The following appeared in The Newark Advertiser,

April 12th, 1905.

"An observance seldom witnessed in Nottingham, took place at the Shire Hall, on Friday, when a special Commission sat to inquire into the disposition of the real estate, situated at Ruddington, of the late Elizabeth Freer, of Donington, Lincolnshire, which estate was claimed to have escheated to the Crown owing to the impossibility of finding the person to whom the deceased bequeathed it.

"The Commissioner was Mr. Charles Lacy Smith, Barrister at law, and a jury was duly sworn to decide the issue.

"The Commission, which was issued under what is known as the Wafer Great Seal, was a portentous document, and set forth the circumstances under which Mrs. Freer died. The will was proved on July 13th, 1882, and after stating that the person to whom the property was devised (Edward Savage, a cabinet maker, of Chilwell), could not be found, the Commission, in the King's name, claimed the property had 'since descended and come to us, by right of our Royal Crown.'

"The Commissioner, before calling evidence, explained to the jury the interesting procedure which necessitated their presence. The inquisition was known as a Commission of Escheat. It was somewhat unusual, and he did not know when last there was one held in this district. It was for the purpose of ascertaining whose was the property when the owner of an estate or lands in fee simple had died, without leaving any testamentary disposition or any heir to succeed. For all practical purposes, an estate in fee simple might be looked upon as land held as the absolute property of a person, who might dispose of it in his life-time, leave it by will, or, if he had heirs and had not left it by will, it would descend to them on his death. There were occasions, however, when none of those modes of disposition was available-when there was no owner-and that brought them to a chapter of ancient and not uninteresting history.

"From the earliest times, and certainly since the Conquest, all land in this country had theoretically belonged to the king. In the old days it was the king's more personal property than now, but he did not hold it all in his own hands. He would grant it to his subjects, who would hold of the king by tenure. The tenure that we now know was tenure in fee simple, or the free tenure held by those subjects of the king who, not taking leases or use of lands for payment, obtained grants of land from the king in return for military or civil service. Another obligation that they owed him was that of fealty; and subject to performing the obligations of their tenure the lands remained theirs for ever, but when the tenure came to an end, either by the owner being illegitimate, or forfeiture, or attainder, or having no heir, the land reverted to the king as the paramount lord, and that was called an 'escheat to the king.' In old days there might have been an inquiry as to whether these free tenures were held of the king or any sub-lord, but as no subtenures could have been created by reason of a prohibition as early as 1290, it never happened that the intermediate lord had to be sought. Where lands were held in this tenure, escheat was practically always nowadays to the king. Since the Restoration, the only obligation due from the freeholders to the king had been fealty, and in practice it was never exercised. That, then, was what was known as tenure in fee simple. Whenever it came to an end the prerogative of the king stepped in and his paramount title attached to the land. This was what the jury were now called in to decide. Whenever the king exercised his prerogative (it was, of course, for the benefit of the state, and not for his personal benefit), an inquisition was always held to show openly that the property was that of the king. Although, so far as it went, this was conclusive, it did not prejudice the right or interest of anybody in the property that was vested at the time of the previous owner's death, and another reservation was that it did not prejudice the right of anybody who might claim to be the heir of the deceased. If he could come forward here, or assert his claim afterwards by

traversing the return, the issue would be tried as between the king's title and that of the claimant.

"Coming to the facts of the case, the Commissioner mentioned that Elizabeth Freer, of Donington, died on January 1st, 1882, possessed of some real estate at Ruddington, derived under her husband's will, and consisting of three small freehold cottages value about £130. She devised the property to her cousin, Edward Savage, of Chilwell, but the executors and trustees of her will had been unable to discover his whereabouts, and the presumption was that he died during the life-time of the testatrix. No claim had been received, although the Treasury had also issued advertisements for heirs or claimants, and there was absolutely no owner to the property. Therefore, the tenure in fee simple held by Elizabeth Freer had come to an end, and the escheat to the king came in.

"Mr. John Thomas Smith, district registrar in the Probate Office, produced the will, which was made by Mr. Richard Bottomley, who described the steps taken to discover Edward Savage. One or two letters, he said, were received from Australia, but they were very vague, and no particulars being given of the property no claim was made. There was now £215 16s. 11d. in hand, including interest.

"Mr. Arthur W. Wade, from the Treasury solicitor's department, said that notice of this inquiry was inserted in the Times and the Nottingham Daily Guardian, but no claims that could be substantiated were made.

"Mr. Alfred Wilson, the agent to the trustees, explained that the gross annual value of the property was £12 4s. 10d. "The jury found that the lands had escheated to the Crown, and the necessary documents were filled in to that effect."