Here then we have the union of the fend and vassalage—two things which remained intimately and inseparably combined so long as the feudal system existed. Nevertheless they would appear, as we have seen, to have been originally quite distinct, and merely to have been thrown into combination by circum stances. At first it is probable that, as there were vassals who were not feudatories, so there were feudatories who were not vassals. But very soon, when the advan tage of the association of the two charac ters came to be perceived, it would be es tablished as essential to the completeness of each. Every vassal would receive a fief; and every person to whom a fief was granted would become a vassal. Thus a vassal and the holder of a fief would come to signify, as they eventually did, one and the same thing.
Fiefs, as already intimated, are generally supposed to have been at first entirely pre carious, that is to say, resumable at any time at the pleasure of the grantor. But if this state of things ever existed, it pro bably 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 •ubstitute 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 at taching him by certain oaths and solemn forms, which, besides their force in a re ligious 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 mat ter take possession of men's minds, that in the feudal ages even the ties of natural relationship were looked upon as of in ferior 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 intro duce themselves. The vassal would begin to have his fixed rights as well as his lord, the oath which he had taken mea surinic and determining both these 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 as an injustice. Their con nexion would now assume the appearance of a mutual compact, imposing corre sponding obligations upon both, and making protection as much a duty in the lord, as gratitude and servica in the vassal.
Other important changes would follow this fundamental change, or would take place while it was advancing to comple tion. After the fief had come to be gene rally 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 usaEc. At a later stage fiefs became descendable in the col lateral 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 con ceive that fiefs first became hereditary in France under Charlemagne ; others, how ever, 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 tenth century that the right of the son to suc ceed the father was established by law in France. Conrad II., surnamed the Salk, who became emperor in 1024, is gene rally believed to have first established the hereditary character of fiefs in Germany.
Throughout the whole of this progres sive 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 moat fixed rule, every new occupant of the es tate had still to make solemn acknowledg ment 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.