were, by good luck of one sort or another, allowed to retain the heritage of their fathers. But Norman notions both as to the relationship which should exist between man and man, and as to the way lands should be held, were very different from those which existed with us. As the Norman ideas of nobility of blood and the hereditary right of certain families to reign were foreign to the conquered people, so the laws and customs relating to land in Normandy differed widely from those which obtained in England. The holdings of land in Normandy were altogether feudal, and feudalism had become in that country an elaborate system. The relationship of lord and 'man' was not, as with us, a purely personal tie; it had taken the form of lord and vassal, and the services due to the lord were not due by reason of the tie so much as by reason of the land held by the vassal. To this relationship also had been attached services and burthens quite unknown in England. But the conquerors had more respect for their own notions than for the feelings of the people they had subdued. The grants and confirmations made by the French kings of the soil of England were made after the manner of their own country. The difference between the modes of holding at first seemed slight, and not of much consequence to a warlike people. An Englishman who, in the days of the Confessor, was absolute owner of his land, though bound to perform services at the bidding of the lord whose 'man' he was, would not see much change in having under the Conqueror to render the same services by reason of his holding the land. Then, this change was very gradually made. It was not until the reign of Henry II. that it became their fe But Norman ities Comfom those which existed relation which should exist e protection to his were altogether feudal, and d that this tie was of a of lord and man was not, but arise in any way out al tie; it had taken the us we find that immed and the services due to the and of this country on of the tie so much as by I was enjoyed in attached services and burthens one of which belonged the vassal. To this relationway by the king in England. But the conquerors had ham their own notions than for the feel20 br the French kings of the soil they had subdued. The grants and made after the manner of their The difference between the modes of light nd not of much conse An Englishman who absolute owner of universal, and that its full extent became apparent. It was when the French lawyers who flocked over to London had introduced their subtleties, and built up a system of law on the basis of that introduced from Normandy, that the difference between the new system of land laws and the old became so evident. The history of this great change which took place in the manner of holding land in England is very obscure, and it is not easy to fix the precise steps by which it was accomplished. It is certain, however, that by Henry II.'s time not only were all lands held by Englishmen subject to feudal services, but the law relative to such lands had become so systematised that many of the principles which lie at the base of our present land laws were firmly settled; for in King Richard I.'s time-beyond which our courts' legal memory does not extend--we find a defined legal system in existence, which, during the last six centuries and a half, has developed into the elaborate and intricate law with which we are familiar. The cardinal doctrine of this system-the feudal, as it is commonly called, though really it only borrowed some feudal principles-was that the king was the over-lord of all the soil of England, and that any man holding any portion of that soil held it either mediately or immediately from him. Lords might hold directly from the king, and humbler folk from them. The chain of lord and tenant might be very long, but still it was a chain-the top link was the king, and the bottom the person cultivating the land for his own profit, no matter how many links intervened; and the relationship that existed between any two connecting links of this chain was that of lord and vassal. This not a personal relationship, such as commendation formed, but one existing by reason of the land held by the vassal of his lord, and which bound him to perform certain services to the lord-the performance of the services being the condition on which the vassal held the land. This relationship was called the tenure by which the lands were held. So far the old English bookland as for the folkland, by force of the same doctrine, it became terra regis-the private domain of the crown. This doctrine is still one of the fundamental principles of our law. It therefore follows that there can be no absolute ownership of land in this country. No man can own a square foot of England in the same way that he can own a horse or a piece of furniture. He can at the very utmost possess an estate in it-an estate defined in its extent, and enjoyed only on certain conditions. These estates widely differ from each other in the rights they confer and the value of the interest in the land which they give. They may be divided into three great classes: freeholds, copyholds, and leaseholds for a term of years. Before describing these several classes of estates, it may be well to explain a little further the doctrine of tenure, as all estates are subject to it. The freehold tenures, as they are called, those by which freehold estates were or are now held, are by far the most important; and as the divergence of other tenures from them can best be explained in another place, at present we will speak only of freehold tenures. Formerly there were very many species of these tenures, practically distinguished by their incidents |