in chancery[1]. When therefore the lord had accepted a ſurrender of his tenant's intereſt, upon confidence to re-grant the eſtate to another perſon, either then expreſſly named or to be afterwards named in the tenant's will, the chancery inforced this truſt as a matter of conſcience; which juriſdiction, though ſeemingly new in the time of Edward IV[2], was generally acquieſced in, as it opened the way for the alienation of copyholds, as well as of freehold eſtates, and as it rendered the uſe of them both equally deviſable by teſtament. Yet, even to this day, the new tenant cannot be admitted but by compoſition with the lord, and paying him a fine by way of acknowlegement for the licence of alienation. Add to this the plain feodal inveſtiture, by delivering the ſymbol of ſeiſin in preſence of the other tenants in open court; "quando haſta vel aliud corporeum quidlibet porrigitur a domino ſe inveſtituram facere dicente; quae ſaltem coram duobus vaſallis ſolenniter fieri debet[3]:" and, to crown the whole, the oath of fealty annexed, the very bond of feodal ſubjection. From all which we may fairly conclude, that, had there been no other evidence of the fact in the reſt of our tenures and eſtates, the very exiſtence of copyholds, and the manner in which they are transferred, would inconteſtably prove the very univerſal reception, which this northern ſyſtem of property for a long time obtained in this iſland; and which communicated itſelf, or at leaſt it's ſimilitude, even to our very villeins and bondmen.
This method of conveyance is ſo eſſential to the nature of a copyhold eſtate, that it cannot poſſibly be transferred by any other aſſurance. No feoffment, fine, or recovery (in the king's courts) has any operation thereupon. If I would exchange a copyhold eſtate with another, I cannot do it by an ordinary deed of exchange at the common law; but we muſt ſurrender to each other's uſe, and the lord will admit us accordingly. If I would deviſe a copyhold, I muſt ſurrender it to the uſe of my laſt will
