and that the reſt of the ſocage tenures diſperſed through England eſcaped the general fate of other property, partly out of favour and affection to their particular owners, and partly from their own inſignificancy; ſince I do not apprehend the number of ſocage tenures ſoon after the conqueſt to have been very conſiderable, nor their value by any means large; till by ſucceſſive charters of enfranchiſement granted to the tenants, which are particularly mentioned by Britton[1], their number and value began to ſwell ſo far, as to make a diſtinct, and juſtly envied, part of our Engliſh ſyſtem of tenures.
However this may be, the tokens of their feodal original will evidently appear from a ſhort compariſon of the incidents and conſequences of ſocage tenure with thoſe of tenure in chivalry; remarking their agreement or difference as we go along.
1. In the firſt place, then, both were held of ſuperior lords; of the king as lord paramount, and ſometimes of a ſubject or meſne lord between the king and the tenant.
2. Both were ſubject to the feodal return, render, rent, or ſervice, of ſome ſort or other, which aroſe from a ſuppoſition of an original grant from the lord to the tenant. In the military tenure, or more proper feud, this was from it's nature uncertain; in ſocage, which was a feud of the improper kind, it was certain, fixed, and determinate, (though perhaps nothing more than bare fealty) and ſo continues to this day.
3. Both were, from their conſtitution, univerſally ſubject (over and above all other renders) to the oath of fealty, or mutual bond of obligation between the lord and tenant[2]. Which oath of fealty uſually draws after it ſuit to the lord's court. And this oath every lord, of whom tenements are holden at this day, may and ought to call upon his tenants to take in his court baron; if it be only for the reaſon given by Littleton[3], that if it be ne-
