_In theory_, the tenant in chief could not sell his land; he
could sublet it to a _mesne tenant_, who stood to himself
precisely in the same relation as he--the tenant _in capite_--
stood to the sovereign, the mesne tenant in his turn being bound to
render certain _services_ to his over lord, and liable to
forfeit his _lease_--for in theory it was that--if certain
contingencies happened. It was inevitable that, as time went by, the
mesne tenant should regard his estate as his own, and that the same
necessities which compelled the tenant _in capite_ to relax his
hold over an outlying landed estate would compel the mesne tenant to
follow his example. The process went on till it was becoming a
serious difficulty to discover how the King was to get his
_services_ from the tenant _in capite_, who had practically
got rid of two-thirds of his _fief_, and how he again was to get
_his services_ from the mesne tenant, who had parted with two-
thirds of _his_ estate to half a dozen under tenants. Obviously,
when the King's _scutage_ had to be levied, there was no telling
who was liable for it, or how it should be apportioned.
It was to meet this difficulty, and to check the prevailing sub-
division of land--_sub-infeudation_ men called it then--that the
statute of _Quia Emptores_ was passed in the eighteenth year of
King Edward I.
Pages:
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186