in immediate
reversion.

W. T. T.

As a very brief reply to the queries of J. B., permit me to make the
following observations.

The Queen is lady paramount of all the lands in England; every estate in
land being holden, immediately or mediately, of the crown. This doctrine
was settled shortly after the Norman Conquest, and is still an axiom of
law.

Until the statute _Quia Emptores_, 18 Edw. I., a tenant in fee simple might
grant lands to be holden by the grantee and his heirs _of the grantor and
his heirs_, subject to feudal services and to escheat; and by such
subinfeudation manors were created.

The above-named statute forbade the future subinfeudation of lands, and
consequently hindered the further creation of manors. Since the statute a
seller of the fee can but transfer his tenure. There are instances in which
one manor is holden of another, both having been created before the
statute.

In the instance mentioned by J. B. it is presumed that the hamlet escheated
to the heirs of A. on failure of the heirs of B. (See the statute _De Donis
Conditionalibus_, 13 Edw. I.)

It is not, and never was, necessary, or even possible, that the lord of a
manor should be the owner of all the lands therein; on the contrary, if he
were, there would be no manor; for a manor cannot subsist without a court
baron, and there can be no such court unless there are _freehold_ tenants
(at least two in number) holding of the lord. The land retained by the lord
consists of his own demesne and the wastes, which last comprise the
highways and commons. If the lord should alienate all the lands, but retain
his lordship, the latter becomes a _seignory in gross_.

Such was and is the tenure of lands in England, so far as concerns the
queries of J. B. He will find the subject lucidly explained at great length
in the second volume of Blackstone's _Commentaries_.

I. CTUS.

Lincoln's Inn.

I think that J. B. will find in Blackstone, or any elementary book on the
law of real property, all the information which he requires. The case which
he puts was, I suppose, the common case {310} of subinfeudation before the
statute of _Quia Emptores_, 18 Edw. I. A., the feoffor, reserved to himself
no estate or reversion in the land, but the seignory only, with the rent
and services, by virtue of which he might again become entitled to the land
by escheat, as for want of heirs of the feoffee, or by forfeiture, as for
felony. If the feoffment were in