About the close of the tenth century (and perhaps much earlier) there began to arise two distinct modes of holding or possessing land: the one a feud, i.e. a stipendiary estate; the other allodium, the phrase applied to that species of property which had become vested by allotment in the conquerors of the country. The stipendiary held of a superior; the allodialist of no one, but enjoyed his land as free and independent property. The interest of the stipendiary did not originally extend beyond his own life, but in course of time it acquired an hereditary character which led to the practice of subinfeudation; for the stipendiary or feudatory, considering himself as substantially the owner, began to imitate the example of his lord by carving out portions of the feud to be held of himself by some other person, on the terms and conditions similar to those of the original grant. Here B. must be looked upon as only vassal to A., his superior or lord; and although feuds did not originally extend beyond the life of the first vassal, yet in process of time they were extended to his heirs, so that when the feudatory died, his male descendants were admitted to the succession, and in default of them, then such of his male collateral kindred as were of the blood of the first feudatory, but no others; therefore, in default of these, it would consequently revert to A., who had a reversionary interest in the feud capable of taking effect as soon as B.'s interest should determine. If the subinfeudatory lord alienated, it would operate as a forfeiture to the person in immediate reversion.

W. T. T.

As a very brief reply to the queries of J. B., permit me to make the following observations.

The Queen is lady paramount of all the lands in England; every estate in land being holden, immediately or mediately, of the crown. This doctrine was settled shortly after the Norman Conquest, and is still an axiom of law.

Until the statute Quia Emptores, 18 Edw. I., a tenant in fee simple might grant lands to be holden by the grantee and his heirs of the grantor and his heirs, subject to feudal services and to escheat; and by such subinfeudation manors were created.

The above-named statute forbade the future subinfeudation of lands, and consequently hindered the further creation of manors. Since the statute a seller of the fee can but transfer his tenure. There are instances in which one manor is holden of another, both having been created before the statute.

In the instance mentioned by J. B. it is presumed that the hamlet escheated to the heirs of A. on failure of the heirs of B. (See the statute De Donis Conditionalibus, 13 Edw. I.)

It is not, and never was, necessary, or even possible, that the lord of a manor should be the owner of all the lands therein; on the contrary, if he were, there would be no manor; for a manor cannot subsist without a court baron, and there can be no such court unless there are freehold tenants (at least two in number) holding of the lord. The land retained by the lord consists of his own demesne and the wastes, which last comprise the highways and commons. If the lord should alienate all the lands, but retain his lordship, the latter becomes a seignory in gross.

Such was and is the tenure of lands in England, so far as concerns the queries of J. B. He will find the subject lucidly explained at great length in the second volume of Blackstone's Commentaries.

I. Ctus.