sarily deficient in one element of stability, | which defect arises from the necessity for all the consenting parties to continue their consent, is evident: in this respect it is like a partnership for an indefinite period, which may at any time be dissolved by any one of the partners. Such a power, which is incident to the nature of the partnership, so far from being an objection to it, is a great advantage. So long as all the parties agree, they have the benefit of the union: when they cannot agree, they take instead of it the benefit of the separation.

It is also foreign from our purpose to consider what is the tendency, in a union like that of the United States, which results from the powers placed in the hands of the President and Congress by the federal compact. If such power were placed in such hands by sovereign persons originally severally sovereign in their respective states, as in the case first supposed, the vigilance of these persons in their aggregate capacity, though somewhat less than the vigilance of a single sovereign person, would probably prevent any undue assumptions of power on the part of those to whom they had delegated certain fixed powers. But the farther the several sovereigns, who in their aggregate capacity form this federation, are removed from those to whom they delegate certain powers, and the more numerous are the individuals in whom this aggregate sovereignty resides, the greater are the facilities and means of fered to, and consequently the greater is the tendency in, their ministers and agents practically to increase those powers with which they may have been intrusted. In their capacity of ministers and agents, having patronage at their command and the administration of the revenue, such agents may gradually acquire the power of influencing the election of their successors, when their own term of office is expired, and may thus imperceptibly, while in name servants, become in fact masters. That there is such a tendency to degenerate from its primitive form in all social organization, as there is in all organized bodies to be resolved into their elements, seems no sufficient reason for not forming such union and

deriving from it all the advantages which under given conditions it may for an indefinite time bestow on all the members of such federation.

Those who wish to examine into the nature of the North American Union and the party questions which have arisen out of the interpretation of the federal constitution may consult the essays of Jay, Hamilton, and Madison in the Federalist, the Journal of the Philadelphia Convention, published in 1819, and Tucker's Life of Jefferson (London, 1836), where they will find ample reference to other authorities.

Federations of a kind existed in ancient times, such as that of the Ionian States of Asia, which assembled at the Panionium at certain times (Herodotus, i. 142); the Achæan confederation [ACHEAN CONFEDERATION]; the Etolian confederation [ETOLIAN CONFEDERATION]; and the Lycian confederation which is described by Strabo (p. 664). The Roman system of Foederate States (Civitates Foederatae) is another instance of a kind of confederation; but it was of a peculiar kind, for Rome was neither absolutely sovereign over these states nor yet associated with them in a federation, as now understood. The relationship between Rome and the federate states rather resembled the relation of sovereign and subject, than any other, though it was not precisely that.

A supreme federal government, or a composite state, is distinguished by Austin (Province of Jurisprudence determined) from a system of confederated states: in the latter "each of the several societies is an independent political society, and each of their several governments is properly sovereign or supreme." It is easy to conceive a number of sovereign powers, such as the German States, assembling and passing resolutions which concern all the members of the confederacy, and yet leaving these resolutions to be enforced in each state by its own sovereign power. Such a union therefore differs essentially from a supreme federal government, which enforces its commands in each and all the states. As to the existence of a written constitution, as it is called, in the one case, and a mere compact in the other,

that makes no essential difference, for the federal constitution, as we have shown, is merely articles of agreement, which only derive their efficacy from the continued assent of all the members that contribute in their aggregate capacity to form the sovereign power in such federation.

As to a system of confederated states, Austin adds: "I believe that the German Confederation, which has succeeded to the ancient empire, is merely a system of confederated states. I believe that the present diet is merely an assembly of ambassadors from several confederated but severally independent governments; that the resolutions of the diet are merely articles of agreement which each of the confederated governments spontaneously adopts; and that they owe their legal effect, in each of the compacted communities, to laws and commands which are fashioned upon them by its own immediate chief. I also believe that the Swiss Confederation was and is of the same nature. If, in the case of the German or of the Swiss Confederation, the body of confederated governments enforces its own resolutions, those confederated governments are one composite state, rather than a system of confederated states. The body of confederated governments is properly sovereign: and to that aggregate and sovereign body each of its constituent members is properly in a state of subjection."

FEE SIMPLE. [ESTATE.]
FEE TAIL. [ESTATE.]

FEES, certain sums of money claimed as their perquisite by official persons under the authority of various acts of parliament, and by prescription. The right to fees, as well as the amount payable in most cases connected with the administration of justice, has been regulated by several recent statutes.

Officers demanding improper fees are guilty of extortion.

The rewards paid to barristers and physicians, attorneys and surgeons, for their several services, are called fees, which may be recovered by the two lastnamed by action; but barristers and physicians cannot recover their fees by legal proceeding.

FELLOWSHIP is an establishment

in some colleges which entitles the holder to a share in its revenues. Fellowships are either original, that is, part of the foundation 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, and they are elected after having undergone an examination by the master and fellows or by the master and senior fellows. 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, Cambridge, graduates of both universities are eligible. The rules as to the election of fellows are prescribed by the founder, modified in some cases by the by-laws of the several colleges. Some fellowships 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 30l. and less to 250l. a year and upwards, the senior fellowships being in general the most lucrative; but all confer upon their holders the right to apartments in the college, and certain 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. The condition of celibacy is attached to all fellowships, but it is not peculiar to them; for instance, by the statutes of the founder of Harrow school, the head master ought to vacate his mastership upon marriage, just

as in the case of a fellowship. The college livings are conferred upon the fellows, who in general have the option of taking them in order of seniority.

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 Hawkins, P. C. c. 27, § 4.) When the deceased is found by the coroner and jury a felo-de-se, all his chattels, real and personal, are forfeited to the crown, though they are, we believe, usually restored upon payment of moderate fees. It follows from this rule as to forfeiture, that a will made by a felode-se 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, caused juries in general to find that the deceased was not of sound mind; and by 4 Geo. IV. c. 52. the legislature 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 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 legal implication was 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 have been lately passed (1 Vict. c. 84, 85, 86, &c.) founded upon the principle that the punishment of death should only be inflicted for crimes accompanied with violence. Thus c. 84 substitutes the punishment of transportation for that of death in those cases where death might still be inflicted for forgery; c. 85 materially lessens the severity of the punishment of offences against the person; c. 86 enacts that burglary unaccompanied with violence shall no longer be punished capitally, and provides that, so far as the offence of burglary is concerned, the night shall be considered to commence at nine in the evening and to conclude at six in the morning; c. 87 mitigates the punishment attending the crimes of robbery and stealing from the person; c. 88 renders piracy punishable with death only when murder is attempted; c. 89 regulates the punishment for the crime of arson; c. 90 mitigates the punishment of transportation for life in certain cases; and c. 91 abolishes the punishment of death in the cases there specified. Great numbers of offences were formally liable to this severe punishment. The word felony is now used very vaguely, and it has long been employed to signify the degree of crime rather than the penal consequences. It is sufficient here to state generally, that murder, manslaughter, felo-de-se, robbery, arson, burglary, offences against the coin, &c., are considered and classed as felonies. [LAW, CRIMINAL.]

Besides the special punishment affixed to his crime by the law, a felon upon conviction forfeited the rents and profits of his lands of inheritance during his life to the king (which are now usually compounded for), and also all his goods and chattels absolutely; and as attainder of felony caused corruption of blood, his lands, except of gavelkind tenure, escheated to the lord of the fee. This last consequence, however, was taken away

by stat. 54 Geo. III. c. 145, which enacted. that, except for treason or murder, corruption of blood should not follow attainder; and as difficulties might sometimes occur in tracing descent through an ancestor who had been attainted, it was, by the 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 108, § 10, enacted that descent may be traced through any person who shall have been attainted before such descent shall have taken place. [ATTAINDER; DESCENT; EsCHEAT; FORFEITURE.]

The distinction formerly made between felony with and without benefit of clergy is explained in BENEFIT OF CLERGY. FEME COVERT. [WIFE.] FEME SOLE. [WIFE.] FEOD. [FEUDAL SYSTEM.] FEOFFEE. FEOFFMENT.

FEOFFMENT is that mode of conveying the property in lands or corporeal hereditaments in possession where the land passes by livery in deed, i. e. 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. Livery in law or within view, is when, 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, which was an instrument in writing, 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. term feoffment is evidently of feudal origin, its Latinised form being feoffamentum, from feudare or infeudare, to infeoff, to give a feud; he who confers the feud or fief is the feoffor, and he who receives it the feoffee. This mode of conveyance is common to all nations in rude ages. (Gilbert, Ten. 386.) It prevailed amongst the Anglo-Saxons, who gave possession by the delivery of a twig or a turf, a mode stiil common, particularly in the admission of tenants of copyhold lands. The form of an ancient feoffment was very concise. There is a copy of one in the Appendix to the 2nd vol. of Blackstone's Commentaries, No. 1.

The

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, 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. Still however the land passes by the livery, for if a deed of feoffment is made without livery, an estate at will only passes; though if livery is made, and the deed does not express that the land is conveyed to the feoffee and his heirs, an estate for the life of the feoffee only will pass. No less estate than an estate of freehold can pass by a feoffment with livery, the livery being in fact the investiture with the freehold.

Livery of seisin, of both the kinds previously mentioned, 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 curiæ, "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 without 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 or 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 civilization having rendered this exception unnecessary, it was abolished by the recent Statute of Limitations, 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 27, § 11.

Since the Statute of Uses [USES] has introduced a more convenient mode of conveyance, feoffments have been rarely used. Corporations usually 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. (Gilbert 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 or suffering a recovery, a feoffment was usually employed. Such indeed was the efficacy attributed to this mode of conveyance by the early 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, it has been overruled. The whole state of the question may be found in Mr. Knowler's celebrated argument in Taylor dem. Atkins v. Horde; 1 Burr. 60, Doe dem. Maddock v. Lynes, 3 B. & C. 382; Jerritt v. Wrace, 3 Price, 575; 1 Sanders, Uses, 40 (4th ed.); 1 Preston, Conv. 32 (2nd ed.); and 4 Bythewood, Conv. (Jarman's edit.) 117.

The owner of lands of gavelkind tenure may convey them by feoffment at the age of fifteen; and therefore in such cases, which are rare, a feoffment is still resorted to.

FEOFFOR. [EOFFMENT.]

FERRY, an exclusive privilege by prescription or the king's grant for the carriage of horses and men across a river or arm of the sea for reasonable toll. The owner of a ferry cannot suppress it and put up a bridge in its stead without a licence; but he is bound to keep it always in repair and readiness, with expert men, and reasonable toll, for neglect of which he is liable to be punished by indictment. If a ferry is erected so near to an ancient ferry as to draw away its custom, it is a nuisance to the owner of the old one, for which the law will give him remedy by action. The ferry is in respect of the landing-place, and not of the water, and in every ferry the land on both sides ought originally to have belonged to the same person, otherwise he could not have granted the ferry. (13 Vin. Abr. 208.) But as all existing ferries are of great antiquity, and generally connect roads abutting on each side of the water, the original unity of possession is mere matter of curiosity. A ferry is considered as a common highway. (3 Blackstone, Com.; 13 Viner, Abr. 208.)

FEUD. [FEUDAL SYSTEM.]

FEUDAL SYSTEM. In treating of this subject we shall endeavour to present a concise and clear view of the principles of what is called the feudal system, to indicate the great stages of its history, especially in our own country, and to state briefly the leading considerations to be taken into account in forming an estimate of its influence on the civilization of modern Europe.

The essential constituent and distinguishing characteristic of the species of estate called a feud or fief was from the first, and always continued to be, that it was not an estate of absolute and independent ownership. The property, or dominium directum, as it was called, remained in the grantor of the estate. The person to whom it was granted did not become its owner, but only its tenant or holder. There is no direct proof that fiefs were originally resumable at pleasure, and Mr. Hallam, in his 'State of Europe during the Middle Ages,' has expressed his doubts if this were ever the case; but the position, as he admits, is laid down in almost every writer on the