In view of the city's early connection with the Kentish kingdom, it is difficult to see any other satisfactory explanation of such a remarkable parallelism between its customs and those of Kent than a settlement of Kentish people in it and on the east and north of it; and when we take into consideration the early overlordship of Æthelbert, King of Kent, in relation to Essex, that explanation is strengthened. The Norman Kings, who desired to see a uniform system of primogeniture established, nevertheless respected these ancient customs of inheritance, so different from the rural primogeniture which prevailed in Normandy, or the feudal primogeniture which they established over almost the whole of England. We know that the partition of the lands, which was an ancient custom on some great manors in various parts of England, was allowed to continue in many instances, for cases have survived until our own time. In his general code of law, William I. expressly allowed it, but we know that the change from old customs of inheritance to primogeniture of the feudal type went on nevertheless, so that in a century or two after the Norman Conquest the survivals of customs of inheritance other than primogeniture became much rarer than they must have been during the Saxon period. Glanville, who wrote in the time of Henry II., tells us that partible inheritance was in his time only recognised by the courts of law in those places where it could be proved that the lands always had been divided.[1] Consequently, as the custom was allowed to continue on the manors to the north and east of London, it must have been proved to have been an immemorial custom to the satisfaction of the law in the twelfth century—i.e., it must have been shown to have been the usage during the Saxon period. The custom of dividing the inheritance that prevailed among the German tribes in the time of Tacitus, which was of immemorial usage
- ↑ Glanville, R. de, ‘Tract, de leg. et cons. Angliæ,’ lib. vii., chap. iii.
