Page:William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (3rd ed, 1768, vol II).djvu/63

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
Ch. 4.
of Things.
51

In conſequence of this change, it became a fundamental maxim and neceſſary principle (though in reality a mere fiction) of our Engliſh tenures, "that the king is the univerſal lord and original proprietor of all the lands in his kingdom[1]; and that no man doth or can poſſeſs any part of it, but what has mediately or immediately been derived as a gift from him, to be held upon feodal ſervices." For, this being the real caſe in pure, original, proper feuds, other nations who adopted this ſyſtem were obliged to act upon the ſame ſuppoſition, as a ſubſtruction and foundation of their new polity, though the fact was indeed far otherwiſe. And indeed by thus conſenting to the introduction of feodal tenures, our Engliſh anceſtors probably meant no more than to put the kingdom in a ſtate of defence by eſtabliſhing a military ſyſtem; and to oblige themſelves (in reſpect of their lands) to maintain the king's title and territories, with equal vigour and fealty, as if they had received their lands from his bounty upon theſe expreſs conditions, as pure, proper, beneficiary feudatories. But, whatever their meaning was, the Norman interpreters, ſkilled in all the niceties of the feodal conſtitutions, and well underſtanding the import and extent of the feodal terms, gave a very different conſtruction to this proceeding; and thereupon took a handle to introduce not only the rigorous doctrines which prevailed in the duchy of Normandy, but alſo ſuch fruits and dependencies, ſuch hardſhips and ſervices, as were never known to other nations[2]; as if the Engliſh had in fact, as well as theory, owed every thing they had to the bounty of their ſovereign lord.

Our anceſtors therefore, who were by no means beneficiaries, but had barely conſented to this fiction of tenure from the crown, as the baſis of a military diſcipline, with reaſon looked upon theſe deductions as grievous impoſitions, and arbitrary concluſions from principles that, as to them, had no foundation in truth[3]. However, this king, and his ſon William Rufus, kept up with

  1. Tout fuit in luy, et vient de luy al commencement. (M. 24 Edw. III. 65.)
  2. Spelm. of feuds, c. 28.
  3. Wright 81.
G 2
a high