well-being.1 On the other hand, England is also the best example of the subjugation of the disruptive tendencies of feudalism by a combination of the forces of royal authority and popular love of freedom.

It seemed advisable to make this very brief survey from the historical and political standpoint, in order that the effects of the more purely economic elements might be more clearly appreciated. Under the feudal system we have as foundations a peculiar land system and a peculiar form of personal obligation. In neither was the idea of economic advantage predominant, as such advantage is understood in the present time. In its ideal form the personal tie was that of devoted attachment, as shown in the poetry of chivalry; and, similarly regarded, the land system rested upon military obedience.

§ 3. Peculiar Restrictions on the Ownership of Land under Feudalism. It follows at once that some of the most important characteristics of ownership of land in the modern industrial system were opposed to the general principles of feudalism, and were logically inadmissible. Take, for example, freedom of alienation or the right to sell an estate. Under strict feudalism there was no room for it. The tenant, by military service, as Sir F. Pollock observes, was no more entitled to put a newcomer in his place than a soldier on duty to assign his place to another. It is true that feudalism of this strict type soon began to decay, or rather, the ideal was never completely attained; but for the present we are concerned with principles, and it is sufficient to notice that in England at the present day many of the difficulties in the transfer of land may be traced to this characteristic of feudalism.

Again, freedom of disposal by will was still more repugnant to the feudal theory. Logically the land should revert to the king or other superior for the appointment of a new officer, to follow the original analogy.

1 The influence of the personal element has been justly emphasised by Dr. Cunningham, Growth of Industry, Vol. I., p. 130.

In the same way the right of inheritance falls to the ground, if feudalism is regarded from the purely military standpoint. But historically feudalism was not only, as already shown, of mixed origin, but it was modified by other institutions, and notably by that of the family. In the ancient types of the family, whilst there was no room for alienation or bequest, the right of inheritance was fundamental, although different modes were adopted in various circumstances. The rule that came to be general under feudalism was that of primogeniture. The origin is obscure,1 but once it was adopted there are obvious reasons why it should become general and stringent. To divide a great feudal estate would be like dividing the command of an army corps, and when division did not 'take place it was natural that the eldest son should take the command, as being in most cases the strongest.

So strongly did the law of primogeniture take root in England that it was applied in time to estates in land unconnected with military tenures,2 and in case of intestacy it still prevails in England as regards all real property.

It has been observed by Thorold Rogers 3 that, during the early Middle Ages the effects of primogeniture on land were modified by the custom which prevailed, of the great land-owners cultivating their own estates at their own. risk. On ordinary arable land, in the thirteenth century, he states that stock was three times the value of the land, when there were adequate implements and cattle (the proportions being 68. to 8s. per acre for the land, and 188. to 208. for the capital).

Now the younger sons shared, unless deprived by will, in this personal estate, and to keep the estate in working

1 Cf. Maine's Ancient Law.

2 Copy-holds and socage land, for example. In these cases the adoption was only gradual. In Kent, to this day, gavel-kind (equal division) prevails. Cf. Elton's Origins. Cf. Pollock's Land Laws, Note D. 3 Six Centuries, p. 51.

order the eldest son would be obliged to make some agreement with the younger, feudation.

probably at first by sub-in

To return to the general question of feudal inheritance, it must be added that the right only existed when there was mention of heirs in the original grant, and in any case the heir did not succeed as a matter of free and common right, but he owed the lord a payment called relief. Here again we have survivals at the present day.1

One other technicality which had important consequences must be noticed. In general, in a grant in which heirs were mentioned, some particular kind (e.g., heirs male of his body) was prescribed, and in case of failure the estate reverted to the superior. It is to this practice that we are mainly indebted for entails.

§ 4. Feudalism and the Towns and Cities. The feudal system laid its hand on the town no less firmly than on the country, although it was sooner compelled to relax its grip. As in the preceding section, for the purpose of illustration, reference may be made to England.

It is only with an effort we can picture the economic condition of the towns in England in the early mediæval period. At the present day, any one can settle in any town he pleases, establish any manufacture, practise any industry, buy or sell anything that he likes. In the Middle Ages it was not so; towns in the same country were relatively more exclusive than independent countries are at present. This mutual exclusiveness was closely connected with feudalism, and to the same source must be attributed many of the burdens and restrictions which were only completely destroyed after the struggle of centuries.2

From the time of the Norman Conquest the cities and towns of England were vested either in the crown or else in the clergy or in the baronage, and great men of the

1 Compare, for example, the system of feuing land in Scotland for building purposes.

2 Compare Adam Smith, Bk. III., Ch. III.

laity 1; that is to say, the king was immediate lord of some towns, and particular persons, either of the clergy or laity, were immediate lords of other towns. Of those vested in the king some were by one title and some by another; some he held as the ancient inheritance of the crown, others had lapsed to him by escheat (for want of heirs), some he had obtained by forfeiture, by attainder, by exchange, and by the dissolution of religious houses. The test of ancient inheritance was a reference to Domesday, and the difference was of importance with regard to the exaction of dues.

A very great number of towns and cities were, at the time of the survey, vested in the crown,2 and when a king spoke of his towns it was no mere political reference, — he regarded them as sources of revenue equally with his great landed estates. The following passages from Madox3 give a graphic description of the meaning of the king's overlordship. "When the king was seised of a particular city or town in demesne, he had a complete seisin of it with all its parts and adjuncts. He was lord of the soil, to wit, of all the land within the site and precincts of the town; of all the burgage houses, sheds, stalls, and buildings erected on the said land; he was lord and proprietor of the profits (if any) of aldermanries; the herbage and productions of the earth, profits of fairs and markets; pleas and perquisites of courts; in a word, of all issues, profits, and appurtenances of the city or town of any kind which had not been aliened by the king or some of his ancestors. But sometimes the crown thought fit to grant some part of a city or town, or some profit or appurtenant thereof to a private man or to a religious house. By which means it sometimes came to pass that the property of a city or town was divided into a half or third, or other part or parts, or perhaps certain of the profits of the city or town became severed from the corpus civitatis."4

1 Madox, Firma Burgi, p. 4. Cunningham, Vol. I., p. 197.

2 Cf. Madox, p. 7.

8 Ibid., p. 14.

4 It is hardly necessary to observe that the object of the above quota

It is to be understood, however, as the same writer expresses it, that in former times the kings were not wont to reserve to themselves a rent or ferme out of an airy or barren franchise. The yearly proceeds arose out of certain definite rents and profits, and it was only if these fell short that a general collection was made. The revenues of the towns included, besides these rents, stallage (rent stalls in markets) and other market dues, tolls, fines, forfeitures of criminals and other transgressors, and various casualties.

The natural correlative of the manorial overlordship of the towns was the communal responsibility of their inhabitants. This is shown not only in the payment of regular or customary dues, but is still more noticeable in exceptional exactions. Thus, a corporate community might be answerable for the trespass or debt of particular persons, members of it, and particular members answerable for the debt or wrong-doing of the whole community.1 Thus, as late as A.D. 1305, Edward I. entrusted a French hostage to the men of Winchester to keep, but they let him escape. Thereupon, the king commanded the mayor and bailiffs, together with six of the more discreet and substantial citizens, to appear for the community before his council, and they were imprisoned.2

Again, particular persons were, for several centuries, charged to the king with a debt due to him from their corporate community. A common example is when towns are charged with having acquired the property of a felon or other persons forfeited to the king, in which case the king seems to have taken any citizen on whom he could conveniently lay hands.

On the other hand, it must be observed, that this communal responsibility was associated with a certain measure

tion is to give prominence to the feudal elements in the constitution of mediæval towns. There were, from very early times, important modifications due to other influences. Cf. Stubbs, Vol. I., Ch. XI. 2 Ibid., p. 156.

1 Madox, p. 154.