her code, though the restrictions which we have mentioned were withdrawn, we shall also, we think, demonstrate, before we close our inquiry.

The view which the Edinburgh Reviewer has taken of the matter differs very widely from ours. He condemns the present French law of succession, because it tends, in his opinion, to equalize the conditions of the children, and disables the proprietor from disturbing that approximation to equality.

To secure the inequality, which he thinks desirable, he would not, indeed, cast the whole or the bulk of a man's property, in his own despite, upon one of his children to the exclusion of the rest, but he is " fully convinced 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, is a good one, and has been productive of the greatest advantage.' [P. 360.]

In a word, his arguments, so far as they are of any weight, tend to establish these positions: 1. That an unlimited power of willing ought to be permitted to the proprietor: 2. That the proprietor would exercise this power to the best advantage, by leaving the whole or the bulk of his property to his eldest son; or, as it is not uncommonly expressed, by making an eldest son: 3. That if he die intestate, the whole or the bulk of his property, ought to descend on that same son.

Positions more erroneous, and, so far as the sophistry of the writer and the authority of the Journal are likely to make an impression, more mischievous than these last, it has rarely happened to us to meet with; and we have accordingly been tempted to unmask the futility of the arguments by which they are maintained.

In

Before we proceed to examine his arguments, we must observe that the expressions," Institution and Čustom of Primogeniture," are generally used by the Reviewer; and, though sufficiently incorrect, are adopted by us in our answer. By "the institution of primogeniture," we understand him to mean any law, which carries the whole or the bulk of an intestate's property to the eldest son. By "the custom of primogeniture," we understand him to mean the practice of making an eldest son. this last case, we may observe, the testator generally gives the property to his eldest son for life only; adding dispositions, which have the effect of passing it, after the death of the son, to one of the children of the latter absolutely. To this practice, known in France and England, under the various names of substituting, entailing, or tying up from alienation in strict settlement, the Reviewer's favourite custom, as we shall shew

hereafter, owes its existence. If the proprietor (as is now the case in France, with a slight exception) were obliged to impart to the immediate objects of his choice, the absolute dominion of the property, the power of willing, however unlimited in other respects, would rarely, we think, be abused in favour of a single child. As compared with this power of substituting or entailing, what the Reviewer calls the institution of primogeniture is perfectly harmless. Though we think that all the property of an intestate ought to descend to all his children equally, it is obvious that a law, which carries the whole or the bulk of it to the eldest son, may be completely corrected by the power of willing. With these explanations, which to some will appear insufferably trite and tedious, but which may aid the apprehension of readers not familiar with subjects of this nature, we proceed to scrutinize the arguments by which the Reviewer endeavours to establish his erroneous and mischievous positions.

، The institution or custom of primogeniture (says the Reviewer) by giving the estate to the eldest son, forces the others to quit the home of their father, and makes them depend for their success in the world on the fair exercise of their talents and industry. . . . . Necessity is not merely the mother of invention, but it is so in a great measure also of the passion which stimulates us to endeavour to rise in the world, and to emerge from obscurity. If you would have a man display all the native resources of his mind-if you would bring all his faculties and powers into full activity-you must deprive him of every adventitious assistance, and render him exclusively the architect of his own fortune.

Security against want is, you may depend upon it, the greatest enemy to activity, and persevering and arduous exertion: and if the institution of primogeniture has, as is really the case, a tendency to deprive a large portion of society of this security, and to compel them to enter with vigour and energy on the great arena of ambition and enterprise, this single circumstance is sufficient to throw the balance of advantage greatly in its favour. . . . . But the degradation in the ideas of all classes respecting the mode in which gentlemen ought to live, would probably be the worst effect of the establishment of a system of equal inheritance. The institution of primogeniture, by giving the great bulk of the father's property to the eldest son, not only compels younger children to become industrious, but it also stimulates them to exert themselves to the utmost, to emerge from the depressed condition in which they are placed, and to rise to an equality with their elder brother. We are also disposed to think, that the state and magnificence in which our great landed proprietors live, act as powerful incentives to the industry and enterprise of the mercantile and manufacturing classes, who never think they have accumulated a sufficient fortune until they are able to emulate the splendor of the landlords; whereas had these great properties been frittered down by the scheme of equal

the

.

division amongst children, the standard of competence would have been lowered universally, and there would, in consequence, have been less exertion amongst all classes of the community.'-Ed. Rev. vol. xl. pp. 363, 364, passim.

This stale sophism (for it was long ago thrown out by Sir William Blackstone*) may be distinctly expressed thus. Poverty, or the fear of poverty, is a motive to industry and frugality. Another motive to industry and frugality is the desire of obtaining wealth. But if a few be rich, and the many be poor, the desire of obtaining wealth will be stronger and less speedily satisfied than if wealth be more equally distributed. It will be stronger, because it is only in a state of great inequality that large fortunes are found: and as large fortunes yield more enjoyment to their owners than moderate fortunes, so do they set off the advantages of wealth in a way that is more alluring to the aspirants. It will be less speedily satisfied, in as much as a large fortune is not so soon got as a moderate fortune, though never so vehemently desired. Hence it follows that the industry, the frugality and, by consequence, the wealth of the community must needs be incredibly augmented by the custom of primogeniture. For, by excluding younger children from the property of their parents, it vastly enlarges the number of individuals, who, in fact or apprehension, are exposed to poverty; whilst, by preventing the division of estates, and keeping wealth together in large masses, it gives intensity and steadiness to the desire of acquiring it.

In our opinion, an institution or custom must be praised or blamed as it tends to increase or diminish the sum of happiness. In a word, the test to which it must be submitted is, utility.

Now, so far as happiness is the effect of wealth, the happiness of the community must depend upon two things: the quantity of its wealth as compared with the number of its members, and the manner in which it is distributed. That the more there is for all, the more may fall to each, is clear and it is not less indisputable (however it may be disputed) that a portion of wealth, if distributed amongst a given number with an approach to equality, will give a greater sum of happiness, than if the bulk of it be heaped on one or a few of the number, and the residue be shared by the rest in such pittances as will

* See his Commentaries, b. 2, c. 14. Third rule of Descent. Even Gibbon, though he condemns "the insolent prerogative of primogeniture," thinks that it may have its uses in sharpening industry. See that part of his celebrated chapter on the Roman Jurisprudence, which relates to inheritance and succession.

barely afford a subsistence.* So far, therefore, as happiness is the effect of wealth, those institutions and customs are most to be praised, which most conciliate augmentation in the quantity of wealth with equality in the distribution of it. These ends, perhaps, are conciliated amongst the middling class in England as far as they can be. The proprietor being invested with the absolute dominion of his property, wants no motive to industry and frugality, whilst the custom, which happily obtains amongst that rational class, of leaving their property to their children with a view to equality, is perpetually operating to impart the advantages of wealth to a large portion of the community. Admitting, what we deny, that the custom of primogeniture adds to the sum of industry and frugality, still the Reviewer's reasoning proceeds upon the mistake of substituting the means for the end. Industry and frugality are only desirable as they tend to add to the sum of happiness; yet for the sake of augmenting industry and frugality, he recommends to proprietors a disposition of their property, which must confine the enjoyments of wealth to a small number, and reduce the many to indigence. In what respect does his reasoning differ from that celebrated fallacy, which is at the bottom of the mercantile system? With money, said the advocates of this system, every other commodity may be had. Money, therefore, must needs be a most excellent thing. But it is impossible to have too much of so excellent a thing, and the surest way of getting the most of it, is to export the produce of one's own labour and capital, and to import nothing but money in return. This reasoning, which ends in a conclusion that forgets the beginning, is not a bit more fallacious than the Reviewer's. As these reasoners forgot that money is only excellent as it enables one to get other commodities, and that it were absurd to forego the use of other commodities for the sake of getting money, so does the Reviewer forget that industry and frugality are only means towards the grand end of all, and that it were absurd to augment the quantity of industry and frugality by subtracting from the sum of enjoyment. Curious that he should slide into a fallacy, which he and his brother economists would handle with no great tenderness, if it happened to slip from the lips of a merchant of the good old school!

We wonder it never occurred to the Reviewer, that his darling

*We would recommend to the reader the perusal of chapter 6, vol 2, of Bentham's Traités de Législation. If the reviewer had looked into this, and the following chapters, he would not have imagined that the questions about wills and succession had always been treated in the technical and senseless manner which he speaks of.

stimulus of poverty would be much more effectual to his end, if elder sons also were constantly cut off from the inheritance. Since industry is so excellent a thing that it may fairly be purchased at the expense of poverty to the many, we would have him be consistent, and augment, to the very utmost, the quantity of this excellent thing by inflicting poverty upon all. By simply destroying every man's property at his death, poverty might soon be obtained in the requisite degree. We grant him there would be no enjoyment. But what would that matter? All would be exquisitely poor, and the industry of the community would be augmented to an extent that is scarcely credible. We believe, however, on second thoughts, that the Reviewer's scheme has the advantage of our own. In our solicitude for his consistency, his other stimulus escaped us. In the case which we have supposed, there would be poverty to urge, in plenty; but then there would be no large fortunes to allure. We must grant it were much better if the whole of every man's estate passed upon his death to some single successor. In a few years we should have a government, which, in spirit and practice, not less than in constitution, would be purely aristocratical. The large fortunes of the few would be an inspiring sight to the multitude; and with such an instrument in their hands as the power of taxing, these few, we dare say, would not allow the other stimulus to sleep. In candour we must concede that the scheme is most subtilely devised to bring both incentives into play.

It is truly astonishing to observe the extent to which this fallacy of sinking the end has imposed upon men's minds. We have been assured, and with an air of conviction in the speaker, that war and war expenditure are good things, because they bring on taxation, and taxation incites to industry. An eminent economist seems to be fully satisfied, that we may actually suffer under a general glut of commodities; and this, from merely forgetting that production supposes labour, and that no man will labour unless he intend to consume. Even Mr. Ricardo, to whose piercing and comprehensive genius political economy is indebted for its pretensions to the name of a science, is sometimes entangled in this besetting sophism. When treating of the causes which accelerate or retard accumulation, he sometimes forgets, for a moment, that accumulation, like every thing else, is subordinate to the great end, happiness. A fallacy which could impose, though but once, and for an instant, upon the mind of that great man, is certainly pardonable in another. Though we have been tempted to aim a blow at this hydraheaded fallacy, we might have left it to do its worst, without