even for years abſolutely, was an immediate enfranchiſement of the villein[1]. The lords therefore, though they were willing to enlarge the intereſt of their villeins, by granting them eſtates which might endure for their lives, or ſometimes be deſcendible to their iſſue, yet did not care to manumit them entirely; and for that reaſon it ſeems to have been contrived, that a power of reſumption at the will of the lord ſhould be annexed to theſe grants, whereby the tenants were ſtill kept in a ſtate of villenage, and no freehold at all was conveyed to them in their reſpective lands: and of courſe, as the freehold of all lands muſt neceſſarily reſt and abide ſomewhere, the law ſuppoſes it to continue and remain in the lord. Afterwards, when theſe villeins became modern copyholders, and had acquired by cuſtom a ſure and indefeaſible eſtate in their lands, on performing the uſual ſervices, but yet continued to be ſtiled in their admiſſions tenants at the will of the lord, — the law ſtill ſuppoſed it an abſurdity to allow, that ſuch as were thus nominally tenants at will could have any freehold intereſt: and therefore continued, and ſtill continues, to determine, that the freehold of lands ſo holden abides in the lord of the manor, and not in the tenant; for though he really holds to him and his heirs for ever, yet he is alſo ſaid to hold at another's will. But, with regard to certain other copyholders, of free or privileged tenure, which are derived from the antient tenants in villein-ſocage[2], and are not ſaid to hold at the will of the lord, but only according to the cuſtom of the manor, there is no ſuch abſurdity in allowing them to be capable of enjoying a freehold intereſt; and therefore the law doth not ſuppoſe the freehold of ſuch lands to reſt in the lord of whom they are holden, but in the tenants themſelves[3]; who are allowed to have a freehold intereſt, though not a freehold tenure.
However, in common caſes, copyhold eſtates are ſtill ranked (for the reaſons above-mentioned) among tenancies at
