[Footnote 204: The Regiam Majestatem lays it down, that a man _cannot_ give any part of his Inheritance to his illegitimate Son. (L. 2. c. 19.) The Grand Norman Custumary also expressly denies the validity of a gift, sale, delivery, or pledge, by a Father, to his illegitimate Son of any part of the former’s hereditary Estate, adding that it might be impeached within a year and a day after the Father’s decease. (Le Grand Custum. de Norm. c. 36.) We must recollect that both these celebrated works were _posterior_ to Glanville—the Law, therefore, had, in the point now before us, undergone some alteration in the intervening period.] [Footnote 205: Vide Sullivan’s Lectures on the Laws of England, p. 149.] [Footnote 206: It is observed by a justly celebrated writer that, in the old restraints upon alienation, which we find in the Laws of England and Scotland, no distinction is made, whether the fief was held by a military or socage tenure; and that, in the same old Laws, the restraint upon alienation is almost absolute, where the Tenant is in by descent, but very loose when he is in by purchase; and the writer in question concludes that, the _Interest of the Heir_ created the difference. (Vide Dalrymple on Feuds p. 80.) The writer just mentioned furnishes an excellent comment upon this part of our Author. (c. 3. s. 1.)] [Footnote 207: _Hæres remotior._ _Hæres remotior_ has a peculiar signification in our Author. Except a Son and Daughter, who were _Hæredes proximi_, every Heir was _hæres remotior_. See cap. 3. of this Book. No Heir, says the Reg. Maj. being of farther degree than the son or daughter, may impugn that gift any manner of ways. (L. 2. c. 20.)] [Footnote 208: Vide Craig de Jure Feud. p. 349. 354. 368. and also Somner on Gavelkynd.] [Footnote 209: _Primo patris feudum primogenitus filius habeat: Emptiones vero vel deinceps acquisitiones suas det cui magis valit._ (LL. Hen. 1. cap. 70.)] [Footnote 210: _Socagium. Dici poterit socagium a Socco._ (Bracton L. 2. c. 35.) _Hinc est quod Sokemanni hodie dicuntur esse a succo etiam derivantur._ (Fleta L. 1. c. 8.) _Socagium idem est quod servitium socæ, et soca idem est quod caruca s. a soke_ or _a plough_. (Littleton’s Tenures Sect. 119.) This derivation Lord Coke approves of (Co. Litt. 86. a.) See also Cowell ad voc. Mr. Somner, however, disapproves of it, as too confined. He would derive it from the Saxon _Soc_, which signifies liberty or privilege, and _agium_ to denote the _agenda_ or Services (Somn. Gavelk. 133. See also Bl. Com. and Mr. Christian’s note 2. 81.) “It seems,” says Mr. Hargrave, “that both derivations have their share of probability, which is as much as can be expected on a subject so very uncertain.” Mr. Somner tells us, that the term socage has first occurred to him in Glanville, but never as yet in any Elder record. (Gavelk. p. 143.)]