ſcutages 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. Yet afterwards by ſtatute 25 Edw. I. c. 5 & 6. and many ſubſequent ſtatutes[1] it was enacted, that the king ſhould take no aids or taſks but by the common aſſent of the realm. Hence it is held in our old books, that eſcuage or ſcutage could not be levied but by conſent of parliament[2]; ſuch ſcutages being indeed the groundwork of all ſucceeding ſubſidies, and the land-tax of later times.
Since therefore eſcuage differed from knight-ſervice in nothing, but as a compenſation differs from actual ſervice, knight-ſervice is frequently confounded with it. And thus Littleton[3] muſt be underſtood, when he tells us, that tenant by homage, fealty, and eſcuage was tenant by knight-ſervice: that is, that this tenure (being ſubſervient to the military policy of the nation) was reſpected[4] as a tenure in chivalry[5]. But as the actual ſervice was uncertain, and depended upon emergences, ſo it was neceſſary that this pecuniary compenſation ſhould be equally uncertain, and depend on the aſſeſſments of the legiſlature ſuited to thoſe emergences. For had the eſcuage been a ſettled invariable ſum, 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 ſocage[6], of which we ſhall ſpeak in the next chapter.
For the preſent, I have only to obſerve, that by the degenerating of knight-ſervice, or perſonal military duty, into eſcuage, or pecuniary aſſeſſments, all the advantages (either promiſed or real) of the feodal conſtitution were deſtroyed, and nothing but the hardſhips remained. Inſtead of forming a national militia compoſed of barons, knights, and gentlemen, bound by their intereſt, their honour, and their oaths, to defend their king and
