caſes the land eſcheated, or fell back, to the lord of the fee[1]; that is, the tenure was determined by breach of the original condition, expreſſed or implied in the feodal donation. In the one caſe, there were no heirs ſubſiſting of the blood of the firſt feudatory or purchaſer, to which heirs alone the grant of the feud extended: in the other, the tenant, by perpetrating an atrocious crime, ſhewed that he was no longer to be truſted as a vaſal, having forgotten his duty as a ſubject; and therefore forfeited his feud, which he held under the implied condition that he ſhould not be a traitor or a felon. The conſequence of which in both caſes was, that the gift, being determined, reſulted back to the lord who gave it[2].
These were the principal qualities, fruits, and conſequences of the tenure by knight-ſervice: a tenure, by which the greateſt part of the lands in this kingdom were holden, and that principally of the king in capite, till the middle of the laſt century; and which was created, as ſir Edward Coke expreſſly teſtifies[3], for a military purpoſe; viz. for defence of the realm by the king's own principal ſubjects, which was judged to be much better than to truſt to hirelings or foreigners. The deſcription here given is that of knight-ſervice proper; which was to attend the king in his wars. There were alſo ſome other ſpecies 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-ſervice proper, and becauſe they were attended with ſimilar fruits and conſequences. Such was the tenure by grand ſerjeanty, per magnum ſervitium, whereby the tenant was bound, inſtead of ſerving the king generally in his wars, to do ſome ſpecial honorary ſervice to the king in perſon; as to carry his banner, his ſword, or the like; or to be his butler, champion, or other officer at his coronation[4]. It was in moſt other reſpects like knight-ſervice[5]; only he was
