[Footnote 223: “The Normans, introducing their Feuds, settled the whole Inheritance of them upon the Eldest son, which the ancient feudal Law did not (as we before have noted) till feuds were grown perpetual. The reason, as I take it, that begat this alteration was, for that while the feud did descend in Gavelkynd to the sons and nephews of the feudatory, the services were suspended, till the Lord had chosen which of the sons he would have for his Tenant, and then it was uncertain, whether the party chosen would accept of the feud or not, for sometimes there might be reasons to refuse it.” (Spelm. Reliq. p. 43. See also 3 Litt. Hist. Hen. p. 122. and Robinson on Gavelkynd. 22.)] [Footnote 224: _Vide Spelm. Reliq. in libello inscript. Feuds and Tenures by Knight’s Service c. 27. p. 43. and 44._ (Al. MS.)] [Footnote 225: Socage Lands are asserted to have remained partible long after the Conquest, and, as we have no account of the precise period when the alteration was made in the descent of these Lands from all the Sons equally to the Eldest Son only, it is probable, as Mr. Robinson suggests, that the alteration was not effected at once nor by any written Law, but crept in insensibly and by degrees, in imitation of the Descents of Knight’s Service, and from the pride of the Socage Tenant, emulous that his Eldest Son should equal in state and splendor the military Tenant. “But this alteration began to appear more plainly in the time of Henry the 2nd. for, according to _Glanville_, who wrote in that Reign, in order to entitle the Sons to take equally, it was not only necessary that the Land should be holden in free socage, but further _quod antiquitus divisum_”—and, having cited the present and following passages of our author, Mr. Robinson proceeds “So that according to this account, it is difficult to say, what was then the common Law with regard to descents of socage Lands, or whether every person entitling himself to them by Inheritance, was not obliged to set out the special custom of the place. The same author, indeed, in other parts of his Book, speaks of the partibility of these Lands more generally, and in such manner as may induce a belief, that it remained the common Law at that time: _Plurium item hæredum conjunctio mulierum scil. in feodo militari vel masculorum vel fœminarum in libero socagio._ (L. 13. c. 11.) And, in another very remarkable passage, wherein he shews, that the Law so greatly respected this equal division among the Sons, as not to permit the Father even in his lifetime to prefer a favorite child to any of the rest, by advancing him beyond his proportionable part”—referring to the first chapter of the present Book. (Robinson on Gavelkynd 24. 25.) The two latter positions referred to by Mr. Robinson, as laid down by Glanville, may be accounted for by supposing, that our author speaks with reference to Land “_antiquitus divisa_.” “Although,” says Lord Hale, commenting upon a passage in our