$Unique_ID{bob00846}
$Pretitle{}
$Title{History Of Europe During The Middle Ages
Part III}
$Subtitle{}
$Author{Hallam, Henry}
$Affiliation{}
$Subject{feudal
lord
footnote
de
upon
vassal
ii
du
homage
fief
see
pictures
see
figures
}
$Date{}
$Log{See A Knight*0084601.scf
}
Title:       History Of Europe During The Middle Ages
Book:        Book II: The Feudal System
Author:      Hallam, Henry

Part III

     Meanwhile, the allodial proprietors, who had hitherto formed the strength
of the state, fell into a much worse condition.  They were exposed to the
rapacity of the counts, who, whether as magistrates and governors or as
overbearing lords, had it always in their power to harass them.  Every
district was exposed to continual hostilities; sometimes from a foreign enemy,
more often from the owners of castles and fastnesses, which, in the tenth
century, under pretense of resisting the Normans and Hungarians, served the
purposes of private war.  Against such a system of rapine the military compact
of lord and vassal was the only effectual shield; its essence was the
reciprocity of service and protection.  But an insulated allodialist had no
support; his fortunes were strangely changed since he claimed, at least in
right, a share in the legislation of his country, and could compare with pride
his patrimonial fields with the temporary benefices of the crown.  Without law
to redress his injuries, without the royal power to support his right, he had
no course left but to compromise with oppression, and subject himself, in
return for protection, to a feudal lord.  During the tenth and eleventh
centuries it appears that allodial lands in France had chiefly become feudal:
that is, they had been surrendered by their proprietors, and received back
again upon the feudal conditions; or more frequently, perhaps, the owner had
been compelled to acknowledge himself the man or vassal of a suzerain, and
thus to confess an original grant which had never existed. ^x Changes of the
same nature, though not perhaps so extensive, or so distinctly to be traced,
took place in Italy and Germany.  Yet it would be inaccurate to assert that
the prevalence of the feudal system has been unlimited; in a great part of
France allodial tenures always subsisted; and many estates in the empire were
of the same description. ^y

[Footnote x: Hist. de Languedoc, t. ii. p. 109.  It must be confessed that
there do not occur so many specific instances of this conversion of allodial
tenure into feudal as might be expected, in order to warrant the supposition
in the text.  Several records, however, are quoted by Robertson, Hist. Charles
V., note 8; and others may be found in diplomatic collections.  A precedent
for surrendering allodial property to the king, and receiving it back as his
benefice, appears even in Marculfus, l. i. form 13.  The county of Cominges,
between the Pyrenees, Toulouse, and Bigorre, was allodial till 1244, when it
was put under the feudal protection of the Count of Toulouse.  It devolved by
escheat to the crown in 1443.  Villaret, t. xv. p. 346.

     In many early charters the king confirms the possession even of allodial
property for greater security in lawless times; and, on the other hand, in
those of the tenth and eleventh centuries, the word allodium is continually
used for a feud, or hereditary benefice, which renders this subject still more
obscure.]

[Footnote y: The maxim, Nulle terre sans seigneur, was so far from being
universally received in France, that in almost all southern provinces, or pays
du droit ecrit, lands were presumed to be allodial, unless the contrary was
shown, or, as it was called, franc-aleux sans titre.  The parliaments,
however, seem latterly to have inclined against this presumption, and have
thrown the burden of proof on the party claiming allodiality.  For this see
Denisart, Dictionnaire des Decisions, art. Franc-aleu.  [Note XI.]

     In Germany, according to Du Cange voc. Baro, there was a distinction
between Barones and Semper-Barones; the latter holding their lands
allodially.]

     There are, however, vestiges of a very universal custom distinguishable
from the feudal tenure of land, though so analogous to it that it seems to
have nearly escaped the notice of antiquaries.  From this silence of other
writers, and the great obscurity of the subject, I am almost afraid to notice
what several passages in ancient laws and instruments concur to prove, that,
besides the relation established between lord and vassal by beneficiary
grants, there was another species more personal, and more closely resembling
that of patron and client in the Roman republic.  This was usually called
commendation; and appears to have been founded on two very general principles,
both of which the distracted state of society inculcated.  The weak needed the
protection of the powerful; and the government needed some security for public
order. Even before the invasion of the Franks, Salvian, a writer of the fifth
century, mentions the custom of obtaining the protection of the great by
money, and blames their rapacity, though he allows the natural reasonableness
of the practice. ^z The disadvantageous condition of the less powerful
freemen, which ended in the servitude of one part, and in the feudal vassalage
of another, led such as fortunately still preserved their allodial property to
insure its defence by a stipulated payment of money.  Such payments, called
Salvamenta, may be traced in extant charters, chiefly indeed of monasteries.
^a In the case of private persons it may be presumed that this voluntary
contract was frequently changed by the stronger party into a perfect feudal
dependence.  From this, however, as I imagine, it probably differed, in being
capable of dissolution at the inferior's pleasure, without incurring a
forfeiture, as well as in having no relation to land.  Homage, however, seems
to have been incident to commendation, as well as to vassalage.  Military
service was sometimes the condition of this engagement.  It was the law of
France, so late at least as the commencement of the third race of kings, that
no man could take a part in private wars, except in defence of his own lord.
This we learn from an historian about the end of the tenth century, who
relates that one Erminfrid, having been released from his homage to Count
Burchard, on ceding the fief he had held of him to a monastery, renewed the
ceremony on a war breaking out between Burchard and another nobleman, wherein
he was desirous to give assistance; since, the author observes, it is not, nor
has been, the practice in France, for any man to be concerned in war, except
in the presence or by the command of his lord. ^b Indeed, there is reason to
infer, from the capitularies of Charles the Bald, that every man was bound to
attach himself to some lord, though it was the privilege of a freeman to
choose his own superior. ^c And this is strongly supported by the analogy of
our Anglo-Saxon laws, where it is frequently repeated that no man should
continue without a lord.  There are, too, as it seems to me, a great number of
passages in Domesday-book which confirm this distinction between personal
commendation and the beneficiary tenure of land.  Perhaps I may be thought to
dwell too prolixly on this obscure custom; but as it tends to illustrate those
mutual relations of lord and vassal which supplied the place of regular
government in the polity of Europe, and has seldom or never been explicitly
noticed, its introduction seemed not improper.

[Footnote z: Du Cange, v. Salvamentum.]

[Footnote a: Ibid.]

[Footnote b: Recueil des Historiens, tome x. p. 355.]

[Footnote c: Unusquisque liber homo post mortem domini sui, licentiam habeat
se commendandi inter haec tria regna ad quemcunque voluerit. Similiter et ille
qui nondum alicui commendatus est.  Baluzii Capitularia, t. i. p. 443.  A.D.
806.  Volumus etiam ut unusquisque liber homo in nostro regno seniorem qualem
voluerit in nobis et in nostris fidelibus recipiat.  Capit.  Car.  Calvi, A.D.
877.  Et volumus ut cujuscunque nostrum homo, in cujuscunque regno sit, cum
seniore suo in hostem, vel aliis suis utilitatibus pergat.  Ibid.  See too
Baluze, t. i. p. 536, 537.

     By the Establishments of St. Louis, c. 87, every stranger coming to
settle within a barony was to acknowledge the baron as lord within a year and
a day, or pay a fine.  In some places he even became the serf or villein of
the lord.  Ordonnances des Rois, p. 187.  Upon this jealousy of unknown
settlers which pervades the policy of the middle ages was founded the droit
d'aubaine, or right to their movables after their decease.  See preface to
Ordonnances des Rois. t. i. p. 15.

     The article Commendatio in Du Cange's Glossary furnishes some hints upon
this subject, which, however, that author does not seem to have fully
apprehended.  Carpentier, in his Supplement to the Glossary, under the word
Vassaticum, gives the clearest notice of it that I have anywhere found.  Since
writing the above pages I have found the subject touched by M. de Montlosier,
Hist. de la Monarchie Francaise, t. i. p. 854.  [Note XI]]

     It has been sometimes said that feuds were first rendered hereditary in
Germany by Conrad II., surnamed the Salic.  This opinion is perhaps erroneous.
But there is a famous edict of that emperor at Milan, in the year 1037 (which,
though immediately relating only to Lombardy, marks the full maturity of the
system, and the last stage of its progress. ^d I have remarked already the
custom of subinfeudation, or grants of lands by vassals to be held of
themselves, which had grown up with the growth of these tenures.  There had
occurred, however, some disagreement, for want of settled usage, between these
inferior vassals and their immediate lords, which this edict was expressly
designed to remove.  Four regulations of great importance are established
therein: that no man should be deprived of his fief, whether held of the
emperor or a mesne lord, but by the laws of the empire and the judgment of his
peers; ^e that from such judgment an immediate vassal might appeal to his
sovereign; that fiefs should be inherited by sons and their children, or, in
their failure, by brothers, provided they were feuda paterna, such as had
descended from the father; ^f and that the lord should not alienate the fief
of his vassal without his consent. ^g

[Footnote d: Spelman tells us, in his Treatise of Feuds, chap. ii., that
Conradus Salicus, a French emperor, but of German descent [what can this
mean?], went to Rome about 915 to fetch his crown from Pope John X., when,
according to him, the succession of a son to his father's fief was first
conceded.  An almost unparalleled blunder in so learned a writer!

     Conrad the Salic was elected at Worms in 1024, crowned at Rome by John
XIX. in 1027, and made this edict at Milan in 1037.]

[Footnote e: Nisi secundum constitutionem antecessorum nostrorum, et judicium
parium suorum; the very expressions of Magna Charta.]

[Footnote f: "Gerardus noteth," says Sir H. Spelman, "that this law settled
not the feud upon the eldest son, nor any other son of the feudatory
particularly; but left it in the lord's election to please himself with which
he would." But the phrase of the edict runs, filios ejus beneficium tenere:
which, when nothing more is said, can only mean a partition among the sons.]

[Footnote g: The last provision may seem strange at so advanced a period of
the system; yet, according to Giannone, feuds were still revocable by the lord
in some parts of Lombardy.  Istoria di Napoli, l. xiii. c. 3.  It seems,
however, no more than had been already enacted by the first clause of this
edict.  Another interpretation is possible; namely, that the lord should not
alienate his own seigniory without his vassal's consent, which was agreeable
to the feudal tenures.  This, indeed, would be putting rather a forced
construction on the words ne domino feudum militis alienare liceat.]

     Such was the progress of these feudal tenures, which determined the
political character of every European monarchy where they prevailed, as well
as formed the foundations of its jurisprudence.  It is certainly inaccurate to
refer this system, as is frequently done, to the destruction of the Roman
empire by the northern nations, though in the beneficiary grants of those
conquerors we trace its beginning.  Four or five centuries, however, elapsed
before the allodial tenures, which had become incomparably the more general,
gave way, and before the reciprocal contract of the feud attained its
maturity.  It is now time to describe the legal qualities and effects of this
relation, so far only as may be requisite to understand its influence upon the
political system.

     The essential principle of a fief was a mutual contract of support and
fidelity.  Whatever obligations it laid upon the vassal of service to his
lord, corresponding duties of protection were imposed by it on the lord
towards his vassal. ^h If these were transgressed on either side, the one
forfeited his land, the other his seigniory or rights over it.  Nor were
motives of interest left alone to operate in securing the feudal connection.
The associations founded upon ancient custom and friendly attachment, the
impulses of gratitude and honor, the dread of infamy, the sanctions of
religion, were all employed to strengthen these ties, and to render them
equally powerful with the relations of nature, and far more so than those of
political society.  It is a question, agitated among the feudal lawyers,
whether a vassal is bound to follow the standard of his lord against his own
kindred. ^i It was one more important whether he must do so against the king.
In the works of those who wrote when the feudal system was declining, or who
were anxious to maintain the royal authority, this is commonly decided in the
negative.  Littleton gives a form of homage, with a reservation of the
allegiance due to the sovereign; ^j and the same prevailed in Normandy and
some other countries. ^k A law of Frederic Barbarossa enjoins, that in every
oath of fealty to an inferior lord the vassal's duty to the emperor should be
expressly reserved.  But it was not so during the height of the feudal system
in France.  The vassals of Henry II. and Richard I. never hesitated to adhere
to them against the sovereign, nor do they appear to have incurred any blame
on that account.  Even so late as the age of St. Louis, it is laid down in his
Establishments that, if justice is refused by the king to one of his vassals,
he might summon his own tenants, under penalty of forfeiting their fiefs, to
assist him in obtaining redress by arms. ^l The Count of Brittany, Pierre de
Dreux, had practically asserted this feudal right during the minority of St.
Louis.  In a public instrument he announced to the world, that, having met
with repeated injuries from the regent, and denial of justice, he had let the
king know that he no longer considered himself as his vassal, but renounced
his homage and defied him. ^m

[Footnote h: Crag. Jus Feudale, l. ii. tit. II. Beaumanoir, Coutumes de
Beauvoisis, c. lxi. p. 311; Ass. de Jerus. c. 217; Lib. Feud. l. ii. tit. 26,
47.

     Upon the mutual obligation of the lord towards his vassal seems to be
founded the law of warranty, which compelled him to make indemnification where
the tenant was evicted of his land.  This obligation, however unreasonable it
may appear to us, extended, according to the feudal lawyers, to cases of mere
donation.  Crag. l. ii. tit. 4; Butler's Notes on Co. Litt. p. 365.]

[Footnote i: Crag. l. ii. tit. 4.]

[Footnote j: Sect. lxxxv.]

[Footnote k: Houard, Anc. Loix des Francois, p. 114.  See too an instance of
this reservation in Recueil des Historiens, t, xi. 447.]

[Footnote l: Si le sire dit a son homme lige, Venez vous en avec moi, je veux
guerroyer mon seigneur, qui me denie le jugement de sa cour, le vassal doit
repondre, J'irai scavoir s'il est ainsi que vous me dites. Alors il doit aller
trouver le superieur, et luy dire, Sire, le gentilhomme de qui je tiens mon
fief se plaint que vous lui refusez justice; je viens pour en scavoir la
verite; car je suis semonce de marcher en guerre contre vous.  Si la reponse
est que volontiers il fera droit en sa cour, l'homme n'est point oblige de
deferer a la requisition du sire; mais il doit, ou le suivre, ou le resoudre a
perdre son fief, si le chef seigneur persiste dans son refus.  Etablissemens
de St. Louis, c. 49.  I have copied this from Velly, t. vi. p. 213, who has
modernized the orthography, which is almost unintelligible in the Ordonnances
des Rois. One MS. gives the reading Roi instead of Seigneur.  And the law
certainly applies to the king exclusively; for, in case of denial of justice
by a mesne lord, there was an appeal to the king's court, but from his injury
there could be no appeal but to the sword.]

[Footnote m: Du Cange, Observations sur Joinville, in Collection des Memoires,
t. i. p. 196.  It was always necessary for a vassal to renounce his homage
before he made war on his lord, if he would avoid the shame and penalty of
feudal treason.  After a reconciliation the homage was renewed. And in this no
distinction was made between the king and another superior. Thus Henry II. did
homage to the King of France in 1188, having renounced his former obligation
to him at the commencement of the preceding war. Mat. Paris, p. 126.]

     The ceremonies used in conferring a fief were principally three - homage,
fealty, and investiture.  1. The first was designed as a significant
expression of the submission and devotedness of the vassal towards his lord.
In performing homage, his head was uncovered, his belt ungirt, his sword and
spurs removed; he placed his hands, kneeling, between those of the lord, and
promised to become his man from thence-forward; to serve him with life and
limb and worldly honor, faithfully and loyally, in consideration of the lands
which he held under him.  None but the lord in person could accept homage,
which was commonly concluded by a kiss. ^n 2. An oath of fealty was
indispensable in every fief; but the ceremony was less peculiar than that of
homage, and it might be received by proxy.  It was taken by ecclesiastics, but
not by minors; and in language differed little from the form of homage. ^o 3.
Investiture, or the actual conveyance of feudal lands, was of two kinds,
proper and improper.  The first was an actual putting in possession upon the
ground, either by the lord or his deputy; which is called, in our law, livery
of seisin.  The second was symbolical, and consisted in the delivery of a
turf, a stone, a wand, a branch, or whatever else might have been made usual
by the caprice of local custom.  Du Cange enumerates not less than
ninety-eight varieties of investitures. ^p

[Footnote n: Du Cange, Hominium, and Carpentier's Supplement, id. voc.
Littleton, s. 85.  Assises de Jerusalem, c. 204; Crag. l. i. tit. II; Recueil
des Historians, t. ii. preface, p. 174.  Homagium per paragium was
unaccompanied by any feudal obligation, and distinguished from homagium
ligeum, which carried with it an obligation of fidelity.  The dukes of
Normandy rendered only homage per paragium to the kings of France, and
received the like from the dukes of Brittany.  In liege homage it was usual to
make reservations of allegiance to the king, or any other lord whom the
homager had previously acknowledged.]

[Footnote o: Littl. s. 91; Du Cange, voc. Fidelitas.]

[Footnote p: Du Cange, voc. Investitura.]

     Upon investiture, the duties of the vassal commenced.  These it is
impossible to define or enumerate; because the services of military tenure,
which is chiefly to be considered, were in their nature uncertain, and
distinguished as such from those incident to feuds of an inferior description.
It was a breach of faith to divulge the lord's counsel, to conceal from him
the machinations of others, to injure his person or fortune, or to violate the
sanctity of his roof and the honor of his family. ^q In battle he was bound to
lend his horse to his lord, when dismounted; to adhere to his side, while
fighting; and to go into captivity as a hostage for him, when taken.  His
attendance was due to the lord's courts, sometimes to witness, and sometimes
to bear a part in, the administration of justice. ^r

[Footnote q: Assises de Jerusalem, c. 265.  Home ne doit a la feme de son
seigneur, ne a sa fille requerre vilainie de son cors, ne a sa soeur tant com
elle est demoiselle en son hostel.  I mention this part of feudal duty on
account of the light it throws on the statute of treasons, 25 E. III. One of
the treasons therein specified is, si omne violast la compaigne le roy, ou
leigne file le roy nient marie ou la compaigne leigne fitz et heire le roy.
Those who, like Sir E. Coke and the modern lawyers in general, explain this
provision by the political danger of confusing the royal blood, do not
apprehend its spirit.  It would be absurd, upon such grounds, to render the
violation of the king's eldest daughter treasonable, so long only as she
remains unmarried, when, as is obvious, the danger of a spurious issue
inheriting could not arise.  I consider this provision therefore as entirely
founded upon the feudal principles, which make it a breach of faith (that is,
in the primary sense of the word, a treason) to sully the honor of the lord in
that of the near relations who were immediately protected by residence in his
house.  If it is asked why this should be restricted by the statute to the
person of the eldest daughter, I can only answer that this, which is not more
reasonable according to the common political interpretation, is analogous to
many feudal customs in our own and other countries, which attribute a sort of
superiority in dignity to the eldest daughter.

     It may be objected that in the reign of Edward III. there was little left
of the feudal principle in any part of Europe, and least of all in England.
But the statute of treasons is a declaration of the ancient law, and
comprehends, undoubtedly, what the judges who drew it could find in records
now perished, or in legal traditions of remote antiquity.

     Similar causes of forfeiture are enumerated in the Libri Feudorum, l. i.
tit. 5, and l. ii. tit. 24.  In the Establishments of St. Louis, c. 51, 52, it
is said that a lord seducing his vassal's daughter intrusted to his custody
lost his seigniory; a vassal guilty of the same crime towards the family of
his suzerain forfeited his land.  A proof of the tendency which the feudal law
had to purify public morals and to create that sense of indignation and
resentment with which we now regard such breaches of honor.]

[Footnote r: Assises de Jerusalem, c. 222.  A vassal, at least in many places,
was bound to reside upon his fief, or not to quit it without the lord's
consent.  Du Cange, voc.  Reseantia, Remanentia, Recueil des Historiens, t.
xi. preface, p. 172.]

     The measure, however, of military service was generally settled by some
usage.  Forty days was the usual term during which the tenant of a knight's
fee was bound to be in the field at his own expense. ^s This was extended by
St. Louis to sixty days, except when the charter of infeudation expressed a
shorter period.  But the length of service diminished with the quantity of
land.  For half a knight's fee but twenty days were due; for an eighth part,
but five; and when this was commuted for an escuage or pecuniary assessment,
the same proportion was observed. ^t Men turned of sixty, public magistrates,
and, of course, women, were free from personal service, but obliged to send
their substitutes.  A failure in this primary duty incurred perhaps strictly a
forfeiture of the fief.  But it was usual for the lord to inflict an
amercement, known in England by the name of escuage. ^u Thus, in Philip III.'s
expedition against the Count de Foix in 1274, barons were assessed for their
default of attendance at a hundred sous a day for the expenses which they had
saved, and fifty sous as a fine to the king; bannerets, at twenty sous for
expenses, and ten as a fine; knights and squires in the same proportion. But
barons and bannerets were bound to pay an additional assessment for every
knight and squire of their vassals whom they ought to have brought with them
into the field. ^v The regulations as to the place of service were less
uniform than those which regarded time.  In some places the vassal was not
bound to go beyond the lord's territory, ^w or only so far as that he might
return the same day.  Other customs compelled him to follow his chief upon all
his expeditions. ^x These inconvenient and varying usages betrayed the origin
of the feudal obligations, not founded upon any national policy, but springing
from the chaos of anarchy and intestine war, which they were well calculated
to perpetuate.  For the public defence their machinery was totally
unserviceable, until such changes were wrought as destroyed the character of
the fabric.

[Footnote s: In the kingdom of Jerusalem feudal service extended to a year.
Assises de Jerusalem, c. 230.  It is obvious that this was founded on the
peculiar circumstances of that state.  Service of castle guard, which was
common in the north of England, was performed without limitation of time.
Lyttelton's Henry II., vol. ii. p. 184.]

[Footnote t: Du Cange, voc. Feudum militis; Membrum Loricae.  Stuart's View of
Society, p. 382.  This division by knight's fees is perfectly familiar in the
feudal law of England.  But I must confess my inability to adduce decisive
evidence of it in that of France, with the usual exception of Normandy.
According to the natural principle of fiefs, it might seem that the same
personal service would be required from the tenant, whatever were the extent
of his land.  William the Conqueror, it is said, distributed this kingdom into
about 60,000 parcels of nearly equal value, from each of which the service of
a soldier was due.  He may possibly have been the inventor of this politic
arrangement.  Some rule must, however, have been observed in all countries in
fixing the amercement for absence, which could only be equitable if it bore a
just proportion to the value of the fief.  And the principle of the knight's
fee was so convenient and reasonable that it is likely to have been adopted in
imitation of England by other feudal countries.  In the roll of Philip III.'s
expedition, as will appear by a note immediately below, there are, I think,
several presumptive evidences of it; and though this is rather a late
authority to establish a feudal principle, yet I have ventured to assume it in
the text.

     The knight's fee was fixed in England at the annual value of 20l. Every
estate supposed to be of this value, and entered as such in the rolls of the
exchequer, was bound to contribute the service of a soldier, or to pay an
escuage to the amount assessed upon knights' fee.]

[See A Knight: Much fighting meant handsome recompense.]

[Footnote u: Littleton, l. ii. c. 3; Wright's Tenures, p. 121.]

[Footnote v: Du Chesne, Script.  Rerum Gallicarum, t. v. p. 553.  Daniel,
Histoire de la Milice Francoise, p. 72.  The following extracts from the
muster-roll of this expedition will illustrate the varieties of feudal
obligations.  Johannes d'Ormoy debet servitium per quatuor dies.  Johannes
Malet debet servitium per viginti dies, pro quo servitio misit Richardum
Tichet.  Guido de Laval debet servitium duorum militum et dimidii. Dominus
Sabrandus dictus Chabot dicit quod non debet servitium domino regi, nisi in
comitatu Pictaviensi, et ad sumptus regis, tamen venit ad preces regis cum
tribus militibus et duodecim scutiferis.  Guido de Lusigniaco Dom. de Pierac
dicit, quod non debet aliquid regi praeter homagium.]

[Footnote w: This was the custom of Beauvoisis Beaumanoir, c. 2.]

[Footnote x: Du Cange, et Carpentier, voc. Hostis.]

     Independently of the obligations of fealty and service which the nature
of the contract created, other advantages were derived from it by the lord,
which have been called feudal incidents; these were, 1. Reliefs. 2. Fines upon
alienation.  3. Escheats.  4. Aids; to which may be added, though not
generally established, 5. Wardship, and 6. Marriage.

     1. Some writers have accounted for Reliefs in the following manner.
Benefices, whether depending upon the crown or its vassals, were not
originally granted by way of absolute inheritance, but renewed from time to
time upon the death of the possessor, till long custom grew up into right.
Hence a sum of money, something between a price and a gratuity, would
naturally be offered by the heir on receiving a fresh investiture of the fief;
and length of time might as legitimately turn this present into a due of the
lord, as it rendered the inheritance of the tenant indefeasible.  This is a
very specious account of the matter.  But those who consider the antiquity to
which hereditary benefices may be traced, and the unreserved expressions of
those instruments by which they were created, as well as the undoubted fact
that a large proportion of fiefs had been absolute allodial inheritances,
never really granted by the superior, will perhaps be led rather to look for
the origin of reliefs in that rapacity with which the powerful are ever ready
to oppress the feeble.  When a feudal tenant died, the lord, taking advantage
of his own strength and the confusion of the family, would seize the estate
into his hands, either by the right of force, or under some litigious pretext.
Against this violence the heir could in general have no resource but a
compromise; and we know how readily acts of successful injustice change their
name, and move demurely, like the wolf in the fable, under the clothing of
law.  Reliefs and other feudal incidents are said to have been established in
France ^y about the latter part of the tenth century, and they certainly
appear in the famous edict of Conrad the Salic, in 1037, which recognizes the
usage of presenting horses and arms to the lord upon a change of tenancy. ^z
But this also subsisted under the name of heriot, in England, as early as the
reign of Canute.

[Footnote y: Ordonnances des Rois de France, t. i. preface, p. 10.]

[Footnote z: Servato usu valvassorum majorum in tradendis armis equisque suis
senioribus.  This, among other reasons, leads me to doubt the received opinion
that Italian fiefs were not hereditary before the promulgation of this edict.]