Book III: Chapter 2 - Page 2

immediately indeed, but in process of time, in the succession of landed
estates, for the same reason that it has generally taken place in that of
monarchies, though not always at their first institution. That the power,
and consequently the security of the monarchy, may not be weakened by
division, it must descend entire to one of the 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 difference 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,