author’s text, “Custom directed the Descent variously, either to the Eldest or Youngest, or to all the Sons, yet, it seems, that at this time, _Commune Jus_, or Common right spoke for the Eldest Son to be Heir, no custom intervening to the contrary.” (Hist. Com. Law 226.) To conclude, the right of primogeniture every day making a greater progress had, as Mr. Robinson observes, in the Reign of King John fairly got the upper hand of the partible descent, the presumption then being that even Socage Lands (unless in Kent) were descendible to the Eldest Son only, unless the contrary were proved. (26.) Upon the doctrine of the text and the subject of this note, see the authors referred to; also Bracton 76. a. Fleta L. 5. c. 9. s. 15. Mirror c. 1. s. 3. and Co. Litt. 14. a.] [Footnote 226: _Æsneciæ_—Gall. _aisnè_, quasi _ains ne_. The transition is easy from the person of the Elder to his privilege or the right of Seniority. (Spelm. Gloss. ad voc.) The term occurs in the Statute of Marlbridge, Fleta, Bracton, Norman Custumary &c. Among the customs of Beauvoisis, we find a Law similar to that in our text. (c. 14.) But _Thaumas_ observes, that this privilege attached to seniority did not regularly prevail unless _Sur les Heritages nobiles_ (397.) It was clearly not so restrained with us.] [Footnote 227: _Primum Patris feodum primogenitus filius habet._ (LL. Hen. 1. c. 70.) From this Lord Hale collects, that though the whole land did not descend to the Eldest Son, yet it began to look that way. (Hist. Com. Law, 224.) Mr. Somner, however, interprets the _primum feodum_ to be only the Capital Messuage, according to _Glanville_, in the passage now before us, or what is called in the Grand Norman Custum. _le chief de Heritage_ (Anglo-Sax. LL. Ed. Wilkins p. 266.)] [Footnote 228: See Lord Hale’s Comment on this passage, supra note 2. p. 126.] [Footnote 229: Our author professedly resumes the subject of Homage in the 9th Book. We shall, therefore, in this place merely notice that Craig makes the military feud to consist in three things—_Homagium_, _fidelitas_, and _scutagium_. The chief distinctions between the two former _as stated by that author_, are, 1st, The manner of performing Homage was much more humble and impressive, than that of performing Fealty. 2nd, Homage was due for a military Fee alone; a Rule that if it ever prevailed was relaxed by the English Law. 3rd, Homage could only be received by the Lord personally, fealty might be received by a Bailiff. 4th, Those who held by Homage were bound to sell or pledge every thing for their Lord; but the tenant by simple fealty had no such heavy obligation imposed upon him. (Craig Jus Feud. L. 1. D. 11. 10).]