the right of the first-born, has among most nations been very considerable. The first-born son in the patriarchal ages had a superiority over his brethren, and, in the absence of his father, was priest to the family. Among 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 Saviour, that if a woman's first child were a girl, neither she, nor the children that came after her, were consecrated.

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

By the ancient custom of Gavel-kind, still preserved in some parts of our island, primogeniture is of no account; the paternal estate being equally shared by all the sons. And it has been a matter of violent and learned dispute, whether at the death of Alexander III. Baliol or Bruce was, by the law as it then stood, heir to the crown of Scotland. The former had undoubtedly the right of primogeniture, but the latter stood in one degree of nearer relation to the deceased sovereign; and the Scottish barons, not being able to determine whose claim was best founded, referred the question to Edward I. of England, and thereby involved their country in a long and ruinous war. See SCOTLAND.