great offence, though warranted by law, and the recent example of Queen Elizabeth: but it was, at the reftoration, together with all other military branches of the feodal law, abolished; and this kind of knighthood has fince that time fallen into great difrepute."

After what has been faid, I need hardly obferve, that this learned and able writer has confounded the knight of honour and the knight of tenure; and that the requifition to take knighthood was not made to every poffeffor of a knight's fee, but to the tenants of knight's fees held in capite of the crown, who had merely a fufficiency to maintain the dignity, and were thence difpofed not to take it. The idea that the whole force of the royal army confifted of knights of honour, or dubbed knights, is fo extraordinary a circumstance, that it might have fhewn of itself to this eminent writer the fource of his error. Had every foldier in the feudal army received the investiture of arms? could he wear a feal, furpass in filken dress, use enfigns-armorial, and enjoy all the other privileges of knighthood?. But, while I hazard these remarks, my reader will obferve, that it is with the greateft deference I diffent from Sir William Blackftone, whose abilities are the object of a most general and deserved admiration.

The one class of knights was of a high antiquity; the other was not heard of till the invention of a fee. The adorning with arms and the blow of the sword made the act of the creation of the ancient knight; the new knight was conftituted by an investment in a piece of land. The former was the member of an order of dignity which had particular privileges and diftinctions; the latter was the receiver of a feudal grant. Knighthood was an honour; knightservice a tenure. The firft communicated fplendor to an army; the laft gave it ftrength and numbers. The knight of honour might ferve in any ftation whatever; the knight of tenure was in the rank of a fol

dier.--

dier.---It is true at the fame time, that every noble and baron were knights of tenure, as they held their lands by knight-fervice. But the number of fees they poffeffed, and their creation into rank, separated them widely from the fimple individuals to whom they gave out grants of their lands, and who were merely the knights of tenure. It is no less true, that the fovereign, without conferring nobility, might give even a fingle fee to a tenant; and fuch vaffals in capite of the crown, as well as the vaffals of fingle fees from a fubject, were the mere knights of tenure. But the former, in refpect of their holding from the crown, were to be called to take upon themselves the knighthood of honour; a condition in which they might rise from the ranks, and be promoted to offices and command. And as to the vaffals in capite of the crown who had many fees, their wealth of itself sufficiently diftinguished them beyond the state of the mere knights of tenure. In fact, they poffeffed an authority over men who were of this laft defcription; for, in proportion to their lands were the fees they gave out and the knights they commanded.

By the tenure of knight-fervice, the greatest part of the lands in England were holden, and that principally of the king in capite, till the middle of the laft century; and which was created, as Sir Edward Coke exprefsly teftifies, for a military purpose, viz. for defence of the realm by the king's own principal fubjects, which was judged to be much better than to truft to hirelings or foreigners. The description here given is that of knight-fervice proper, which was to attend the king in his wars, There were also fome other fpecies of knight-service; so called, though improperly, because the service or render was of a free and honourable nature, and equally uncertain as to the time of rendering as that of knight-fervice proper, and because they were attended with fimilar fruits and confequences. Such was the tenure by grand ferjeanty, VOL. I. No. 1. D

per

1

per magnum fervitium, whereby the tenant was bound, inftead of ferving the king generally in his wars, to do some special honorary fervice to the king in perfon; as to carry his banner, his fword, or the like; or be his butler, champion, or other officer, at his coronation. It was, in most other respects, like knight-fervice, only he was not bound to pay aid or efcuage; and when tenant by knight-fervice paid five pounds for a relief on every knight's fee, tenant by grandferjeanty paid one year's value of his land, were it much or little. Tenure by cornage, which was to wind a horn when the Scots or other enemies entered the land, in order to warn the king's fubjects, was (like other fervices of the fame nature) a fpecies of grandferjeanty.

Thefe fervices, both of chivalry and grand-ferjeanty, were all perfonal, and uncertain as to their quantity or duration. But the perfonal attendance in knight-fervice growing troublefome and inconvenient in many refpects, the tenants found means of compounding for it, by firft fending others in their ftead, and in procefs of time making a pecuniary fatisfaction to the lords in lieu of it. This pecuniary fatisfaction at laft came to be levied by affeffments, at fo much for every knight's fee; and therefore this kind of tenure was called fcutagium in Latin, or fervitium fcuti; fcutum being then a well-known denomination of money: and in like manner it is called, in our Norman French, efcuage; being indeed a pecuniary instead of a military service. The first time this appears to have been taken, was in the 5 Hen. II. on account of his expedition to Touloufe; but it foon came to be fo univerfal, that perfonal attendance fell quite into difufe. Hence we find in our ancient hiftories, that, from this period when our kings went to war, they levied fcutages on their tenants, that is on all the landholders of the kingdom, to defray their expences and to hire troops: and these affeffments in the time of Henry II.

feem

T

seem to have been made quite arbitrarily, and at the king's pleasure. Which prerogative being greatly abused by his fucceffors, it became matter of national clamour; and King John was obliged to confent, by his magna charta, that no fcutage fhould be impofed without confent of parliament. But this clause was omitted in his fon Henry III.'s charter; where we only find, that fcutages or escuage should be taken as they were used to be taken in the time of Henry II. that is, in a reasonable and moderate manner. afterwards, by ftatute 25 Edw. I. c. 5 & 6. and many fubfequent statutes, it was enacted, that the king fhould take no aids or tasks but by the common affent of the realm. Hence it is held in our old books, that efcuage or fcutage could not be levied but by confent of parliament; fuch fcutages being indeed the groundwork of all fucceeding fubfidies, and the land-tax of later times.

Yet

Since, therefore, efcuage differed from knight-fervice in nothing but as a compenfation differs from actual fervice, knight-fervice is fo frequently confounded with it. And thus Littleton must be understood, when he tells us, that tenant by homage, fealty, and efcuage, was tenant by knight-fervice: that is, that this tenure (being fubfervient to the military policy of the nation) was respected as a tenure in chivalry. But as the actual fervice was uncertain, and depended upon emergencies, fo it was neceffary that this pecuniary compenfation fhould be equally uncertain, and depend on the affeffments of the legislature fuited to those emergencies. For had the efcuage been a fettled invariable fum, payable at certain times, it had been neither more nor less than a mere pecuniary rent; and the tenure, instead of knight-service, would have then been of another kind, called Soccage.

By the degenerating of knight-fervice, or perfonal military duty, into efcuage or pecuniary affeffments, D 2

all

all the advantages (either promifed or real) of the feodal conftitutions were deftroyed, and nothing but the hardships remained. Inftead of forming a national militia compofed of barons, knights, and gentlemen, bound by their interest, their honour, and their oaths, to defend their king and country, the whole of this fyftem of tenures now tended to nothing elfe but a wretched means of raising money to pay an army of occafional mercenaries. In the mean time the families of all our nobility and gentry groaned under the intolerable burdens which, in confequence of the fiction adopted after the conqueft, were introduced and laid upon them by the subtlety and fineffe of the Norman lawyers. For, befides the fcutages to which they were liable in defect of personal attendance, which, however, were affeffed by themselves in parliament, they might be called upon by the king or lord paramount for aids, whenever his eldeft fon was to be knighted, or his eldeft daughter married; not to forget the ransom of his own perfon. The heir, on the death of his ancestor, if of full age, was plundered of the first emoluments arising from his inheritance, by way of relief and primer feifin; and if under age, of the whole of his eftate during infancy. And then, as Sir Thomas Smith very feelingly complains, "when he came to his own, after he was out of wardship, his woods decayed, houses fallen down, stock wafted and gone, lands let forth and ploughed to be barren," to make amends, he was yet to pay half a year's profits as a fine for fuing out his livery; and alfo the price or value of his marriage, if he refused such wife as his lord and guardian had bartered for and impofed upon him; or twice that value, if he married another woAdd to this, the untimely and expenfive honour of knighthood, to make his poverty more completely fplendid. And when, by these deductions, his fortune was fo fhattered and ruined, that perhaps

'man.

2

he