brought to ruin, the day of Judgment alone will reveal.

In many countries the law of primogeniture prevails, though, happily, in
the United States and Canada it has been abolished. Whether the
interests of the mothers and younger members of families ever were in
any degree the better provided for by every thing being placed at the
absolute disposal of the eldest son, is a doubtful question. It may have
been that, in the old barbaric times, when women and children were a
prey to every bold marauder who chose to prey upon them, that the law
was intended for their protection, the eldest son or brother being the
person most likely to be able to protect them; and the property, not
being subdivided and scattered, was more easily defended; and it might
have been expected that natural affection would cause the heir to deal
justly with his mother and the other children.

But with the passing away of these days of barbarous forays, passed away
the need of any such arrangement; if indeed any good ever was
accomplished by it. Certainly, much mischief has been wrought and foul
injustice sanctioned by it, for many centuries.

An arrangement so well calculated to foster selfishness and arrogance,
so long established, produced its legitimate fruit. Since at his
father's death every thing, or nearly so, would come under his control,
the eldest son became the one important member of his family. As his
mother could have but her interest on the third of the value of the
estate, unless specially provided for by marriage settlement, she
necessarily became dependent upon him who inherited the estate; and
therefore the lad, even while a lad, was constantly deferred to, until
he deemed himself superior to the rest of his family. The elder members
of a family might have been girls, and, there being no boys, might have