[Footnote 263: “This,” observes Lord Littleton, “appears to extend equally to all kinds of fiefs for which Homage was done, as to those that were held by Knight’s Service.” (3. Hist. Hen. 2. 104. Vide also Craig Jus feud. L. 2. Dieg. 21. s. 8. Bracton 88. a.)] [Footnote 264: Henry the 1st expressly promises, in his Charter, that he will take nothing for his consent, nor will he withhold it, unless it be proposed to unite the female to his enemy. (Anglo-Sax. LL. Ed. Wilkins p. 233.) He promises, also, on the death of his Barons, to marry their Daughters with the advice of the other Barons, and that he will not compel widows to marry again; and he enjoins his Barons, to act in a similar manner towards their Tenants. These regulations were but ill observed. From the text, it is perfectly clear, that the right of marriage extended to females only; but Lords subsequently enlarged their claim, and exercised it also over Male Heirs. This is supposed to have grown up in Henry the 3d’s time from a forced construction of those words of Mag. Car. _Heredes maritentur sine disparagatione_. (Sullivan’s Lectures, p. 130.)] [Footnote 265: The Heir of her Husband, who must, therefore, have frequently been not only her own Son, but an Infant. This may be considered as one of the absurdities of the Feudal system.] [Footnote 266: Under the Assises of Jerusalem, the Widow, generally speaking, was not to be compelled to marry again; but if she did, she was to ask the consent of her Lord. (c. 187.) See also the Mirror c. 1. s. 3. and Bracton 88. a.] [Footnote 267: _De corporibus suis forisfecerunt._ _Forisfacio_ is, according to Spelman, derived from the French _forfaire_. (Gloss. ad voc.) In a proper signification, therefore, and as indicating _forfeiture_, it rather describes the punishment than the offence. The transition is by no means difficult; and, in its application to the crime, it assumes a new meaning, by a gradation in language not unfrequent. The term frequently occurs in the translations of the Saxon and Norman Laws. (Vide LL. Ed. Conf. c. 32. 10. 36. 12. and Gul. 1. c. 1. Hen. 1. c. 23. Vide also Craig L. 3. D. 3. s. 2. Co. Litt. 58. a. and 2 Inst. 227.) Lord Littleton observes, “this was a severe punishment for the frailty of a single woman, and without example in other Laws: but it undoubtedly arose, not so much from a rigorous sense of the heinousness of the fault, as from the notion of an advantage due to the Lord from the marriage of his ward, which he probably might be deprived of by her being dishonored.” (3 Hist. Hen. 2. p. 119.)] [Footnote 268: Vide Mag. Car. Cap. 7, and Lord Coke’s comment thereon. (2 Inst. 16.) See also Robinson on Gavelk. 160 and Bracton 313. a.]