ally, without fear of detection, yet the Statute of Wills only required that the will should be in writing: it need not be signed; nor need it even be in the testator's own handwriting, but might be written by another without any sign of attestation by the testator. This was plainly contrary to good policy, for if it was desirable that the State should allow a man to arrange what should happen to his land after his death, and should enforce that arrangement when made, it was still more desirable that the arrangements which the State enforced should be the true arrangements which the testator had made. Accordingly in 1676 the well-known Statute of Frauds provided that all devises of lands should be in writing, signed by the testator, or by some other person in his presence and by his express directions, and should be attested and subscribed in the presence of the testator by three or four credible witnesses, or else be null and void'. Similar provisions were also enacted as to the means by which a will might be revoked. An Act of 1749 adds further securities in the same direction, especially in defining "credible witnesses"."

To complete the history, the great Wills Act of 18373 simplified and made uniform the law as to the formalities required for wills of land and personalty with the object of securing that the will of the testator as to the disposition of his property at his death should neither be expressed with such laxity as to give rise to fraud, nor be defeated by the requirement of technicalities which had an ancient history but no modern justification. The "Act to amend the Law of Inheritance" had assisted this work by reversing some old rules of descent, whose feudal justification had ceased with the feudal system. Such was the rule that a will which left to the heir the same estate in lands as he would have taken without a will was ineffective, the reason being that under a will the lord would have lost his wardship, which he might obtain from an heir. The law as to the powers of disposition of land possessed by a testator has now been put on a satisfactory footing so far as form is concerned, though the reasonableness of its substance may be questioned.

1 29 Car. II. c. 3, § 5.

2 25 Geo. II. c. 6.

37 Will. IV. and 1 Vic. c. 26, § 9. 4 3 and 4 Will. IV. c. 106, § 3.

APPENDIX.

Note on the abolition of Tenures in Chivalry.

As considerable misapprehensions seem to exist as to these proceedings, it may be well to give them somewhat in detail. It is certain that in the reign of James I., a proposal, under the name of "the Great Contract," to commute the feudal rights of the Crown for a yearly revenue payable to the king was considered. This fell through owing partly to extortionate demands on the king's part, and partly to political causes. Coke is certainly wrong in putting the date as 18 Jac. I. (1620), a date which Mr Digby follows: it is probably a slip for 8 Jac. I., (1610), in which year and parliament the Great Contract was discussed'. The feudal incidents and the Court of Wards were abolished by resolution of the two Houses in 1645, and in 1656 these resolutions were embodied in an Act. It is also certain that a series of excise taxes were imposed by the Long Parliament and codified by the 19th ordinance in 16563. But there seems to be no connexion in the minds of the legislature between the loss of revenue in 1645 by abolition of the feudal incidents, and the gain of revenue by the excise in 1656. The latter was not intended as a substitute for the former: for though, the land being free, there was a loss of revenue to the State, yet, the expenses of government being less, the need of compensating taxation was not felt.

In the first parliament of Charles II., the matter was at once taken up. On May 3, 1660, it was resolved "That a Committee be appointed to prepare a bill for taking away tenures in chivalry...and to consider and propound to the House how £100,000 may be raised and settled on his Majesty, in compensation for Wardships and Liveries and the Court of Wards." The bill this

1 Gardner, II. 69, 83, 107. 2 Scobell, 375.

3 Ibid. 452.

4 Commons Journals, vIII. p. 11.

Committee presented was read a first time on May 221, a second time, and went into Committee, on May 252: when it was resolved that "The sum of £100,000 to be settled on the King's Majesty his heirs and successors in lieu of taking away (sic) the Court of Wards and Liveries and Tenures in Capite and by Knight Service, be generally charged on all lands." The bill was then further referred to a Committee. There was a debate on the reported amendments on July 283. On August 4, it was referred to a Committee "to apportion a rate upon the several Counties as equally as they can for the raising of £100,000 per Annum to be settled on his Majesty, in Compensation for Wardships, and Liveries, and the Court of Wards". On November 8, the apportionment of the £100,000 on the respective counties was brought in and the debate adjourned. On November 19 the debate was resumed and adjourned. On November 21, the debate was resumed, when it was moved":"-"That the moiety of the excise of ale &c. shall be settled on the King's Majesty his heirs and successors in full recompense and satisfaction of all Tenures in Capite, and by Knight Service, and of the Courts of Wards and Liveries and in full satisfaction of all Purveyance, [and that the other Moiety of the Revenue of the Excise of Ale &c. be settled upon the King's Majesty during his natural life in further part of the £1,200,000 per annum revenue resolved to be settled on his majesty]." An amendment was moved to leave out the word "moiety"," and was negatived. A second amendment was then moved to leave out the words in brackets, and this was carried by a majority of two. The resolution was therefore passed without the second clause, the object of the amendment being apparently not to prejudge the important

100

ABOLITION OF MILITARY TENURES.

question of how the £1,200,000 should be raised, by dealing with it piecemeal.

From this it is clear: (1) that Hallam', and Taswell-Langmead following him, are wrong in attributing the majority of two to a division which changed the compensation from a land-. tax to an excise. This change was affected without a division, the majority of two being on a question relating to the settlement of the ordinary revenue. (2) That any assertions that either the excise, or the abolition of feudal tenures, were new acts of a reactionary Parliament are incorrect; both had a past history; the novelty was their conjunction. Mr HumphreysOwen's appendix to Mr Brodrick's book' seems to me rather to fight the wind. The facts show that a Parliament of Landowners at first agreed that the compensation to the king for his revenues derived only from lands held in chivalry should be "generally charged on ALL lands;" a proceeding in itself unfair because the lands of all were made to bear the burdens of the few: that, on seeing the amount assessed on each county, this Parliament changed the compensation from a tax on all lands to a tax on ale and spirits, consumed by all people. The land owners in chivalry clearly thus escaped from their own burden, while persons who paid excise found part of it appropriated to defray the debts of others, instead of being used to lessen the taxation necessary for the king's ordinary revenue. Mr Humphreys-Owen in denying that the excise was substituted for the profits of the feudal tenures can hardly have had these facts in his mind.

1 Hallam, Const. Hist. 1. 424. T.Langmead, 2nd ed. p. 617.

2 English Land and English Landlords.

CHAPTER VII.

ECONOMICAL CHANGES IN THE LAND-SYSTEM.

BETWEEN the middle of the 14th century and the middle of the 16th, the English system of land cultivation entirely changed; and as the tendency of the changes was undoubtedly to cause larger quantities of land to come into the market, and to make alienations more common, the formed habits of the people naturally led to the repeal or evasion of laws which hindered the free transfer of land.

In the first half of the 14th century the method of. cultivation of the land was, on the domain land of the manor by labourers employed by the lord or his bailiff, and paid out of the money commutations which had taken the place of the personal services due from the copyhold tenants; on the copyhold lands of the manor, by copyhold tenants whose holdings were so small that, aided by a common-field system, and common ploughing, they were their own labourers. The land had thus to sustain two classes, a landlord and labourers. The copyhold tenants had their homestead and stock from their lord, and were bound in return to perform personal service in tilling his domain land, a service which by this time had usually been commuted into fixed money payments with which he had hired labourers to cultivate his domain. Alienations of land would usually take place by the hands of the lord, and involving as they frequently did the transfer of a whole manor, would be serious and unusual undertakings. More land probably changed hands through forfeitures and escheats than through direct alienations inter vivos.