difference, in the consequences, between the
distribution of a pecuniary subsistence, and the assignment of lands
burdened with the condition of military service. The delivery of the
former, at the weekly, monthly, or annual terms of payment, still
recalls the idea of a voluntary gratuity from the prince, and reminds
the soldier of the precarious tenure by which he holds his commission.
But the attachment naturally formed with a fixed portion of land
gradually begets the idea of something like property, and makes the
possessor forget his dependent situation, and the condition which was
at first annexed to the grant. It seemed equitable that one who had
cultivated and sowed a field should reap the harvest: hence fiefs,
which were at first entirely precarious, were soon made annual. A man
who had employed his money in building, planting, or other
improvements, expected to reap the fruits of his labour or expense:
hence they were next granted during a term of years. It would be
thought hard to expel a man from his possessions, who had always done
his duty, and performed the conditions on which he originally received
them: hence the chieftains, in a subsequent period, thought themselves
entitled to demand the enjoyment of their feudal lands during life.
It was found that a man would more willingly expose himself in battle,
if assured that his family should inherit his possessions, and should
not be left by his death in want and poverty: hence fiefs were made
hereditary in families, and descended, during one age, to the son,
then to the grandson, next to the brothers, and afterwards to more
distant relations [d]. The idea of property stole in gradually upon
that of military pay; and each century made some sensible addition to
the stability of fiefs and tenures.
[FN [d] Lib. Feud. lib. I. tit. 1.]

In all these successive acquisitions, the chief was supported by his
vassals; who, having originally a strong connexion with him, augmented
by the constant intercourse of good offices, and by the friendship
arising from vicinity and dependence, were inclined to follow their
leader against all his enemies, and voluntarily, in his private
quarrels, paid him the same obedience, to which, by their tenure, they
were bound in foreign wars. While he daily advanced new pretensions
to secure the possession of his superior fief, they expected to find
the same advantage, in acquiring stability to their subordinate ones;
and they zealou