University of Virginia Library

Search this document 
  
expand section 
  
expand section 
  

expand section1. 
expand section2. 
expand section3. 
expand section4. 
expand section5. 
expand section6. 
expand section7. 
expand section8. 
expand section9. 
expand section10. 
expand section11. 
expand section12. 
expand section13. 
expand section14. 
expand section15. 
expand section16. 
expand section17. 
expand section18. 
expand section19. 
expand section20. 
expand section21. 
expand section22. 
expand section23. 
expand section24. 
expand section25. 
collapse section26. 
 26.1. 
 26.2. 
expand section26.3. 
expand section26.4. 
expand section26.5. 
collapse section26.6. 
6. That the Order of succession or Inheritance depends on the Principles of political or civil Law, and not on those of the Law of Nature.
  
  
expand section26.7. 
expand section26.8. 
expand section26.9. 
 26.10. 
 26.11. 
 26.12. 
expand section26.13. 
expand section26.14. 
expand section26.15. 
expand section26.16. 
expand section26.17. 
expand section26.18. 
expand section26.19. 
 26.20. 
 26.21. 
expand section26.22. 
expand section26.23. 
expand section26.24. 
expand section26.25. 
expand section27. 
expand section28. 
expand section29. 
expand section30. 
expand section31. 

26.6. 6. That the Order of succession or Inheritance depends on the
Principles of political or civil Law, and not on those of the Law of
Nature.

The Voconian law ordained that no woman should be left heiress to an estate, not even if she had an only child. Never was there a law, says St. Augustine, more unjust. [8] A formula of Marculfus treats that custom as impious which deprives daughters of the right of succeeding to the estate of their fathers. [9] Justinian gives the appellation of barbarous to the right which the males had formerly of succeeding in prejudice to the daughters. [10] These notions proceeded from their having considered the right of children to succeed to their father's possessions as a consequence of the law of nature; which it is not.

The law of nature ordains that fathers shall provide for their children; but it does not oblige them to make them their heirs. The division of property, the laws of this division, and the succession after the death of the person who has had this division can be regulated only by the community, and consequently by political or civil laws.

True it is that a political or civil order frequently demands that children should succeed to their father's estate; but it does not always make this necessary.

There may be some reasons given why the laws of our fiefs appoint that the eldest of the males, or the nearest relatives of the male side, should have all, and the females nothing, and why, by the laws of the Lombards, [11] the sisters, the natural children, the other relatives; and, in their default, the treasury might share the inheritance with the daughters.

It was regulated in some of the dynasties of China that the brothers of the emperor should succeed to the throne, and that the children should not. If they were willing that the prince should have a certain degree of experience, if they feared his being too young, and if it had become necessary to prevent eunuchs from placing children successively on the throne, they might very justly establish a like order of succession, and when some writers have treated these brothers as usurpers, they have judged only by ideas received from the laws of their own countries. [12]

According to the custom of Numidia, [13] Desalces, brother of Gala, succeeded to the kingdom; not Massinissa, his son. And even to this day, among the Arabs in Barbary, where each village has its chief, they adhere to this ancient custom, by choosing the uncle, or some other relative to succeed. [14]

There are monarchies merely elective; and since it is evident that the order of succession ought to be derived from the political or civil laws, it is for these to decide in what cases it is agreeable to reason that the succession be granted to children, and in what cases it ought to be given to others.

In countries where polygamy is established, the prince has many children; and the number of them is much greater in some of these countries than in others. There are states [15] where it is impossible for the people to maintain the children of the king; they might therefore make it a law that the crown shall devolve, not on the king's children, but on those of his sister.

A prodigious number of children would expose the state to the most dreadful civil wars. The order of succession which gives the crown to the children of the sister, the number of whom is not larger than those of a prince who has only one wife, must prevent these inconveniences.

There are people among whom reasons of state, or some maxims of religion, have made it necessary that the crown should be always fixed in a certain family: hence, in India, proceeds the jealousy of their tribes, [16] and the fear of losing the descent; they have there conceived that never to want princes of the blood royal, they ought to take the children of the eldest sister of the king.

A general maxim: it is an obligation of the law of nature to provide for our children; but to make them our successors is an obligation of the civil or political law. Hence are derived the different regulations with respect to bastards in the different countries of the world; these are according to the civil or political laws of each country.

Footnotes

[8]

"City of God," lib. iv, 21.

[9]

Book ii, chap. 12.

[10]

Nov. 21.

[11]

Book ii, tit. 14, sections 6, 7, and 8.

[12]

Father Du Halde on the Second Dynasty.

[13]

Livy, xxix. 29.

[14]

Shaw, "Travels," vol. i, p. 402.

[15]

See the "Collection of Voyages that Contributed to the Establishment of the East India Company," vol. iv, part I, p. 114. And Mr. Smith, "Voyage to Guinea," part II, p. 150, concerning the kingdom of Judia.

[16]

See "Edifying Letters," coll. xiv, and the "Voyages that Contributed to the Establishment of the East India Company," vol. iii, part II, p. 644.