PRIMOGENITURE, or the right of the first-born, has amongst most nations been very considerable. The firstborn son, in the patriarchal ages, had a superioritv over his brethren, and, in the absence of his father, was the priest of the family. Amongst the Jews, he was consecrated to the Lord, had a double portion of the inheritance, and succeeded in the government of the family or kingdom. It is, however, remarkable, and unquestionably shows the connection between this institution and the birth and office of our Sa viour, that if a w oman’s first child were a girl, neither she nor the children that came after her were consecrated.

In almost every nation of Europe, the right of primogeniture prevails at present in some degree, but it did not prevail always. The law which calls the cider-born to the crown, preferably to the others, was not introduced into France till a late period; it was unknow n to the first race of kings, and even to the second. The four sons of Clovis shared the kingdom equally amongst themselves, and Louis le Débonnaire did the same; it was not till the race of Hugh Capet succeeded, that the prerogative of succession to the crown was appropriated to the first-born.

Mr. M‘Culloch, in one of the Notes to his valuable edition of Smith’s Wealth of Nations, makes the following observations on this subject. “Though there can be little doubt of the injurious consequences that must always flow from every attempt to regulate the succession to property by means of compulsory regulations, there are good grounds for thinking that the custom of primogeniture, or the custom of leaving the whole, or the greater part of the paternal estate, to the eldest son, to the exclusion of his brothers and sisters, has been advantageous. The prejudices of most political philosophers against primogeniture seem to rest on no solid foundation. Dr. Smith says, that it is a custom which, ‘ in order to enrich one, beggars all the rest of the children ;’ but, so far from agreeing in this opinion, we cannot help thinking, that to it may be fairly ascribed much of the industry, freedom, and civilization of modern Europe; and [7:18:534]that were it abolished, and the custom of equally dividing landed property established in its stead, all the children of landlords, the youngest as well as the oldest, would be reduced to a state of comparative poverty, at the same time that the prosperity of the other classes would be greatly impaired.”

“This custom of gavelling, or dividing the paternal inheritance, was not confined to any particular sort of property, but extended to leasehold as well as freehold. And so strongly was it rooted in the public esteem, that it was to no purpose that a landlord inserted a clause in the lease of a farm prohibiting its subdivision. The courts of law were hostile to such limitations; and the juries, before which a case of this description was occasionally tried, if they returned a verdict in favour of the landlord, almost uniformly awarded only nominal damages. The consequences resulting from the combined operation of this custom and law, have been exactly such as might have been anticipated. Instead of increasing with the increase of capital, and the more general diffusion of a knowledge of the correct principles of agriculture, the farms in the possession of the Irish tenantry have been gradually reduced in most instances to mere patches.”

“In Scotland a totally different system has been followed, and with the happiest results. The succession to farms, as well as estates, has been long regulated in that part of the empire by the law of primogeniture. The tenant of a Scotch farm has no power, unless a provision to that effect be inserted in his lease, which is very rarely done, to devise his interest in it. He can neither sublet nor subdivide his farm; and, at his death, it descends entire to hi$ heir-at-law. The younger children are not taught from infancy to trust to the land for support; on the contrary, they are early made aware that farming is not a profession on which they can enter, and that it is indispensable they should apply themselves to something else. In consequence, they either establish themselves in towns or emigrate to other countries; and perhaps there is no one circumstance that has contributed so much as this to inspire Scotchmen with the adventurous enterprising spirit for which they are celebrated. The agricultural population is, in this way, kept down to its proper level; and prudential habits are very generally diffused. Instead of becoming less, farms in Scotland are gradually becoming larger, according to the increase in the capital of those engaged in the business of agriculture. No one prosecutes farming as a means of acquiring a miserable subsistence, but as a means of employing capital with advantage. There is, however, great reason to fear that the enfranchising of the tenants will have a most injurious influence over agriculture.”^[1. Smith’s Wealth of Nations, with Notes by M ’ Culloch, p. 564. 1838, in one vol. 8vo. ]

By the ancient custom of Gavel-kind, still preserved in Kent, and in some other parts of our island, primogeniture is of no account. “The lands,” says Blackstone, “descend, not to the eldest, youngest, or any one son only, but to all the sons together.^[2. Comment, book ii. chap. 6. ]