562 Hon. George C. Brodrich [May 6, 



knows very well, or if lie does not his solicitor tells him, tliat all his 

 land would naturally go by law to his eldest son, and this knowledge, 

 transmitted from one generation to another for seven hundred years, 

 creates a sentiment or prejudice in favour of Primogeniture which 

 nothing but a reversal of the law will effectually counteract. No doubt 

 there is much to be said for, as well as against, Primogeniture ; but 

 for our present purpose the important fact is that Primogeniture, 

 founded on law and consecrated by custom, is the chief corner-stone 

 of the English land system. 



2. But the custom of Primogeniture is far more stringent than the 

 law. When land descends to an eldest son, on intestacy, it belongs 

 to him absolutely, and he is free to deal with it as he pleases. On 

 the other hand, when it comes to him under a will or a settlement, it 

 usually comes to him for life only, and must afterwards go to his 

 eldest son, whether he pleases or not. This is the consequence of 

 certain legal refinements devised in the seventeenth century, whereby 

 it is possible for a grandfather to ordain beforehand that his eldest 

 grandson, as yet unborn, and who may turn out the most worthless 

 or the most exemplary of mankind, shall inherit a particular estate, 

 making his son only a life tenant or " limited owner." Under the 

 older entails of the Middle Ages this was imj)ossible, and though 

 similar powers of tying up land were acquired by the landed aristo- 

 cracy in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, means were found to 

 defeat them, so that in the sixteenth and first half of the seventeenth 

 centuries the ownership of land was far more free than it now is. 

 At present, the great mass of land in this country is under settle- 

 ment, and land under settlement is land which has not, and perhaps 

 never may have, a real owner. The apparent owner of a great 

 family estate is nothing but a trustee, and though of late something 

 has been done to give him more liberty of action, he is hampered at 

 every turn by the necessity of obtaining consents from a number of 

 different parties, or perhaps from the Court of Chancery. Su2)pose 

 all these consents to be obtained, he may doubtless improve or even 

 sell the property ; but what motive has he to do so, when he cannot 

 reap the fruit of the improvements or become master of the purchase- 

 money? Indeed, the evils of limited ownership are so obvious, 

 especially from an economical point of view, that no one would venture 

 to defend it, but that it is supposed to keep old family properties 

 from being broken up. But then the question arises whether this is 

 altogether an advantage. The character of the English gentry and 

 aristocracy was formed before limited ownership was known, and 

 when estates descended from father to son either in fee simj^le, or 

 under the old rule of entail, which allowed of their being instantly 

 converted into fee simple estates. In those days, family properties 

 were placed under the guardianship, not of conveyancers, but of the 

 families themselves, and the nation was content that if they came 

 into tlic possession of degenerate heirs tliey should be sold and 

 purchased by wortliicr competitors. Even now such cases occur, 



