These two forms of tenure existed in the Roman empire. The proprietors of latifundia understood that, instead of havingtheir lands cultivated by slaves working badly under the supervision of a steward always inclined to rob his master, it wasmore to their advantage to grant the farm to coloni , enjoying the produce of their labour, in consideration of a share in theharvest It was to the interest of these coloni to cultivate well; the total produce was greater, and, consequently, while their conditionwas improved, the income of the proprietor was increased. In this way was created the class of coloni medietarii , ormetayers, which has lasted till our own times. The condition of the serfs in Germany, as depicted by Tacitus, was similar tothat of the Roman coloni . Each had his dwelling, the master merely exacting a certain rent in corn, cattle, or garments, as hewould have done from a colonus . The Roman precarium and the benefice of the first period of the middle ages had the samecharacteristic, namely, a grant of enjoyment for life made by the proprietor, either gratuitously or in consideration of a rent.
Grants of precaria were frequent even under the Empire. Grants of benefices became even more so in the middle ages,because, in default of slave labour, they afforded a means of turning to account land which the proprietor could not cultivatehimself. Long leases became also a very general mode of tenure. The proprietor granted the cultivator a hereditary right ofoccupation of the land, reserving the payment of a "canon," or annual rent, and of a fine in case of alienation. In the emphyteusis , as also in the case of the colonus or metayer , the double property, characteristic of "censive" tenure, isrecognized, the suzerain reserving the eminent domain with the rents to which it entitles him, the cultivator having ahereditary right of occupation.
The Military tenure, or the feod , was also known to the Romans. On the confines of the Empire, along the whole length ofthe Rhine and the Danube, the State had granted lands, agri limitrophi , to veterans, who undertook to perform militaryservice in case of need. This is precisely the system of frontier regiments organized by Austria on the Turkish frontier. (4) TheState reserved the eminent domain; the veterans had possession on condition of carrying arms. Such also was the conditionof the vassal with regard to his suzerain. The monarchs of German origin, under whom feudalism was established, hadmerely to imitate the system which they saw before them. The majority of these veterans moreover were themselvesGermans, enrolled in the imperial armies and established on Roman territory for its defence. The other obligations of thefeudal beneficiary, such as assisting the suzerain to portion his daughter and to equip his son, to protect them duringminority, and to pay his ransom if he were made prisoner, were derived in some cases from the condition of the client, inothers from that of the German leude .
We can also find germs of the feudal system in an ancient custom of the village communities. Among the lots of arable land,some, as we have seen, were destined to serve as an honorarium for certain offices and certain crafts. These lands, so givenas salary, evidently amounted to fiefs. The same custom existed in the Hindoo or Javanese village. The office or the craft,and consequently the lot of earth attached to it, was often transmitted from father to son. Hence there resulted a tendency toestablish hereditary succession, which also displayed itself in feudal benefices, and eventually, as we know, triumphed underthe last Carlovingians. But in a part of India, hereditary title to land was established in favour of the Zemindars and Taluqdárs by the English, and a single clause of law thus effected instantly a transformation in social order, which was onlyaccomplished in Europe by a slow evolution of several centuries.
As the German sovereigns took no taxes, their only means of rewarding services was by granting benefices, or feods. Thefamilies, on the one hand, who had formed large domains for themselves by clearing land and by the creation of manses orfarms, and the beneficiary lords, on the other, constituted a superior class of landed proprietors, whose power and richesincreased with the advance of civilization.. Below them, nevertheless, among the cultivators, whose condition was constantlygrowing worse, the ancient institutions of the mark long prevailed. Private property, it is true, was gradually introduced forthe arable land, except in certain remote districts, as in Switzerland and the banks of the Sarre, where periodic partitionsurvives to our own day; but the pasturage and forest remained common property, and allowed of the preservation of theadministrative institutions of the mark .
At an early period the collective domain of the village was exposed to the usurpation s of the sovereign and the feudal lords.
