IN a previous article I reviewed the opinions of various historians on the origin and significance of feudalism and ventured to state some of my own.' Feudalism proper, I concluded, was essentially political, being a phase of government developed by the Frankish kings through the granting of benefices to their vassals. Originally the fief was not any benefice, but a military benefice; the vassal was not any man of a lord, but a military retainer. Vassalage, whatever the derivation of the word, was directly descended from the Germanic custom that Tacitus called the comitatus. Although the benefice was the outgrowth of the Roman precarium, feudal tenure was wholly medieval in that the fief was a benefice held by a vassal. By rewarding their vassals with fiefs, the Carolingians sought to provide themselves with a force of heavy-armed cavalry; by insisting that all great officials should be their vassals, they hoped to strengthen the royal administration; and by extending the privilege of immunity to all fief-holders, they deliberately gave numerous powers of local government to the feudal aristocracy. The disintegration of the Carolingian Empire resulted from its inherent weakness, not from the feudalizing policy of its rulers. Feudal institutions worked effectively in many of the small states that had emerged by the middle of the tenth century. The usefulness of feudal tenures, feudal armies, feudal castles, and the like is evinced by the fact that they came to be adopted throughout medieval Europe. To misunderstand feudalism is to misunderstand the political life of the Middle Ages. The purpose of the present article2 is to apply these conclusions to the feudalism of England, a subject on which a formidable mass of writing has already accumulated. Happily for the reviewer, however, a good part of the mass may be disregarded as too antiquated to require discussion. None of the old constitutional histories of England need even be mentioned except that by William Stubbs.' His views on the feudal development of England may be cited because they show how confused the whole matter remained until J. H. Round had clearly stated and effectively solved the central prob-