They are alſo called in our law milites, becauſe they formed a part, or indeed the whole, of the royal army, in virtue of their feodal tenures; one condition of which was, that every one who held a knight's fee (which in Henry the ſecond's time[1] amounted to 20𝑙. per annum) was obliged to be knighted, and attend the king in his wars, or fine for his non-compliance. The exertion of this prerogative, as an expedient to raiſe money in the reign of Charles the firſt, gave great offence; though warranted by law, and the recent example of queen Elizabeth: but it was, at the reſtoration, together with all other military branches of the feodal law, aboliſhed; and this kind of knighthood has, ſince that time, fallen into great diſregard.
These, ſir Edward Coke ſays[2], are all the names of dignity in this kingdom, eſquires and gentlemen being only names of worſhip. But before theſe laſt the heralds rank all colonels, ſerjeants at law, and doctors in the three learned profeſſions.
Esquires and gentlemen are confounded together by ſir Edward Coke, who obſerves[3], that every eſquire is a gentleman, and a gentleman is defined to be one qui arma gerit, who bears coat armour, the grant of which adds gentility to a man's family: in like manner as civil nobility, among the Romans, was founded in the jus imaginum, or having the image of one anceſtor at leaſt, who had borne ſome curule office. It is indeed a matter ſomewhat unſettled, what conſtitutes the diſtinction, or who is a real eſquire: for it is not an eſtate, however large, that confers this rank upon it's owner. Camden, who was himſelf a herald, diſtinguiſhes them the moſt accurately; and he reckons up four ſorts of them[4]: 1. The eldeſt ſons of knights, and their eldeſt ſons, in perpetual ſucceſſion[5]. 2. The younger ſons of peers, and their eldeſt ſons, in like perpetual ſucceſſion: both which ſpecies of eſquires ſir Henry Spelman entitles armigeri natalitii[6]. 3. Eſquires
