and no other pre-eminence; and as the eldeſt daughter had afterwards the principal maniion, when the eſtate deſcended in coparcenary[1]. The Greeks, the Romans, the Britons, the Saxons, and even originally the feudiſts, divided the lands equally; ſome among all the children at large, ſome among the males only. This is certainly the moſt obvious and natural way; and has the appearance, at leaſt in the opinion of younger brothers, of the greateſt impartiality and juſtice. But when the emperors began to create honorary feuds, or titles of nobility, it was found neceſſary (in order to preſerve their dignity) to make them impartible[2], or (as they ſtiled them) feuda individua, and in conſequence deſcendible to the eldeſt ſon alone. This example was farther enforced by the inconveniences that attended the ſplitting of eſtates; namely, the diviſion of the military ſervices, the multitude of infant tenants incapable of performing any duty, the conſequential weakening of the ſtrength of the kingdom, and the inducing younger ſons to take up with the buſineſs and idleneſs of a country life, inſtead of being ſerviceable to themſelves and the public, by engaging in mercantile, in military, in civil, or in eccleſiaſtical employments[3]. Theſe reaſons occaſioned an almoſt total change in the method of feodal inheritances abroad; ſo that the eldeſt male began univerſally to ſucceed to the whole of the lands in all military tenures: and in this condition the feodal conſtitution was eſtabliſhed in England by William the conqueror.
Yet we find, that ſocage eſtates frequently deſcended to all the ſons equally, ſo lately as when Glanvil[4] wrote, in the reign of Henry the ſecond; and it is mentioned in the mirror[5] as a part of our antient conſtitution, that knights' fees ſhould deſcend to the eldeſt ſon, and ſocage fees ſhould be partible among the male children. However in Henry the third's time we find by Bracton[6] that ſocage lands, in imitation of lands in chivalry, had
