Glanvill, VII. c. 9. In socage and burgage tenures no incident of wardship was recognized; the guardianship went to the relations of the ward, and not to his feudal lord. Somewhat complicated, but exceedingly equitable, rules applied to socage. The maternal kindred had the custody, if the lands came from the father’s side; the paternal kindred, if from the mother’s side (Glanvill, VII. c. 11). In plain language, the boy and his property were entrusted to those who had no interest in his death. Footnote 95: Littleton, II. iv. s. 103. ----- All the remunerative consequences flowing from escheat flowed also from wardship—rents, casual profits, advowsons, services of villeins, and reliefs. Unlike escheats, however, the right of the Crown here was only temporary, and Magna Carta sought[96] to provide that the implied conditions should be respected by the Crown’s bailiffs or nominees. The lands must not be wasted or exhausted, but restored to the young owner when he came of age in as good condition as they had been at the commencement of the wardship. ----- Footnote 96: See under c. 5. ----- One important aspect of this right ought to be specially emphasized. The Crown’s wardship affected bishoprics as well as lay baronies, extending over the temporalities of a See between the death of one prelate and the instalment of his successor. Thus, it was to the king’s interest to place obstacles in the way of all appointments to vacant sees, since the longer the delay, the longer the Exchequer drew the revenues and casual profits.[97] ----- Footnote 97: What these were may be read in the _Pipe Rolls_, _e.g._, in that of 14 Henry II., when the Bishopric of Lincoln was vacant. This right was carefully reserved to the Crown, even in the very comprehensive charter in which John granted freedom of election, dated 21st November, 1214.[98] ----- Footnote 98: See _Statutes of the Realm, Ch. of Liberties_, p. 5, and _Sel. Charters_, p. 288: “Salva nobis et haeredibus nostris custodia ecclesiarum et monasteriorum vacantium quae ad nos pertinent.” Contrast the terms of Stephen’s Oxford Charter; _Sel. Charters_, pp. 120-1. -----