female ward were not married to his enemy. But this, among other beneficial parts of that charter, being diſregarded, and guardians ſtill continuing to diſpoſe of their wards in a very arbitrary unequal manner, it was provided by king John's great charter, that heirs ſhould be married without diſparagement, the next of kin, having previous notice of the contract[1]; or, as it was expreſſed in the firſt draught of that charter, ita maritentur ne diſparagentur, et per conſilium propinquorum de conſanguinitate ſua[2]. But theſe proviſions in behalf of the relations were omitted in the charter of Henry III; wherein[3] the clauſe ſtands merely thus, "haeredes maritentur abſque diſparagatione;" meaning certainly, by haeredes, heirs female, as there are no traces before this to be found of the lord's claiming the marriage of heirs male; and as Glanvil[4] expreſſly confines it to heirs female. But the king and his great lords thenceforward took a handle from the ambiguity of this expreſſion to claim them both, ſive ſit malculus ſive foemina, as Bracton more than once expreſſes it[5] and alſo, as nothing but diſparagement was reſtrained by magna carta, they thought themſelves at liberty to make all other advantages that they could[6]. And afterwards this right, of ſelling the ward in marriage or elſe receiving the price or value of it, was expreſſly declared by the ſtatute of Merton[7]; which is the firſt direct mention of it that I have met with, in our own, or in any other law.
6. Another attendant or conſequence of tenure by knight-ſervice was that of fines due to the lord for every alienation, whenever the tenant had occaſion to make over his land to another. This depended on the nature of the feodal connexion; it not being reaſonable nor allowed, as we have before ſeen, that a feudatory ſhould transfer his lord's gift to another, and ſubſtitute a new tenant to do the ſervice in his own ſtead, without the conſent of the lord: and, as the feodal obligation was conſidered as
