.

Land ownership through the ages has assumed many forms. Throughout its development, run two predominant threads of thought. One is land hunger, the desire to secure sufficient land for one's existence; the other is the lust for power expressed in control of land and, consequently, of its inhabitants. The early history of England demonstrates these trends.

The Celts are the earliest known race of historical times. But even they had conquered and held an subjection a race of Iberians to whom were allotted only sufficient lands for their needs. All the better lands were divided among the Celts according to tribes. The tribal holdings were further subdivided among the freemen, the head of each family receiving in his name the family allotment. Each family had a right to its acre strips, its homestead, and pasturage lands.

The right of partibility was early recognized, but was exercised with difficulty. The consent of the family was required in order to deed land, not an easy matter where each man's existence depended directly upon the product of the soil.

As freemen the Celts were required to take up arms and furnish services to their lord and king in time of war. Since war was fairly constant, there arose a system whereby each man's contribution and service became a charge upon the land. The Druids, the priestly caste, were also able to impose their exactions as a permanently attached lien. Debtors impressed the terms of their debt upon their land holdings. It was the only known security.

Another factor had a great influence upon the tenure of land at this time; the system of patron and dependent. In times of insecurity, and these were frequent, the Celt sought the protection of a powerful lord for the safety of his household. In return, he swore fealty to his patron, rendered him service, and paid him tribute out of the produce of the soil.

Thus, over the course of centuries, the land became burdened with many charges. Ownership, such as it was, still remained in the hands of the freeman, but the lord had a superiority while the freeman had the use. In fact, it is a question whether, at the time of the Roman invasion, the free Celt was any better off economically then the subject Iberian alongside him.

While Rome never completely conquered England -- its influence was confined to the lowlands -- it made an lasting contribution to English thought by establishing the concept of private land ownership.

Roman generals received large grants of land for their own. Land speculators from conquering Rome bought extensive tracts and estates. Tribal chiefs, in return for swearing allegiance to Roman arms, received title to lands formerly held by the tribal unit. These chiefs became the owners of the land, subject only to the levies and taxes paid to Rome. The settlers on these lands paid tribute either in services or in kind to their lords, who gave them protection from the hordes of savage Picts and confirmed them in their titles.

The Romans also introduced the idea of the town as a convenient unit. Not only did the town control its own land, but the surrounding villages, the neighboring farms and homesteads, paid tribute to it. These towns the Romans regarded much as we look upon our incorporated cities, as a tax-collecting entity subject to a superior political unit.

When Rome abandoned the island in 450 A.D. there followed a period of chaos. The Picts broke through from the west, the Angles and Saxons ravaged the coasts and rivers. Land tenure now rested upon force; and force succeeded force. The institution of patron and dependent persisted, since it offered the only possible security. At last the Anglo-Saxons gained control and there emerged a settled state of society. About 878 A. D., King Alfred succeeded to some extent in imposing his rule, and land titles took coherent form.

At the head of the state was the King in whom all title to land was vested. This was the concept of tribal ownership carried to its logical conclusion. Both Celts and Saxons, closely akin by ties of blood, maintained this tradition. While the king held some land in demesne, land which he devised at will, the land of the realm was his only as head of the kingdom. He could never alienate land. Nevertheless, he did.

There wore many potent reasons for this alienation. His retainers and followers had to be paid; his regal establishment and powers must be maintained; and then, his salvation. This last received its great impetus through the importunities of the Church, which stressed its need of land for the Glory of God and the salvation of the king's soul.

It was the Church which pointed the way to the alienation of land. Its ministers were trained in the customs of imperial Rome, from which had come the institution of private ownership. They were versed in the subleties of argumentation and in the intricacies of theology. Theirs was the solution which retained the forms of tribal ownership, but alienated the substance.

Land tenure in those days rested in definite social strata, those of the lowest stratum performing duties and services for those of the next, until the uppermost step was reached and all duties were performed for the king. To demand the performance of these duties was the privilege of the King. In other words, he had a superiority. This could he alienated. So the Church taught. Since it was a royal prerogative, he could dispose of it as he chose.

This idea gained great popularity. It made little difference to the masses to whom they paid their dues, but to the king and all his underlings it opened a new vista. It gave them an opportunity to gain more power, more wealth, for what was true of the king could equally well be said of the thanes, the land-holding nobles. They, too, had a superiority.

As a result, land in King Alfred's time was fairly well divided or rapidly tending toward that end. All claimed their superiority from the king. The direct recipients of the king's favors were the thanes, or land nobles, and the Church. Below these great landholders were the freeman, the warriors, tenants holding under the former. These tilled the soil and rendered services to their lords. There were some freemen who held their land free from all service, but these rapidly disappeared because of economic pressure. The town, too, retained its landholding powers and was firmly established as an economic necessity.

Then, too, there was a large body of laborers, peasants, shepherds, etc., who were serfs permanently bound to the soil, but not permitted to own land. For the purpose of our inquiry, they may be disregarded.

There were two principal kinds of land tenure. One was book-land, held under written instrument from the king. The other, covering a vast amount of land, was held without charter. This last is called folk-land. Many have sought to identify folk-land with land held in common, but it was quite different. Folk-land was held without written instrument or charter by freemen who tilled the soil and rendered service to thane and Church; their tenancy was based on oral contact or tradition. The conclusion is irresistible. With increasing demands upon the royal exchequer, folk-land tended to vanish.

An instrument of power, based on land tenure, was early introduced by the Church. By leasing lands to thanes and powerful nobles for a term of years, the Church could cornmand their services and enroll them as their dependents. Such leased land was termed loan-land.

Roughly speaking, this system of land ownership, at the time of the Norman conquest, had attained a four-story structure. At the base or first story, the cultivators consisting of the freemen and the serfs; above these, the lords of the lands who held their title in various manner from the Church or the Thane; in the third story, the Church or Thane who held directly from the king; and at the very top the king in whom vested all titles and from whom all privileges were derived.

If we keep in mind this image of a four-story building, it will serve to give us a fair picture of land conditions in those days. It contained all the germs of the succeeding feudal society. It comprised many of the elements which later were to prove so vital and powerful. It had many of the fundamentals which have persisted to this very day.