F E O

F EO

41-2

gratitude on the part of the vassal, were novv changed into taxesexacted at the pleasure of the lord. Before the vassal was invest-ed in his land, the superior exacted from him a certain sum orgift, to be measured only bv his own rapacity; and in case of de-lay or inability to pay this demand, the superior continued in pos-session of the estate. Such scandalous oppression could not butproduce the greatest discontent and clamour. Applications weremade to the law without success ; nor were even the laws regardedwhich were fabricated on purpose for their relief. The incidentof marriage now proved a source of the most dreadful oppression.The lord assumed a right of marry nig- his vassal to whom hepleased ; and he not only exerted this right himself, but w ouldsell it to a stranger, or allow the vassal to buy it himself; while thepenalty annexed to a marriage without the consent of the superiorinvolved no less punishment than the loss of the estate itself, orsome sucii grievous infliction as fora crime of the first magnitude.The case was still worse with a female ward ; whose beauty andaccomplishments became a source of gain to the superior, or weresacrificed to pleise his whim or caprice? so that her relations werefrequently obliged to buv from him the privilege of marrying herto the person she or they thought most proper. In like mannerthe aid, which was formerly a voluntary gift from the vassal incases of dislress happening to his lord, now became an unavoid-able tax. An aid formerly was demanded when the superior’seldest daughter was married, when his eldest son was knighted, orwhen he himself was taken prisoner in battle. '1 liese were theonly legal causes of making a demand of this kind ; but in thesubsequent times of degeneracy, the most frivolous pretences werevery frequently made use of by the prince to oppress the lords,and by [he lords to oppress their vassals; demanding sub-sidies at pleasure, which their inferiors were always obliged tocomply with. Lastly, the escheat, which in former times tookplace only in cases of cowardice, treachery, or some other heinouscrime, was now inflicted on the most trifling occasions. If thevassal happened to be too long in attending the court of his su-perior to take the oath of fealty ; if he committed any actionwhich could in the least he construed an infringement of the oath ;if he neglected to give his lord warning of any misfortune whichhe nvght suppose was about to befal him ; revealed any tilingconcerning him ; made love to his sister or daughter, &c. oreven if he should grant a tenure of land to another person in formdifferent from that in which he held his own ; all these, nay othersstill more ridiculous, were judged sufficient reasons for the superiorto seize on tiie estate of the vassal, and involve him and his familyin ruin. Notwithstanding these oppressions, however, the vassalwas still obliged to submit to Ills lord ; to own him as his superior ;and even, in appearance, to pav him the same resspect as formerly,when unamimity and cordial affection subsisted between them. Stillhe was obliged to perform the same military service ; because failurein that respect would hive subjected him to forfeiture of lands ac-cording to (he original agreement. A vast difference, however,now took place in the valour and activity which inspired the army.The vassals, forced into the field with desponding hearts, were in-different as to the success of the cause in which they were engaged,and frequently obstructed instead of forwarding the operations ofthe field. Hence the sovereign found himself embarrassed ; and,though nominally at the head of a martial and powerful people,was frequently unable to effect any thing by reason of the mutualhatred and dissension which every wlioye prevailed. Thus thefeudal states of Europe became unnaturally weak: a remedy wasnecessary ; and it is remarkable, that the same remedy was appliedall over the continent. This was, the making fiefs hereditary,which till now had only been granted for a long termof years; and, in return, burdening the lands with a certain num-ber of soldiers, which were not to be refused upon any pretencewhatever. lit nee was derived the tenure of knight-service. Acertain portion of land, burthened with the service of one soldier orknight, was called a knight’s fee ; and thus an estate, furnishing anynumber of "soldiers, was said to conlain as many knight’s fees; sothat now the manors, baronies, &c. became powerful according tothe number of soldiers they were bound to furnish. In the grantsfrom the crown, the nobility were obliged to furnish a certain num-ber for Ihe service of the sovereign ; and hi those from the nobilityto their vassals, (he like service was required. Even the commonswho had grants from the crowu furnished a certain proportion of

knight-’. The force of the nation was called into action by grantsin capite, or from the sovereign and nobility. A numerous andpowerful army was instantly assembled, ami at once ready foraction. Gf this army the king was the general, the nobility theofficers, anc( the vassals soldiers; tiie whole being exactly arranged,and capable of entering upon any expedition without the least de-lays Thus a remedy was found in some mea ore for the weaknesso' the feodal sovereigns, hut though the knights tenure could ac-complish this, it could not bring back the former affection and cor-diality, which had subsisted between the various ranks of people.On the contrary, by uniting them more firmly to one another by'legal ties, it rendered matters rather worse. The oppression ori-ginating from the operation of the feodal incidents, still continuedwith unremitting violence. The grants of knights tenure were at-tended with the same oaths of homage and fealty ; the same inci-dents of relief, wardship, marriage, aid, ami escheat, with the feo-dal tenures. The princes promised to abate somewhat of then-rigour in demanding the feodal perquisites, but did not keep theirword. Laws were occasionally promulgated, and for some timehad an effi-ct; but palliatives soon became ineffectual, and a newstate of weakness began to commence. r l’he two remarkable erasin the feodal history are, the lime before the invention of knight-service. (See Knight, ) and that during which it continued.Eiefs were in a state offiuctuation from the destruction of the Romanempire till the mntli century ; but they were rendered perpetual inFrance about A. I). 877, and were generally become so m everycountry in Europe about the beginning ot the tenth. Du Cange ,voce Militia, gives us an example ot a knight-fee in A. D. 8st).Bv the year 987, when Hugh Capet was raised to the throne ofFrance, knigli-service was become general all over Europe , andwas introduced into England after having made its appearance inother countries. Dr Stuart informs us, that it appears from therecords of Malcom IV. in 1 led, that knight service was known inScotland , and that it was a novelty.at that time. lie thinks it evenprobable, that it was known in tiie time of David 1. In England,however, there have been several doubts and inquiries among thelearned concerning the introduction of the feodal laws. Many areof opinion, that they were introduced by William the Conqueror ;and. consequently, that they were entirely unknown to the Anglo-Saxons : but others think, that they existed among the latter inthe same form under which they were continued hy the Normans .Dr. Stuart is of opinion, that the Saxons who settled in Englandcould not lie strangers to liefs. He supposes the conformity ofmanners, which undoubtedly prevailed between tbe Saxons andother barbarians, a sufficient proof that the hereditary grant, of land,as well asthefluctuutingstate of feudal tenures which preceded it,were known to the former. Collateral proofs are derived from thespirit and tenure of the Anglo-Saxon laws, but especially from thegrants of hereditary estates on condition of military service. Thecondition of the fiefs under the Anglo-Saxons was very differentfrom what it .was afterwards. In their times we find no mentionmade of those oppressions of which so much notice has already beentaken ; and this may easily he accounted for from the alteration ofthe feodal spirit in different ages. During the time that a warmand generous affection subsisted between tiie feudal superiors andvassals, the incidents were marks of generosity on the one part, andgratitude on the other; but as soon as a variance had taken place,by reason of ihe interested disposition which the introduction ofluxury produced, the same incidents became sources of the mostflagrant oppression. 'T his was remarkably the case in the time otWilliam the Conqueror ; and, dining the reign of king John, matterswere come to such a crisis, that the people every where com-plained loudly, and demanded the restoration of the laws of Ed-ward the Confessor. “ What these laws of Edward the Confessor were (says Mr. IInine,) which the English every reign during®century and an half desired so passionately to have restored, '8much disputed by antiquarians; and our ignorance of them seemsone of the greatest dt feds of the English history.” Dr. Stuart has•offered an explauaton, in a conjecture, that “ by tiie laws or cus-toms of the confessor, that condition of felicity was expressed whichhad been enjoyed during the fortunate state of the feodal associ-ation. The cordiality, equality, ami independence, which the* 1prevailed among all ranks in society, continued to he rememberedin less prosperous times, and occasioned an ardent desire tor therevival ofthose laws and usages which were the sources of so much9 happh' c 8