, and disbanded at the end of every 
campaign, filled all Europe w ith a disorder- 
ly banditti, who frequently proved very dan- 
gerous to society. To avoid such inconve- 
niences, standing armies were introduced, 
and taxations began to be raised in every 
European kingdom. New inconveniences 
arose. The sovereigns in most of these 
kingdoms, having acquired the right of tax- 
ation, as well as the command of the mi- 
litary power, became completely despotic; 
but in England the sovereign was deprived 
of this right by Magna Charta, which was 
extorted from him, as related in our English 
histories ; so that, though allowed to com- 
mand his armies, he could only pay them by 
the voluntary contributions of the people, or 
their submitting to such taxations as were 
virtually imposed by themselves. 
The tenure by knight’s-servfoe was conti- 
nued in Great Britain (nominally at least), 
with all the incidents, homage, fealty, escu- 
age, wardship, marriage, &c. till the time of 
the civil wars, when it was abolished by the 
Long Parliament, and the abolition was con- 
firmed by 12 Car. II. c. 24. 
FEOFFMENT, may be defined to be the 
gift of any corporeal hereditament to an- 
other. He that so gives or enfeoffs, is called 
the feoffor, and the person enfeoffed is deno- 
minated the feoffee. 2 Black. 20. But by 
the mere words of the deed, the feoffment is 
by no means perfected. There remains a 
very material ceremony to be performed, 
called livery of seisin, without which the 
feoffee has but a mere estate at will. Id. 
The end and design of this institution was, 
I by this sort of ceremony or solemnity, to 
