that is, and still retain so manifest an influence as to render our law extremely obscure, arbitrary, and unphilosophical, to all who have disregarded its feudal relations and dependencies.

It is but reasonable to suppose, that a system of law in active and efficient operation for the space of at least six centuries, would be so radically incorporated in the general law of the land, and would have occasioned such an infinite variety of customs, laws, and institutions, and such numerous modifications and alterations in the original code, as for ever to retain an almost immutable influence. For though the statute 12 Charles II. removed the oppressive and military part of this system; and though the refinements, as well as the necessities of mankind, had introduced, long before, important alterations in the forms of procedures, and the general spirit both of legislation and interpretation, much still remains, and a very considerable portion of the present law has its foundations resting immediately on feudal principles.

It would be no difficult undertaking to enumerate many hundred rules of law, as much in force at present as they ever were, which in the abstract appear unaccountable, if not absurd, until inquiry into their feudal origin dispels the difficulty, removes the aspersion, and imparts that life and dignity, which philosophy and science never fail to afford to subjects apparently the most abstruse and arbitrary. The student, for instance, is informed that a freehold cannot commence in futuro; that it cannot be put in abeyance, but that the inheritance may; that a contingent remainder of freehold cannot be limited on a particular estate for years; that a particular estate and remainder must have a contemporaneous inception; that an estate to A. for years, remainder to B. for life, remainder to the right heirs of C. is good; that an estate for life to the ancestor, and a limitation of the inheritance to his heirs, coalesce,

and constitute him tenant in fee; that title by descent is preferable to title by purchase; that a condition broken defeats the entire estate; that a right of entry for condition broken cannot be reserved to a stranger; that the entire estate in joint tenancy vests in the survivor; that the courts are disposed to presume against cross-remainders; that a remainder must vest in possession eo instanti the particular estate determines; that a rent, properly so called, cannot be reserved to a stranger; that in descent the eldest son shall solely inherit; that the male shall be preferred to the female; that females shall inherit in coparcenary; that by no species of conveyance shall a man be permitted to raise a fee-simple to his own right heirs as purchasers; that inheritances shall never lineally ascend, &c. &c. These rules, which are very numerous, can make but little useful impression, unless the principles in which they originated be well understood; and let not the student look for these principles out of the Liber Feudorum. There are, however, no truths so manifest as to be established without some opposition. This more frequently originates from prejudice, idleness, or a spirit of contention, than from ignorance. In lord Coke it was certainly prejudice. His little estimation for feudal learning was more the result of an overweening and tenacious opinion of the peculiar excellence and dignity of the laws of his country, than any absence of information as to their real origin. With lord Coke, the admission that English jurisprudence was largely indebted to the code of any other nation, was to detract from its dignity. Sir Henry Spelman remarks, 'I do marvel many times that my lord Coke, adorning our law with so many flowers of antiquity and foreign learning, hath not, as I suppose, turned aside into this field of feudal learning, from whence so many roots of our law have, of old, been taken and transplanted.' The fact,

however, is that this system is of Roman, Saxon, and feudal origin; and can be well understood only by reference to the principles and genius of those respective codes. As regards that portion of it which is feudal, we are happy to call in corroboration of the opinion advanced in this note, that of professor Sullivan, who insists on a broad foundation of feudal learning being laid, in order to erect a durable, solid, and splendid superstructure of English law. 'But, perhaps,' says the instructive writer, 'it may be thought sufficient to explain and deduce these rules from the feudal ones, as they occur occasionally in the books of the common law; which is the method that, in conformity with the rest of his plan the Oxford professor has adopted; and that the reading through a course of that law, even the shortest, will be attended with an unprofitable delay, and detain the students too long from their principal object. The answer to this objection is short, and if well founded, perfectly satisfactory. It is, that the real reason of proposing a system of the feudal law to be gone through was to save time. The method is so much better, and clearer, and, by necessary consequence, so much easier to be comprehended and retained, that the delay will be abundantly compensated, and one third at least of Littleton will be understood and known by the students, before they open his book. For the maxims of the common law, as they lie dispersed in our books, often without reasons, and often with false or frivolous ones, appear disjointed and unconnected, and as so many separate and independent axioms; and in this very many of them must appear unaccountable at least, if not absurd; whereas in truth, they are almost every one of them deducible by a train of necessary consequences, from a few plain and simple rules, that were absolutely necessary to the being and preservation of such kind of constitutions as the feudal king

doms were. The knowledge of which few, timely obtained, will obviate the necessity of frequent and laboured illustrations, as often as these maxims occur in our law; will reconcile many seeming contradictions, and will shew that many distinctions, which at first view appear to be without a difference, are founded in just and evident reason: to say nothing of the improvement the mind will attain by exercise, in following such a train of deductions, and the great help to the memory, by acquiring a perfect knowledge of the true grounds of those various rules, and of their mutual connection and dependence on each other.**

(Note 2.) WRIGHT'S TENURES.-The introduction to the Law of Tenures, by sir Martin Wright, though a small volume, is one of immense, and of the most accurate research. It is a beautiful specimen of deep learning, united with a concise and elementary exposition of its subject. The utmost reliance may be placed on his citations, which are numerous; and those who may be in search of minute learning on the various topics of feudalism, may take his authorities as faithful guides.

The first edition was printed in 1730; the fifth edition in 1792, is the one most commonly in use.

In 1825, James Ram, Esq. who is advantageously known to the profession by several works, published, 'An Outline of the Law of Tenure and Tenancy, containing the first principles of the law of real property.' There are in this work some novel and ingenious views on the doctrines of the realty. We also desire to bring to the reader's notice the late sir Robert Chambers' "Treatise on Estates and Tenures,' published in 1824, by his relative sir H. C. Chambers, one of

*Vide Sullivan's Lectures, p. 15.

the judges of the S. C. of judicature, at Bombay. The learned author was the immediate successor of sir William Blackstone in the Vinerian professorship; and this small volume contains the substance of the lectures delivered by him during the short period in which he occupied the chair. Dr. Wooddeson has been uniformly spoken of as the second Vinerian professor. He commenced in Michaelmas Term, 1777; we presume the appointment of sir Robert Chambers took place several years earlier.

(Note 3.) SULLIVAN'S LECTURES ON FEUDAL LAW.-The lectures of Dr. Sullivan on the Feudal Law, and the Constitution and Laws of England, delivered in the university of Dublin, were first published in 1770. Another edition appeared in 1776, in quarto, with numerous authorities, to which is prefixed a Discourse on the Laws and Government of England, by Gilbert Stuart. We know of no work on feudal learning, and the first principles of the English Constitution, equal in merit and interest. Dr. Sullivan was an able lawyer, and a pleasing writer, whose premature death was much regretted, as his researches were prosecuted with uncommon zeal, and would certainly have been productive of no less utility than honour to the institution with which he was connected.

(Note 4.) DALRYMPLE ON FEUDAL PROPERTY.—We have had occasion to remark in the Introduction, on the necessity of an acquaintance with the history of the law, in order to comprehend the reason of its principles, and the origin of its forms. The work which we now recommend, published in 1757, and of which there have been many subsequent editions, is a brief and philosophical history of the revolutions of Eng