defend themselves against the chief Lords of the fee," alleging "the privileges of Templars and Hospitallers." Such lands were to be forfeited to the chief lord, or to the King, as by the Statute of Mortmain.
Pigot calls De Donis "the family law." Both Coke and Blackstone agree in condemning it. Coke, writing in the reign of James I., says of it:[1] "The true policy of the common law was overturned by this statute. … But the truth was that the Lords and Commons, knowing that their estates in tail were not to be forfeited for felony or treason as their estates of inheritance were before the said act, and finding that they were not answerable for the debts and incumbrances of their ancestors … always rejected such Bills" (as were "exhibited" against it). And he says again: "When all estates were fee-simple, then were purchasers sure of their purchases, farmers of their leases, creditors of their debts, the king and lords had their escheats, forfeitures, wardships, and other profits of their seigneuries: and for these and other like cases, by the wisdom of the Common Law all estates of inheritance were fee-simple ; and what contentions and mischiefs have crept into the quiet of the law by these fettered inheritances, dailie experience teacheth us."[2]
And Blackstone, writing in the reign of George III.,[3] says: "Children grew disobedient when they knew they could not be set aside; farmers were ousted of their leases made by tenants-in-tail, for if such leases had been valid, then under colour of long leases, the issue might have been virtually disinherited; creditors were defrauded of their debts, for if tenant-in-tail could have charged his estate with their payment he might have also defeated his issue by mortgaging it for as much as it was worth. Innumerable latent entails were produced to deprive purchasers of the lands they had fairly bought; of suits in consequence of which our ancient books are full. … But, as the nobility were always fond of this statute, because it preserved their family estates from forfeiture, there was little hope of procuring a repeal by the legislature; and therefore, by the connivance of an active and politic prince, a method was devised to evade it."
