to the characters of the true disease, special tests have been proposed, such as the use of the whirling chair, and "repeating to the suspected person a series of ideas recently uttered, when the real maniac will introduce new ideas; the impostor, on the contrary, will deem it expedient to repeat the same words." (Guy.)

The following general rules for detecting feigned diseases have been given by Zacchias:1. The first is, that the physician must in all suspected cases inquire of the relatives and friends of the suspected individual what are his physical and moral habits. He must ascertain the state of his affairs, and inquire what may possibly be the motive for feigning disease, particularly whether he is not in immediate danger of some punishment from which this sickness may excuse him.

2. Compare the disease under examination with the causes capable of producing it-such as the age, temperament, and mode of life of the patient. Thus artifice might be suspected if a person in high health and correct in his diet should suddenly fall into dropsy or cachexia; and again if insanity should suddenly supervene without any of its premonitory symptoms. It is contrary to experience to find such diseases occur without some previous indications.

3. The third rule is derived from the aversion of persons feigning disease to take proper remedies. This indeed will occur in real sickness, but it rarely happens when severe pain is present. Anything that promises relief is generally acceptable in such cases; those on the contrary who feign delay the use of means.

4. Particular attention should be paid to the symptoms present, and whether they necessarily belong to the disease. An expert physician may thus cause a patient to fall into contradiction, and lead him to a statement which is incompatible with the nature of the complaint. To effect this it is necessary to visit him frequently and unexpectedly. 5. The last direction is to follow the course of the complaint and attend to the circumstances which successively occur. (Beck, Medical Jurisprudence; Thomson, A. T., Lectures on Medical Jurisprudence; Guy, W. A., Principles of Forensic Medicine.)

FELLOWSHIP, in books of arithmetic, the rule by which profit or loss is divided among those who are to bear it, in proportion to their investments or interests in the transaction. It is usual to divide this rule into two parts, of which the first supposes all the investments to have been made for the same time, and the second supposes the partners to have employed their money during different times. One simple case of each will be sufficient.

Question 1. A, B, and C embarked 10., 9., and 87. in a venture which yielded 301. of profit. How much belongs to each?

If 10+9+8, or 27 adventurers embarked 1. each, it is clear that each of them should have the 27th part of 301. Let 10 of them assign their shares to A, 9 to B, and 8 to C, and we have the case in question. That is, A should have 10-27ths, B 9-27ths, and C 8-27ths of the whole profit. Question 2. A profit of 301. was realised by A embarking 101. for two months, B embarking 9. for three months, and C embarking 81. for four months. How much ought each to gain?

Here the 17. of A and the 1. of B are differently circumstanced: the second was employed half as long again as the first, and consequently should gain half as much again. Now let one pound sterling employed during one month be called a share: then A invested 20 shares, B 27 shares, and C 32 shares. Hence, as before, 20 +27 +32 being 79, A should have 20-79ths, B should have 27-79ths, and C 32-79ths of the gain.

The first is a rule of very frequent occurrence; but the second is rare, for it seldom happens that money is withdrawn from an undertaking, except upon some specific agreement. But the modern practice of dividing an enterprise into shares of equal amount, and never subdividing a share, reduces all questions of fellowship to simple division. But, as often happens, a name has got into the wrong place. The result which division gives to A, instead of being called his quotient, is

called his dividend.

FELLOWSHIP (in a college) is an establishment in the college entitling the holder to a share in its revenues. The fellows are a part of the corporation. [COLLEGE.] Fellowships are either original, that is, part of the foundation or scheme of the original founder; or ingrafted, that is, endowed by subsequent benefactors of a college already established. Where the number of fellows is limited by the original foundation, new fellows cannot be made members of the corporate body without a new incorporation. If the number is not limited by the charter, it seems that the corporation may admit new fellows as members, who will be subject to the statutes of the original foundation in all respects. Graduates of each several college are in general only eligible to fill a vacant fellowship in the establishment to which they belong after having been elected to scholarships on the foundation, awarded at examinations held by the master and fellows in being. But in some cases special rules which control the election prevail, as where the fellow must be of the blood of the founder, or where he must be a native of a particular county, &c., and in some few cases fellowships are open to the graduates of several colleges, or even the whole university. In Downing College graduates of both universities are eligible. These rules are prescribed by the founder, modified in some cases by the bye-laws of the several colleges. Some few fellow ships may be held by laymen, but in general they can be retained only

by persons already in holy orders, or who are ordained within a specified time. Fellowships are of unequal value, varying from 30. and less to 250l. a year and upwards, the senior fellowships in those colleges where there is any such distinction between the fellows being the most lucrative; but all confer upon their holders the right to apartments in the college, for which in some instances a small annual sum is charged as rent, and certain money privileges as to commons or meals. They are in general tenable for life, unless the holder marries, or inherits estates which afford a larger revenue, or accepts one of the livings belonging to the college which cannot be held with a fellowship; but in the new statutes now under discussion, the commissioners for the University of Cambridge propose to limit the tenure in some of the colleges (at the same time removing the restriction against celibacy). These livings are conferred upon the fellows, who in general have the option of taking them in order of seniority, though in some colleges the holders of particular offices have priority of choice, as for instance in Trinity College, Cambridge, where the vice-master has such right by a bye-law of the college.

The whole subject of fellowships in the different colleges of the University of Cambridge is at the present time, January, 1860, in a transition state; the commissioners above-mentioned being engaged in the duty of revising and altering the old statutes, in which revision very important changes both as to the tenure of, and mode of election to, fellowships, and the position of the fellows themselves, are contemplated.

FELO-DE-SE (a felon of himself) is a person who, being of sound mind and of the age of discretion, deliberately causes his own death; and also, in some cases, where one maliciously attempts to kill another, and, in pursuance of such attempt, unwillingly kills himself, he is adjudged a felo-de-se. (1 Hawk. P. C. c. 27, § 4.) When the deceased is found by the coroner a felo-de-se, all his chattels, real and personal, are forfeited to the crown, though they are usually restored upon payment of moderate fees; and therefore a will made by him is void as to his personal estate, though not as to his real estate, nor is his wife barred of her dower. Formerly he was buried in the highway with a stake driven through his body. These laws, so highly repugnant to the feelings of humanity, being a punishment to the surviving relatives of the deceased, in addition to the general impression that no man in his sound sense ever does commit suicide, caused juries in general to find that the deceased was not of sound mind; and by the Act 4 Geo. IV. c. 52, the legislature has so far yielded to the popular and herein the better opinion, as to abolish the former ignominious mode of burial, and to provide that a felo-de-se shall be privately interred at night in the burial-ground in which his remains might by law have been interred if the verdict of felo-de-se had not been found against him.

FELONY, in the general acceptation of the English law, comprises every species of crime which occasioned at common law the forfeiture of lands or goods, or both, and to which a capital or other punishment might be superadded, according to the degree of guilt. Various derivations of the word have been suggested. Sir Henry Spelman supposes that it may have come from the Teutonic or German "fee" (fief or feud) and "lon" (price or value), or from the Saxon "feelen" (to fall or offend). Capital punishment by no means enters into the true idea and definition of felony; but the common notion of felony has been so generally connected with that of capital punishment, that law-writers have found it difficult to separate them: indeed, this notion acquired such force, that if a statute made any new offence felony, the law implied that it should be punished with death. The number of offences, however, to which this punishment is affixed by the law of England is now very small; and several statutes were passed early in the present reign (1 Vict.) founded upon the principle that the punishment of death should only be inflicted for crimes accompanied with violence. Thus c. 84 substituted the punishment of transportation for that of death in those cases where the latter might still be inflicted for forgery; c. 85 materially lessened the severity of the punishment of offences against the person; c. 86 enacted that burglary unaccompanied with violence shall no longer be punished capitally, and provided that, so far as the offence of burglary is concerned, the night should be considered to commence at nine in the evening and to conclude at six in the morning; c. 87 mitigated the punishment attending the crimes of robbery and stealing from the person; c. 88 rendered piracy punishable with death only when murder was attempted; c. 89 regulated the punishment for the crime of arson; c. 90 mitigated the punishment of transportation for life in certain cases; and c. 91 abolished the punishment of death in the cases there specified. The principle of amelioration was carried still further four years later by the stat. 4 & 5 Vict. c. 56, abolishing capital punishment for embezzlement by servants of the Bank of England, offences under the Stamp Act, riotous demolition of churches, houses, &c., and also for rape. Great numbers of offences were formerly liable to this severe punishment; and it must seem strange to persons who do not observe the extreme difficulty with which old-established customs and prejudices, however ill founded, are subverted, that this system should so long and so obstinately have withstood the most convincing arguments and conclusive statistical evidence. It is impossible, within the limits of this article, to enumerate the crimes which the law considers to be felonies; and the more so, as the word felony has long been used to signify the degree of crime rather than the penal consequences. It may be sufficient, therefore,

not required as drains, it is a great waste of land to have any ditches, and a simple hedge planted on the surface of the soil is much to be preferred. Of all fences, a live hedge, which is carefully planted, and kept properly cut and trimmed when it is grown up, is by far the best. [HEDGE]

When a fence is required within sight of a dwelling, and it is desirable for it to be concealed, a deep ditch is sometimes dug, and a fence placed in the bottom of it at such a depth as not to appear above the level of the ground. This is called a sunk fence. Sometimes a wall is built against a perpendicular side of a ditch, and some very light fence is placed obliquely outwards near the top of it and level with the ground. When it is desired to keep off sheep or cattle from a lawn or pleasure-ground without obstructing the view of the park or the fields, this "ha ha" fence is very useful. A variety of light fences of iron have been invented for the same purpose: some of these are fixed and others moveable; some have upright pieces of cast-iron as posts let into oak blocks sunk in the ground, and rods of wrought-iron passing through holes in the uprights; some have wire for the same purpose. But the most common iron fence is composed of separate wrought-iron hurdles which may be moved at pleasure, and are kept together by screwed pins and nuts. They are merely stuck into the ground, for which purpose they have the ends of the uprights sharpened and bent so as to form a foot. By having this bend alternately on the right and on the left, they form a very firm basis when two hurdles are joined, the left foot of the one being strengthened by the right foot of the other. A very neat fence may be made at a small expense by using as posts pieces of young larch-trees four or five inches in diameter, with the bark on, and passing iron rods through holes bored in them at certain distances from each other. A fence of this kind five feet high, with five horizontal rods five-eighths of an inch in diameter, is an excellent protection against cattle, and takes up no ground.

The greatest objection to the ditch and bank fence is that it takes up so much room. If the ditch is three feet wide, the bank will be the same. There is a foot along the ditch, and another along the bank, where the plough cannot reach; there are therefore eight feet lost. If the fields are squares of ten acres each, which is a convenient size, each field will have 1320 feet of fence in length, taking up 10,560 square feet of land, which is nearly a quarter of an acre. If to this be added the outer fences against roads, woods, or commons, it will be found that nearly one acre in twenty-five is taken up by banks and ditches. It is therefore a great saving to have a simple hedge without any ditch, wherever the land is well drained or has a porous subsoil.

It is usual in England to plant trees in the hedge-rows; and it is owing to this practice that England presents such a rich garden-like appearance, wherever there is a hill which enables one to see any extent of country. But trees are a great detriment to the farmer; and where the land is highly manured, the trees draw off much of the rich juices. The prudent tenant considers this in the rent; and although the landlord may now and then sell some timber, he pays dear for it in general by the annual deduction from his income on their account. Stone walls have a dreary appearance to the eye, but they are excellent fences; they take up little ground, they draw nothing out of the soil, they harbour no birds, and they are the best shelter against cold winds in spring. In an agricultural point of view, therefore, walls are to be preferred, unless the soil be favourable to the growth of the whitethorn or the holly; for clipped hedges are kept up at a much smaller expense than walls, and where there is no ditch, hedges take up as little room. When hedges are preferred, whether with or without a bank and ditch, they must be protected until they are of a certain age; and for this purpose there are particular kinds of fences. When there is a bank and double ditch, and the hedge is planted on the top of the bank, which makes by far the most efficient fence, there are usually two fences, one on each side of the bank. These fences are made of rough posts and rails mortised into the posts. The posts are a foot or 18 inches in the ground, and 2 feet 6 inches out. They are placed in the side of the bank, inclined somewhat outwards, about 4 feet 6 inches asunder. The two rails are let into mortices in the alternate posts, and nailed to the middle post, which is rather slighter. Thus a very formidable fence is made, which those who follow the diversion of hunting, and are not very well mounted, dread to encounter. If there is only a single ditch, it is usual to plant the hedge in the side of the bank a little above the level of the ground. To protect the young thorns from being cropped by the cattle, it is usual to make a dead hedge of stakes with bushes and brambles interwoven on the top of the bank and if there is pasture land on the side where the ditch is, a post and rail fence is put up along the edge of the ditch till the hedge is grown sufficiently not to be injured by the cattle. When branches of thorns and bushes only are used without stakes, it is called a foot hedge; when the branches are interwoven, and the top of the hedge is finished with rods wattled in, it is called a stake and edder hedge. Wherever neatness and durability are consulted, the stake and edder hedge is always preferred.

Besides these common fences, there are various others of a light or temporary nature, which are chiefly used in gardens and pleasuregrounds, and also when sheep only are to be kept out, or when a new quick hedge along an orchard or garden has been planted. A cheap and neat fence of this kind is made with stakes only planted in the

ground, forming a series of St. Andrew's crosses: or with osier or hazel rods worked between stakes like basket-work, either horizontally and lightly or obliquely and closely. When the rods are split, the appearance is still neater and lighter. A variety of light iron fences made of slender rods or wire have been invented to protect flowergardens or shrubberies from the depredations of hares and rabbits, and their forms differ according to the fancy and taste of individuals. FEOD. [FEUDAL SYSTEM.]

FEOFFMENT (in law) is that mode of conveyance of lands or real hereditaments in possession where the land passes by force of livery in deed, that is, actual delivery of a portion of the land, as a twig or a turf; or where the parties being on the land the feoffor expressly gives it to the feoffee, &c.; or livery in law or within view, that is, where the parties being within sight of the land, the feoffor refers to it and gives it to the feoffee. A feoffment was the earliest mode of conveying real hereditaments in possession known to the common law. A grant [DEED; GRANT] was the mode used when lands subject to an existing estate of freehold, and when rents or other incorporeal hereditaments incapable from their nature of being the subjects of livery, were transferred. The term feoffment is evidently of feudal origin, its latinised form being feoffamentum, from feudare or infeudare, to infeoff, to give a feud. The mode of conveyance is however of much higher antiquity than the feudal system, the mode of transferring property by the delivery of possession being common to all nations in rude ages. (Gilb. Ten.' 386.) It prevailed amongst the Anglo-Saxons, who gave possession by the delivery of a twig or a turf, a mode still used in the admission of tenants of copyhold lands. The form of an ancient feoffment. was singularly concise. There is a copy of one in the Appendix to the 2nd vol. of Blackstone's Commentaries,' No. 1.

Feoffments are now little used. The statute 8 & 9 Vict. c. 106, gave the last blow to a mode of conveyance already nearly obsolete. By this Act corporeal hereditaments are made to lie in grant as well as in livery. Thus actual or symbolical livery of seisin is unnecessary. See Blackst. Comm.' vol. ii. p. 311, Mr. Kerr's Ed.

The essential part of this mode of conveyance is the delivery of possession, or, as it is technically called, livery of seisin. In former times land was frequently conveyed without any deed or writing, by simple delivery. Subsequently it became the custom to have a written instrument called the charter or deed of feoffment [CHARTER], which declared the intention of the parties to the conveyance. But now, since the Statute of Frauds (29 Car. II. § 3), a written instrument is necessary.

66

Livery of seisin was at first performed in the presence of the freeholders of the neighbourhood, vassals of the feudal lord; because any dispute relating to the freehold was decided before them as pares curia, equals of the court," of the lord of the fee. But afterwards, upon the decay of the feudal system, the livery was made in the presence of any witnesses; and where a deed was used, the livery was attested by those who were present at it.

Livery in deed may be made by the feoffor or his attorney to the feoffee or his attorney. When lands lie in several counties, as many liveries are necessary; and where lands are out on lease, there must be as many liveries as there are tenants, for no livery can be made but by the consent of the tenant in possession, and the consent of one will not bind the rest. But livery in law or within view can only be given and taken by the parties themselves, though lands in several counties may pass if they all be within view. Livery of this nature requires to be perfected by subsequent entry in the lifetime of the feoffor. Formerly, if the feoffee durst not enter for fear of his life or bodily harm, his claim, made yearly in the form prescribed by law, and called continual claim, would preserve his right. The security of property consequent upon the progress of civilisation having rendered this exception unnecessary, it was abolished by the Statute of Limitations, 3 & 4 Will. IV., c. 27, § 11.

Since the Statute of Uses [BARGAIN; SALE; USES] introduced a more convenient mode of conveyance, feoffments have been rarely used in practice, and then rather for their supposed peculiar effects, as wrongful conveyances [CONVEYANCES], than as simple means of transferring property. It has been usual to make corporations convey their own estates by feoffment, in consequence of the supposition that a corporate body cannot stand seised to a use, though it seems that this doctrine only applies to the case of lands being conveyed to a corporation to the use of others. (Gilb. 'On Uses,' Sugd. Ed. 7 note.) Where the object to be attained was the destruction of contingent remainders or the discontinuance of an estate tail, or the acquirement of a fee for the purpose of levying a fine [FINE] or suffering a recovery [RECOVERY], a feoffment was usually employed. Such indeed was the efficacy attributed to this mode of conveyance by the earlier law writers, that where the feoffor was in possession, however unfounded his title might be, yet his feoffment passed a fee; voidable, it is true, by the rightful owner, but which by the lapse of time might become good even as against him. Being thus supposed to operate as a disseisin to the rightful owner, it was thought till recently that a person entitled to a term of years might by making a feoffment to a stranger pass a fee to him, and then by levying a fine acquire a title by non-claim. This doctrine led to very considerable discussion, and though strictly accordant to the principle of the old law, yet being alike repugnant to the principles of justice and of common sense, it has been overruled,

most acceptable is from fe or fee, which it is said signifies wages or pay for service, the word od or odh, to which the signification of possession or property is assigned, being combined with it. Sir Francis Palgrave (Rise and Progress of Engl. Com.,' pp. 204–207) doubts if the word feudum ever existed. The true word seems to be fevdum, or feftum. Fiev or fief (latinised into fevodium, which some contracted into ferdum, and others, by omitting the v, into feodum) he conceives to be fitef, or phitef, and that again to be a colloquial abbreviation of emphyteusis, pronounced emphytefsis, a well-known term of the Roman law for an estate granted to be held not absolutely, but with the ownership still in the grantor and the usufruct only in the hands of the grantee. It is certain that emphyteusis was used in the middle ages as synonymous with precaria; that precaria, and also præstitæ, or præstaria (literally loans), were the same with beneficia; and that beneficia under the emperors were the same or near the same as fiefs. The word feu, which in Scotland means an estate held of a superior or lord, for which, as explained by Erskine (Principles,' b. ii., tit. 4), a rent, or feuduty, as it is called, is always paid, has "a strong resemblance to the Roman emphyteusis, in the nature of the right, the yearly duty payable by the vassal, the penalty in the case of not punctual payment, and the restraint frequently laid upon vassals not to alien without the superior's consent."

The origin of the system of feuds has been a fertile subject of speculation and dispute. If we merely seek for the existence of a kind of landed tenure resembling that of the fief in its essential principle, it is probable that such may be discovered in various ages and parts of the world. But feuds alone are not the feudal system; they are only one of the elements out of which that system grew. In its entireness, it is certain that the feudal system never subsisted anywhere before it arose in the middle ages in those parts of Europe in which the Germanic nations settled themselves after the subversion of the Roman empire.

Supposing feud to be the same word with the Roman emphyteusis, it does not follow that the Germanic nations borrowed the notion of this species of tenure from the Romans. It is perhaps more probable that it was the common form of tenure among them before their settlement in the Roman provinces. It is to be observed that the emphyteusis, the precaria, the beneficium, only subsisted under the Roman scheme of polity in particular instances, but they present themselves as the very genius of the Germanic scheme. What was only occasional under the one became general under the other. In other words, if the Romans had feuds, it was their Germanic conquerors who first established a system of feuds; upon their first settlement in the conquered provinces.

We know so little with certainty respecting the original institutions of the Germanic nations, that it is impossible to say how much they may have brought with them from their northern forests, or how much they may have borrowed from the imperial polity, of the other chief element which enters into the system of feudalism, the connection subsisting between the grantor and the grantee of the fief, the person having the property and the person having the usufruct, or, as they were respectively designated, the suzerain or lord, and the tenant or vassal. Tenant may be considered as the name given to the latter in reference to the particular nature of his right over the land as the holder of it, in short; vassal, that denoting the particular nature of his personal connection with his lord. The former has been already explained; the consideration of the latter introduces a new view. By some writers the feudal vassals have been derived from the comites, or officers of the Roman imperial household [COUNT]; by others from the comites, or companions, mentioned by Tacitus (German.' 13, &c.) as attending upon each of the German chiefs in war. The latter opinion is ingeniously maintained by Montesquieu (xxx. 3). One fact appears to be certain, and is of some importance, namely, that the original vassali or vassi were merely noblemen who attached themselves to the court and to attendance upon the prince, without necessarily holding any landed estate or beneficium by royal grant. In this sense the words occur in the early part of the 9th century. Vassal has been derived from the Celtic gwas, and from the German gesell, which are probably the same word, and of both of which the original signification seems to be a helper, or subordinate associate, in labour of any kind.

If the vassal was at first merely the associate of or attendant upon his lord, nothing could be more natural than that, when the latter came to have land to give away, he should most frequently bestow it upon his vassals, both as a reward for their past and a bond by which he might secure their future services. If the peculiar form of tenure constituting the fief did not exist before, here was the very case which would suggest it. At all events, nothing could be more perfectly adapted to the circumstances. The vassal was entitled to a recompense; at the same time it was not the interest of the prince to sever their connexion, and to allow him to become independent; probably that was as little the desire of the vassal himself; he was conveniently and appropriately rewarded therefore by a fief, that is, by a loan of land, the profits of which were left to him as entirely as if he had obtained the ownership of the land, but his precarious and revocable tenure of which, at the same time, kept him bound to his lord in the same dependence as before.

Here then we have the union of the feud and vassalage-two things

which remained intimately and inseparably combined so long as the feudal system existed. They may have originally been quite distinct, and merely been thrown into combination by circumstances. It is possible that there were vassals who were not feudatories, or feudatories who were not vassals. But when the advantage of the associa tion of the two characters came to be perceived, it would be established as essential to the completeness of each. Every vassal would have a fief, and every person to whom a fief was granted would be a vassal, and thus a vassal and the holder of a fief come to signify one and the same thing. Fiefs are supposed to have been at first entirely precarious, that is to say, resumable at any time at the pleasure of the grantor. But if this state of things ever existed, it probably did not last long. Even from the first it is most probable that many fiefs were granted for a certain term of years or for life. And in those of all kinds a substitute for the original precariousness of the tenure was soon found, which while it equally secured the rights and interests of the lord, was much more honourable and in every way more advantageous for the vassal. This was the method of attaching him by certain oaths and solemn forms, which, besides their force in a religious point of view, were so contrived as to appeal also to men's moral feelings, and which therefore it was accounted not only impious but infamous to violate. The relation binding the vassal to his lord was made to wear all the appearance of a mutual interchange of benefits,-of bounty and protection on the one hand, of gratitude and service due on the other; and so strongly did this view of the matter take possession of men's minds, that in the feudal ages even the ties of natural relationship were looked upon as of inferior obligation to the artificial bond of vassalage.

As soon as the position of the vassal had thus been made stable and secure, various changes would gradually introduce themselves. The vassal would begin to have his fixed rights as well as his lord, the oath which he had taken measuring and determining both these rights and his duties. The relation between the two parties would cease to be one wholly of power and dominion on the one hand, and of mere obligation and dependence on the other. If the vassal performed that which he had sworn, nothing more would be required of him. Any attempt of his lord to force him to do more would be considered an injustice. Their connection would now assume the appearance of a mutual compact, imposing corresponding obligations upon both, and making protection as much a duty in the lord as gratitude and service in the vassal.

Other important changes would follow this fundamental change, or would take place while it was advancing to completion. After the fief had come to be generally held for life, the next step would be for the eldest son usually to succeed his father. His right so to succeed would next be established by usage. At a later stage fiefs would become, as they did, descendible in the collateral as well as in the direct line. At a still later, they became inheritable by females as well as by males. There is much difference of opinion, however, as to the dates at which these several changes took place. Some writers conceive that fiefs first became hereditary in France under Charlemagne; others, however, with whom Mr. Hallam agrees, maintain that there were hereditary fiefs under the first race of French kings. It is supposed not to have been till the time of the first Capets in the end of the 10th century that the right of the son to succeed the father was established by law in France. Conrad II., surnamed the Salic, who became emperor in 1024, is generally believed to have first established the hereditary character of fiefs in Germany.

Throughout the whole of this progressive development of the system, however, the original nature of the fief was never forgotten. The ultimate property was still held to be in the lord; and that fact was very distinctly signified, not only by the expressive language of forms and symbols, but by certain liabilities of the tenure that gave still sharper intimation of its true character. Even after fiefs became descendible to heirs in the most comprehensive sense, and by the most fixed rule, every new occupant of the estate had still to make solemn acknowledgement of his vassalage, and thus to obtain, as it were, a renewal of the grant from the lord. He became bound to discharge all services and other dues as fully as the first grantee had been. Above all, in certain circumstances, as, for example, if the tenant committed treason or felony, or if he left no heir, the estate would still return by forfeiture or escheat to the lord, as to its original owner.

Originally fiefs were granted only by sovereign princes; but after estates of this description, by acquiring the hereditary quality, came to be considered as property to all practical intents and purposes, their holders proceeded, on the strength of this completeness of possession, themselves to assume the character and to exercise the rights of lords, by the practice of what was called subinfeudation, that is, the alienation of portions of their fiefs to other parties, who thereupon were placed in the same or a similar relation to them as that in which they stood to the prince. The vassal of the prince became the lord over other vassals; in this latter capacity he was called a mesne (that is, an intermediate) lord; he was a lord and a vassal at the same time. In the same manner the vassal of a mesne lord might become also the lord of other arrere vassals, as those vassals that held of a mesne lord were designated. This process sometimes produced curious results; for a lord might in this way actually become the vassal of his own vassal, and a vassal lord over his own lord.