24.—(VI.)

Fines for Alienation.—"It is very certain," says Sir Martin Wright ^d, "that our fees or estates could not at common law be aliened without the license and consent of the lord." Also, from the reciprocal nature of the feudal obligation, as stated by Plowden in the note below, the lord could not alienate his seignory without the consent of his tenant, which consent was called an attornment ^e. It is curious and instructive to observe what has taken place in regard to this relation, as between the Kings of England and their tenants in capite. This restraint upon the tenants' alienation gradually, wore away. For whereas, anciently, alienation by the tenants in capite without license involved a forfeiture ^f, these tenants in capite were, by the statute 1 Ed. III. c. 12, permitted to aliene on paying a fine to the king; which was settled at one-third of the yearly value for a license of alienation, and a full year's value for alienation without license ^g; and finally these fines for alien-action were, in all cases of freehold tenure, entirely abolished by the statute 12 Car. II. c. 24 (1660). On the other hand the doctrine of attornments continued till the passing of the statute 4 and 5 Anne c. 16, which from the first day of Trinity term, 1706, rendered all grants and conveyances thereafter to be made of any manors, rents, &c., good to all intents and purposes, without any attornment of the tenants ^h. But it is to observed, that in the case of the king and his tenants, while the tenants enjoy all the fruits of the feudal compact, discharged from all the obligations, the lord is still subject to the obligation, that is, the doctrine of attornment is still substantially in force as regards him.