[ 196 ]

14 Ceo 2. c. 20. s. 9.

when there is a custom for the lord to have the wardship; but it should seem that they are within this statute in cases where no such

custom prevails (m).

Nor the statute of 14 Geo. 2. c. 20. s. 9. (n), relative to estates pour autre vie; for that section is expressly confined to cases in which there is no special occupant. Now there can be no general occupant of a copyhold o); and, of consequence, this statute cannot possibly extend to copyhold property. And, indeed, it would not be here noticed was it not for the observation in Ambler.

(m) Ante, ch. 4. p. [104].

(n) See Ambler, 151. Withers v. Withers.

(o) Ante, vol. 1. p. [302-3].

CONCLUSION.

IN the preceding pages it has been no [197] ticed, that, according to the feudal institutions from which our legal system of real property is derived, the absolute or ultimate right or dominion in lands was vested in the social body; and, of consequence, must have been considered as virtually resting in that person who was the representative of the state. The king was the representative of the whole nation; and the landed property of the whole nation was, therefore, to be held immediately or mediately of the king. The kingdom was divided into portions or districts, and partly allotted to the several inferior chiefs, and partly remained in the king's hands. The inferior chiefs, in like manner, granted [198] out portions of their territory to others; and those others also granted out portions of their possessions to be held of themselves.

What remained in the immediate pos session of the king or other lord, was said to be in demesne, and either lay waste, or was cultivated by his villeins for his use.

Small portions of these demesnes were often allotted to particular villeins, under stipulated returns; and the overplus of the profits they, of course, were entitled to for their support. As the assignment of these portions, however, was entirely optional in the lord, so he might have resumed them at his pleasure. The villein held merely at his will.

If the villein behaved himself well, was industrious, and faithful in his returns, he often continued in the possession of the lands and even when he died, his children were frequently permitted to succeed him. This, however, depended upon the pleasure of the lord and if the lord con[199] sented that some of the posterity of the deceased tenant should again occupy the lands, it was for him to select the individual. Hence the variety of customs as to descents.

As the villein could not acquire any absolute property in his chattels, they, of course, must have fallen to his lord when the villein happened to die. The lord, however, often relinquished his claim in favour of the villein's relations; but, as an acknowledgment that such relinquishment was not a matter of right but of favour, he generally required the payment or render of a portion in order to evidence his right to the whole. Hence the payment or render of the best beast or good; which, from its analogy to the military, or proper, heriot, was called by the same term.

When the heir succeeded to the lands of his ancestor, he did it by favour also, and not as of right. Hence he too acknowledged his lord's munificence by paying his relief or fine.

Holding thus at the will of the lord, the [200 } villein could not alien: nor could the absolute or pure villein even relinquish his own possession. When, however, the vil-lein was permitted to determine his tenancy, he could only cease to be a tenant himself; and had no authority to deliver

over the possession to another. The lord, however, sometimes accepted his resignation under confidence to re-grant the lands to a person whom the tenant should appoint. This was optional in the lord; and, therefore, he did it under what conditions he chose to insist upon. Hence the fine on alienation, or on the in-coming of a purchaser or tenant.

When the lord had accepted the resignation or surrender of the former tenant, he called in the person whom it was wished should succeed him; that the lord might be satisfied that he was a proper person to be admitted in his tenancy, and to give him the possession of his lands. Hence the origin of our present admission; of the oath of fealty; and of the livery of [201] possession or seisin which is still symbolically given.

The new tenant, like the old one, was equally to hold at the will of the lord; and if he ceased to comply with it, the grant also, of consequence, ceased. ceased. Hence the doctrine of forfeiture.