children. To which of them so important a
preference shall be given, must be determined
by some general rule, founded not upon the
doubtful distinctions of personal merit, but
upon some plain and evident difference which
can admit of no dispute. Among the children
of the same family there can be no indisputable
differences but that of sex, and that of
age. The male sex is universally preferred
to the female; and when all other things are
equal, the elder everywhere takes place of the
younger. Hence the origin of the right of
primogeniture, and of what is called lineal
succession.
Laws frequently continue in force long after
the circumstances which first gave occasion
to them, and which could alone render
them reasonable, are no more. In the present
state of Europe, the proprietor of a single acre
of land is as perfectly secure in his possession
as the proprietor of 100,000. The right of
primogeniture, however, still continues to be
respected; and as of all institutions it is the
fittest to support the pride of family distinctions,
it is still likely to endure for many centuries.
In every other respect, nothing can
be more contrary to the real interest of a numerous
family, than a right which, in order
to enrich one, beggars all the rest of the children.
Entails are the natural consequences of the
law of primogeniture. They were introduced
to preserve a certain lineal succession, of
which the law of primogeniture first gave the
idea, and to hinder any part of the original
estate from being carried out of the proposed
line, either by gift, or device, or alienation;
either by the folly, or by the misfortune of
any of its successive owners. They were altogether
unknown to the Romans. Neither
their substitutions, nor fidei-commisses, bear
any resemblance to entails, though some
French lawyers have thought proper to dress
the modern institution in the language and
garb of those ancient ones.
When great landed estates were a sort of
principalities, entails might not be unreasonable.
Like what are called the fundamental
laws of some monarchies, they might frequently
hinder the security of thousands from being
endangered by the caprice or extravagance of
one man. But in the present state of Europe,
when small as well as great estates derive their
security from the laws of their country, nothing
can be more completely absurd. They
are founded upon the most absurd of all suppositions,
the supposition that every successive
generation of men have not an equal right to
the earth, and to all that it possesses; but that
the property of the present generation should
be restrained and regulated according to the the
fancy of those who died, perhaps five hundred
years ago. Entails, however, are still respected,
through the greater part of Europe;
in those countries, particularly, in which noble
birth is a necessary qualification for the
enjoyment either of civil or military honours.
Entails are thought necessary for maintaining
this exclusive privilege of the nobility to the
great offices and honours of their country;
and that order having usurped one unjust advantage
over the rest of their fellow-citizens,
lest their poverty should render it ridiculous,
it is thought reasonable that they should have
another. The common law of England, indeed,
is said to abhor perpetuities, and they
are accordingly more restricted there than in
any other European monarchy; though even
England is not altogether without them. In
Scotland, more than one fifth, perhaps more
one third part of the whole lands in the
country, are at present supposed to be under
strict entail.
Great tracts of uncultivated land were in
this manner not only engrossed by particular
families, but the possibility of their being divided
again was as much as possible precluded
for ever. It seldom happens, however,
that a great proprietor is a great improver.
In the disorderly times which gave birth to
those barbarous institutions, the great proprietor
was sufficiently employed in defending his
own territories, or in extending his jurisdiction
and authority over those of his neighbours.
He had no leisure to attend to the
cultivation and improvement of land. When
the establishment of law and order afforded
this leisure, he often wanted the inclination,
and almost always the requisite abilities.
If the expense of his house and person either
equalled or exceeded his revenue, as it did
very frequently, he had no stock to employ in
this manner. If he was an economist, he generally
found it more profitable to employ his
annual savings in new purchases than in the
improvement of his old estate. To improve
land with profit, like all other commercial projects,
requires an exact attention to small savings
and small gains, of which a man born to
a great fortune, even though naturally frugal,
is very seldom capable. The situation of such
a person naturally disposes him to attend rather
to ornament, which pleases his fancy, than
to profit, for which he has so little occasion.
The elegance of his dress, of his equipage, of
his house and household furniture, are objects
which, from his infancy, he has been accustomed
to have some anxiety about. The turn
of mind which this habit naturally forms, follows
him when he comes to think of the improvement
of land. He embellishes, perhaps,
four or five hundred acres in the neighbourhood
of his house, at ten times the expense
which the land is worth after all his improvements;
and finds, that if he was to improve
his whole estate in the same manner, and he
has little taste for any other, he would be a
bankrupt before he had finished the tenth part
of it. There still remain, in both parts of the
united kingdom, some great estates which have