But though this natural order of things must have taken place in some degree in every such society, it has, in all the modern states of Europe, been, in many respects, entirely inverted.The foreign commerce of some of their cities has introduced all their finer manufactures, or such as were fit for distant sale; and manufactures and foreign commerce together have given birth to the principal improvements of agriculture.The manners and customs which the nature of their original government introduced, and which remained after that government was greatly altered, necessarily forced them into this unnatural and retrograde order.
CHAPTER II
Of the Discouragement of Agriculture in the ancient State of Europe after the Fall of the Roman Empire WHEN the German and Scythian nations overran the western provinces of the Roman empire, the confusions which followed so great a revolution lasted for several centuries.The rapine and violence which the barbarians exercised against the ancient inhabitants interrupted the commerce between the towns and the country.The towns were deserted, and the country was left uncultivated, and the western provinces of Europe, which had enjoyed a considerable degree of opulence under the Roman empire, sunk into the lowest state of poverty and barbarism.During the continuance of those confusions, the chiefs and principal leaders of those nations acquired or usurped to themselves the greater part of the lands of those countries.A great part of them was uncultivated; but no part of them, whether cultivated or uncultivated, was left without a proprietor.All of them were engrossed, and the greater part by a few great proprietors.
This original engrossing of uncultivated lands, though a great, might have been but a transitory evil.They might soon have been divided again, and broke into small parcels either by succession or by alienation.The law of primogeniture hindered them from being divided by succession: the introduction of entails prevented their being broke into small parcels by alienation.
When land, like movables, is considered as the means only of subsistence and enjoyment, the natural law of succession divides it, like them, among all the children of the family; of an of whom the subsistence and enjoyment may be supposed equally dear to the father.This natural law of succession accordingly took place among the Romans, who made no more distinction between elder and younger, between male and female, in the inheritance of lands than we do in the distribution of movables.But when land was considered as the means, not of subsistence merely, but of power and protection, it was thought better that it should descend undivided to one.In those disorderly times every great landlord was a sort of petty prince.His tenants were his subjects.He was their judge, and in some respects their legislator in peace, and their leader in war.He made war according to his own discretion, frequently against his neighbours, and sometimes against his sovereign.The security of a landed estate, therefore, the protection which its owner could afford to those who dwelt on it, depended upon its greatness.To divide it was to ruin it, and to expose every part of it to be oppressed and swallowed up by the incursions of its neighbours.
The law of primogeniture, therefore, came to take place, not 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 ***, and that of age.
The male *** 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 of his possession as the proprietor of a hundred thousand.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 devise, 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 fideicommisses 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.
