sin propietario. Todas fueron acaparadas, y la mayor parte por unos pocos
Esta apropiación original de tierras sin cultivar, aunque fue un gran mal, podría haber sido efímero. Pronto habrían podido dividirse de nuevo y fraccionarse en pequeñas porciones, ya fuera por sucesión o por enajenación. La ley de primogenitura impidió que se dividieran por sucesión; la introducción de los mayorazgos evitó que se fraccionaran en pequeñas porciones por enajenación.
When land, like moveables, is considered as the means only of subsistence and enjoyment, the natural law of succession divides it, like them, among all the children of the family; of all of whom the subsistence and enjoyment may be supposed equally dear to the father. This natural law of succession accordingly took place among the Romans, who made no more distinction between elder and younger, between male and female, in the inheritance of lands, than we do in the distribution of moveables. But when land was considered as the means, not of subsistence merely, but of power and protection, it was thought better that it should descend undivided to one. In those disorderly times, every great landlord was a sort of petty prince. His tenants were his subjects. He was their judge, and in some respects their legislator in peace, and their leader in war. He made war according to his own discretion, frequently against his neighbours, and sometimes against his sovereign. The security of a landed estate, therefore, the protection which its owner could afford to those who dwelt on it, depended upon its greatness. To divide it was to ruin it, and to expose every part of it to be oppressed and swallowed up by the incursions of its neighbours. The law of primogeniture, therefore, came to take place, not immediately, indeed, but in process of time, in the succession of landed