Lecture　V
  The　Chief　and　His　Order
  Nothing　seems　to　me　to　have　been　more　clearly　shown　by　recent
  researches　than　the　necessity　of　keeping　apart　the　Tribe　and　the
  Tribal　Chief　as　distinct　sources　of　positive　institutions。　The
  lines　of　descent　are　constantly　entwined；　but　each　of　them　is
  found　to　run　up　in　the　end　to　an　independent　origin。　If　I　were　to
  apply　this　assertion　to　political　history；　I　should　be　only
  repeating　much　of　what　has　been　said　by　Mr　Freeman　in　his
  excellent　work　on　'Comparative　Politics。'　Confining　myself　to　the
  history　of　private　institutions；　let　me　observe　that　the
  distinction　which　I　have　drawn　should　be　carefully　borne　in　mind
  by　those　who　desire　to　penetrate　to　the　beginnings　of　Property　in
  Land。　The　subject　has　been　greatly　obscured　by　the　practice；　now
  brought　home　to　the　early　writers　on　feudal　law；　of
  systematically　passing　over　or　misconstruing　all　forms　of
  proprietary　enjoyment　which　they　could　not　explain　on　their　own
  principles；　and　hitherto　the　truth　has　only　been　directly　seen
  through　some　of　the　rules　of　tenure。　It　may　now；　however；　be　laid
  down　without　rashness　that　Property　in　Land；　as　known　to
  communities　of　the　Aryan　race；　has　had　a　twofold　origin。　It　has
  arisen　partly　from　the　disentanglement　of　the　individual　rights
  of　the　kindred　or　tribesmen　from　the　collective　rights　of　the
  Family　or　Tribe；　and　partly　from　the　growth　and　transmutation　of
  the　sovereignty　of　the　Tribal　Chief。　The　phenomena　attributable
  to　the　double　process　seem　to　me　easily　distinguishable　from　one
  another。　Both　the　sovereignty　of　the　Chief　and　the　ownership　of
  land　by　the　Family　or　Tribe　were　in　most　of　Western　Europe　passed
  through　the　crucible　of　feudalism；　but　the　first　reappeared　in
  some　well…marked　characteristics　of　military　or　knightly　tenures；
  and　the　last　in　the　principal　rules　of　non…noble　holdings；　and
  among　them　of　Socage；　the　distinctive　tenure　of　the　free　farmer。
  The　status　of　the　Chief　has　thus　left　us　one　bequest　in　the　rule
  of　Primogeniture；　which；　however；　has　long　lost　its　most　ancient
  form；　another　in　the　right　to　receive　certain　dues　and　to　enforce
  certain　monopolies；　and　a　third　in　a　specially　absolute　form　of
  property　which　was　once　exclusively　enjoyed　by　the　Chief；　and
  after　him　by　the　Lord；　in　the　portion　of　the　tribal　territory
  which　formed　his　own　domain。　On　the　other　hand；　several　systems
  of　succession　after　death；　and　among　them　the　equal　division　of
  the　land　between　the　children；　have　sprung　out　of　tribal
  ownership　in　various　stages　of　decay；　and　it　has　left　another　set
  of　traces　（not　quite　so　widely　extended）；　in　a　number　of　minute
  customary　rules　which　govern　tillage　and　occasionally　regulate
  the　distribution　of　the　produce。
  The　fate　of　this　double　set　of　institutions　in　England　and　in
  France　appears　to　me　most　instructive。　I　have　frequently　dwelt　in
  this　place　on　the　erroneousness　of　the　vulgar　opinion　which　dates
  the　extreme　subdivision　of　the　soil　of　France　from　the　first
  French　Revolution；　and　from　the　sale　of　the　Church　lands　and　of
  the　estates　of　the　emigrant　nobility。　A　writer　　I　was　going　to
  say　as　commonly　read　as　Arthur　Young；　but　certainly　as　often
  mentioned　as　if　he　were　commonly　read　　notices　this
  morcellement；　on　the　very　eve　of　the　French　Revolution；　and
  immediately　after　it；　as　the　great　feature　which　distinguished
  France　from　England。　'From　what　we　see　in　England；'　he　says；
  （'Travels　in　1787；　'88；　and；　'89'　p。　407）　'　we　cannot　form　an
  idea　of　the　abundance　in　France　of　small　properties；　that　is；
  little　farms　belonging　to　those　who　cultivate　them。'　He　estimates
  that　more　than　a　third　of　the　kingdom　was　occupied　by　them　　a
  very　large　proportion；　when　the　extent　of　Church　land　in　France
  is　taken　into　account；　but　recent　French　investigations　have
  shown　reasons　for　thinking　that　the　true　proportion　was　still
  larger；　and　that　it　was　rather　growing　than　diminishing；　through
  that　extravagance　of　the　nobles　which　Court　life　fostered；　and
  which　compelled　them　to　sell　their　domains　to　peasants　in　small
  parcels。　Young　clearly　saw　that　this　subdivision　of　the　soil　was
  the　result　of　some　legal　rule；　and　strongly　dissenting　from　the
  Revolutionary　leaders　who　wished　to　carry　it　farther；　he　declared
  that　'a　law　ought　to　be　passed　to　render　all　division　below　a
  certain　number　of　arpents　illegal。'
  It　seems　to　have　very　generally　escaped　notice　that　the　law
  of　equal　or　nearly　equal　division　after　death　was　the　general　law
  of　France。　The　rule　of　primogeniture　was　of　exceptional
  application；　and　was　for　the　most　part　confined　to　lands　held　by
  knightly　tenure；　indeed；　in　the　South　of　France；　where　the　custom
  of　equal　division　was　strengthened　by　the　identical　rule　of　the
  Roman　jurisprudence；　the　privileges　of　the　eldest　son　were　only
  secured　by　calling　in　the　exceptional　rules　of　which　the　Roman
  Law　gives　the　benefit　to　milites　（or　soldiers　on　service）　when
  making　their　wills　or　regulating　their　successions；　and　by　laying
  down　that　every　chevalier；　and　every　noble　of　higher　degree；　was
  a　miles　within　the　meaning　of　the　Roman　juridical　writers。　The
  two　systems　of　succession　and　the　two　forms　of　property　lay　side
  by　side；　and　there　were　men　alive　quite　recently　who　could
  remember　the　bitter　animosities　caused　by　their　co…existence　and
  antagonism。　A　very　great　part　of　the　land　held　by　laymen　belonged
  to　the　peasantry；　and　descended　according　to　the　rule　of　equal
  division；　but　eldest　son　after　eldest　son　succeeded　to　the
  signory。　Yet　it　was　not　the　rule　of　primogeniture　followed　in
  noble　descents　which　was　the　true　grievance；　at　most　it　became　a
  grievance　under　the　influence　of　the　peculiar　vein　of　sentiment
  introduced　by　Rousseau。　The　legacy　from　tribal　sovereignty　to
  signorial　privilege；　which　was　really　resented；　was　that　which　I
  placed　second　in　order。　The　right　to　receive　feudal　dues　and　to
  enforce　petty　monopolies；　now　almost　extinguished　in　England　by
  the　measures　to　which　the　Copyhold　Commission　has　given　effect；
  had　ceased　long　before　the　end　of　the　last　century　to　be　of　any
  considerable　importance　to　the　class　which　was　invested　with　it；
  but　M。　de　Tocqueville　has　explained；　in　his　'Ancien　R間ime'　（i。
  18）；　that　it　made　up　almost　the　entire　means　of　living　which　the
  majority　of　the　French　nobility　possessed。　A　certain　number　of
  noblemen；　besides　their　feudal　rights；　had　their　terres；　or
  domain；　belonging　to　them　in　absolute　property；　and　sometimes　of
  enormous　extent；　and　the　wealthiest　members　of　this　limited
  class；　the　grands；　who　so　frequently　appear　in　French　Court
  history；　but　who；　away　from　the　Court；　were　much　the　most
  respected　and　beloved　of　their　order；　formed　the　counterpart；
  from　the　legal　point　of　view；　of　the　English　landed　proprietary。
  The　rest　of　the　nobles　lived　mainly；　not　on　rent；　but　on　their
  feudal　dues；　and　eked　out　a　meagre　subsistence　by　serving　the
  King　in　arms。　The　sense　of　property　in　the　soil　was　thus　not　in
  the　lord　but　in　the　peasantry；　and　the　peasantry　viewed　the
  exercise　of　signorial　rights　with　a　feeling　closely　akin　to　that
  which　is　inspired　by　a　highly　oppressive　tax。　The　condition　of
  sentiment　produced　by　it　is　even　now　a　political　force　of　some
  moment　in　France；　and　a　similar；　though　a　far　weaker；　repulsion
  is　known　to　have　been　caused　in　this　country　by　the　taking　of
  tithes　in　kind。　It　is　a　significant　fact　that；　where　the
  ownership　is　acknowledged　to　reside　in　the　superior　holder；　the
  exaction　of　even　an　extreme　rent　from　the　tenants　below　has　very
  rarely　been　regarded　with　the　same　bitterness　of　resentment。
  The　change；　therefore；　which　took　place　in　France　at　the
  first　Revolution　was　this：　the　land…law　of　the　people　superseded