第5章

TheTestamenttowhichthepedigreeofallmodernWillsmay betracedisnot，however，theTestamentexecutedintheCalata Comitia，butanotherTestamentdesiredtocompetewithitand destinedtosupersedeit。Thehistoricalimportanceofthisearly RomanWill，andthelightitcastsonmuchofancientthought， willexcusemefordescribingitatsomelength。 WhentheTestamentarypowerfirstdisclosesitselftousin legalhistory，therearesignsthat，likealmostallthegreat Romaninstitutions，itwasthesubjectofcontentionbetweenthe PatriciansandthePlebeians。Theeffectofthepoliticalmaxim， PlebsGentemnonhabet，\"aPlebeiacannotbeamemberofa House，\"wasentirelytoexcludethePlebeiansfromtheComitia Curiata。SomecriticshaveaccordinglysupposedthataPlebeian couldnothavehisWillreadorrecitedtothePatrician Assembly，andwasthusdeprivedofTestamentaryprivileges altogether。Othershavebeensatisfiedtopointoutthehardships ofhavingtosubmitaproposedWilltotheunfriendly jurisdictionofanassemblyinwhichtheTestatorwasnot represented。Whateverbethetrueview，aformofTestamentcame intouse，whichhasallthecharacteristicsofacontrivance intendedtoevadesomedistastefulobligation。TheWillin questionwasaconveyanceintervivos，acompleteandirrevocable alienationoftheTestator’sfamilyandsubstancetotheperson whomhemeanttobehisheir。ThestrictrulesofRomanlawmust alwayshavepermittedsuchanalienation，but，whenthe transactionwasintendedtohaveaposthumouseffect，theremay havebeendisputeswhetheritwasvalidforTestamentarypurposes withouttheformalassentofthePatriciaParliament。Ifa differenceofopinionexistedonthepointbetweenthetwo classesoftheRomanpopulation，itwasextinguished，withmany othersourcesofheartburning，bythegreatDecemviral compromise。ThetextoftheTwelveTablesisstillextantwhich says，\"Paterfamiliasutidepecuniatutelavereisuaelegassit， itajusesto\"——alawwhichcanhardlyhavehadanyotherobject thanthelegalisationofthePlebeianWill。 Itiswellknowntoscholarsthat，centuriesafterthe PatricianAssemblyhadceasedtobethelegislatureoftheRoman State，itstillcontinuedtoholdformalsittingsforthe convenienceofprivatebusiness。Consequently，ataperiodlong subsequenttothepublicationoftheDecemviralLaw，thereis reasontobelievethattheComitiaCalatastillassembledforthe validationofTestaments。Itsprobablefunctionsmaybebest indicatedbysayingthatitwasaCourtofRegistration，withthe understandinghoweverthattheWillsexhibitedwerenotenrolled， butsimplyrecitedtothemembers，whoweresupposedtotakenote oftheirtenorandtocommitthemtomemory。Itisverylikely thatthisformofTestamentwasneverreducedtowritingatall， butatalleventsiftheWillhadbeenoriginallywritten，the officeoftheComitiawascertainlyconfinedtohearingitread aloud，thedocumentbeingretainedafterwardsinthecustodyof theTestator，ordepositedunderthesafeguardofsomereligious corporation。Thispublicitymayhavebeenoneoftheincidentsof theTestamentexecutedintheComitiaCalatawhichbroughtit intopopulardisfavour。IntheearlyyearsoftheEmpirethe Comitiastillhelditsmeetings，buttheyseemtohavelapsed intothemerestform，andfewWills，ornone，wereprobably presentedattheperiodicalsitting。 ItistheancientPlebeianWill——thealternativeofthe Testamentjustdescribed——whichinitsremoteeffectshas deeplymodifiedthecivilisationofthemodernworld。Itacquired atRomeallthepopularitywhichtheTestamentsubmittedtothe CalataComitiaappearstohavelost。Thekeytoallits characteristicsliesinitsdescentfromthemancipium，or ancientRomanconveyance，aproceedingtowhichwemay unhesitatinglyassigntheparentageoftwogreatinstitutions withoutwhichmodernsocietycanscarcelybesupposedcapableof holdingtogether，theContractandtheWill。Themancipium，oras thewordwouldexhibititselfinlaterLatinity，theMancipation， carriesusbackbyitsincidentstotheinfancyofcivilsociety。 Asitsprangfromtimeslonganterior，ifnottotheinvention， atalleventstothepopularisation，oftheartofwriting， gestures，symbolicalacts，andsolemnphrasestaketheplaceof documentaryforms，andalengthyandintricateceremonialis intendedtocalltheattentionofthepartiestotheimportance ofthetransaction，andtoimpressitonthememoryofthe witnesses。Theimperfectiontoooforal，ascomparedwith written，testimonynecessitatesthemultiplicationofthe witnessesandassistantsbeyondwhatinlatertimeswouldbe reasonableorintelligiblelimits。 TheRomanMancipationrequiredthepresencefirstofallof theparties，thevendorandvendee，orweshouldperhapsrather say，ifwearetousemodernlegallanguage，thegrantorand grantee。Therewerealsonolessthanfivewitnesses；andan anomalouspersonage，theLibripens，whobroughtwithhimapair ofscalestoweightheuncoinedcoppermoneyofancientRome。The Testamentweareconsidering——theTestamentperaesetlibram， \"withthecopperandthescales，\"asitlongcontinuedtobe technicallycalled——wasanordinaryMancipationwithnochange intheformandhardlyanyinwords。TheTestatorwasthe grantor；thefivewitnessesandthelibripenswerepresent；and theplaceofgranteewastakenbyapersonknowntechnicallyas thefamiliaeemptor，thePurchaseroftheFamily。Theordinary ceremonyofaMancipationwasthenproceededwith。Certainformal gesturesweremadeandsentencespronounced。TheEmptorfamiliae simulatedthepaymentofapricebystrikingthescaleswitha pieceofmoney，andfinallytheTestatorratifiedwhathadbeen doneinasetformofwordscalledthe\"Nuncupatio\"or publicationofthetransaction，aphrasewhich，Ineedscarcely remindthelawyer，hashadalonghistoryinTestamentary jurisprudence。Itisnecessarytoattendparticularlytothe characterofthepersoncalledfamiliaeemptor。Thereisnodoubt thatatfirsthewastheHeirhimself。TheTestatorconveyedto himoutrighthiswhole\"familia，\"thatis，alltherightshe enjoyedoverandthroughthefamily；hisproperty，hisslaves， andallhisancestralprivileges，together，ontheotherhand， withallhisdutiesandobligations。 Withthesedatabeforeus，weareabletonoteseveral remarkablepointsinwhichtheMancipatoryTestament，asitmay becalled，differedinitsprimitiveformfromamodernwill。As itamountedtoaconveyanceout-and-outoftheTestator’sestate， itwasnotrevocable。Therecouldbenonewexerciseofapower whichhadbeenexhausted。 Again，itwasnotsecret。TheFamiliaEmptor，beinghimself theHeir，knewexactlywhathisrightswere，andwasawarethat hewasirreversiblyentitledtotheinheritance；aknowledge whichtheviolencesinseparablefromthebest-orderedancient societyrenderedextremelydangerous。Butperhapsthemost surprisingconsequenceofthisrelationofTestamentsto Conveyanceswastheimmediatevestingoftheinheritanceinthe Heir。Thishasseemedsoincredibletonotafewcivilians，that theyhavespokenoftheTestator’sestateasvesting conditionallyontheTestator’sdeathorasgrantedtohimfroma timeuncertain，i。e。thedeathofthegrantor。Butdowntothe latestperiodofRomanjurisprudencetherewasacertainclassof transactionswhichneveradmittedofbeingdirectlymodifiedbya condition，orofbeinglimitedtoorfromapointoftime。In technicallanguagetheydidnotadmitconditioordies。 Mancipationwasoneofthem，andtherefore，strangeasitmay seem，weareforcedtoconcludethattheprimitiveRomanWill tookeffectatonce，eventhoughtheTestatorsurvivedhisactof Testation。ItisindeedlikelythatRomancitizensoriginally madetheirWillsonlyinthearticleofdeath，andthata provisionforthecontinuanceoftheFamilyeffectedbyamanin thefloweroflifewouldtaketheformratherofanAdoptionthan ofaWill。Stillwemustbelievethat，iftheTestatordid recover，hecouldonlycontinuetogovernhishouseholdbythe sufferanceofhisHeir。 TwoorthreeremarksshouldbemadebeforeIexplainhow theseinconvenienceswereremedied，andhowTestamentscametobe investedwiththecharacteristicsnowuniversallyassociatedwith them。TheTestamentwasnotnecessarilywritten:atfirst，it seemstohavebeeninvariablyoral，and，eveninlatertimes，the instrumentdeclaratoryofthebequestswasonlyincidentally connectedwiththeWillandformednoessentialpartofit。It boreinfactexactlythesamerelationtotheTestament，which thedeedleadingtheusesboretotheFinesandRecoveriesofold Englishlaw，orwhichthecharteroffeoffmentboretothe feoffmentitself。Previously，indeed，totheTwelveTables，no writingwouldhavebeenoftheslightestuse，fortheTestator hadnopowerofgivinglegacies，andtheonlypersonswhocould beadvantagedbyawillweretheHeirorCo-heirs。Butthe extremegeneralityoftheclauseintheTwelveTablessoon producedthedoctrinethattheHeirmusttaketheinheritance burdenedbyanydirectionswhichtheTestatormightgivehim，or inotherwords，takeitsubjecttolegacies。Writtentestamentary instrumentsassumedthereuponanewvalue，asasecurityagainst thefraudulentrefusaloftheheirtosatisfythelegatees；but tothelastitwasattheTestator’spleasuretorelyexclusively onthetestimonyofthewitnesses，andtodeclarebywordof mouththelegacieswhichthefamiliaeemptorwascommissionedto pay。 ThetermsoftheexpressionEmptorfamiliaedemandnotice。 \"Emptor\"indicatesthattheWillwasliterallyasale，andthe word\"familiae，\"whencomparedwiththephraseologyinthe TestamentaryclauseintheTwelveTables，leadsustosome instructiveconclusions。\"Familia，\"inclassicalLatinity，means alwaysaman’sslaves。Here，however，andgenerallyinthe languageofancientRomanlawitincludesallpersonsunderhis Potestas，andtheTestator’smaterialpropertyorsubstanceis understoodtopassasanadjunctorappendageofhishousehold。 TurningtothelawoftheTwelveTables，itwillbeseenthatit speaksoftutelareisuae，\"theguardianshipofhissubstance，\"a formofexpressionwhichistheexactreverseofthephasejust examined。Theredoesnotthereforeappeartobeanymodeof escapingfromtheconclusion，that，evenataneraso comparativelyrecentasthatoftheDecemviralcompromise，terms denoting\"household\"and\"property\"wereblendedinthecurrent phraseology。Ifaman’shouseholdhadbeenspokenofashis propertywemighthaveexplainedtheexpressionaspointingto theextentofthePatriaPotestas，but，astheinterchangeis reciprocal，wemustallowthattheformofspeechcariesusback tothatprimevalperiodinwhichpropertyisownedbythefamily， andthefamilyisgovernedbythecitizen，sothatthememberof thecommunitydonotowntheirpropertyandtheirfamily，but ratherowntheirpropertythroughtheirfamily。 Atanepochnoteasytosettlewithprecision，theRoman PraetorsfellintothehabitofactinguponTestamentssolemnised incloserconformitywiththespiritthantheletterofthelaw。 Casualdispensationsbecameinsensiblytheestablishedpractice， tillatlengthawhollynewformofWillwasmaturedand regularlyengraftedontheEdictalJurisprudence。Thenewor PraetorianTestamentderivedthewholeofitsimpregnabilityfrom theJusHonorariumorEquityofRome。ThePraetorofsome particularyearmusthaveinsertedaclauseinhisinaugural Proclamationdeclaratoryofhisintentiontosustainall Testamentswhichshouldhavebeenexecutedwithsuchandsuch solemnities；and，thereformhavingbeenfoundadvantageous，the articlerelatingtoitmusthavebeenagainintroducedbythe Praetor’ssuccessor，andrepeatedbythenextinoffice，tillat lengthitformedarecognisedportionofthatbodyof jurisprudencewhichfromthesesuccessiveincorporationswas styledthePerpetualorContinuousEdict。Onexaminingthe conditionsofavalidPraetorianWilltheywillbeplainlyseen tohavebeendeterminedbytherequirementsoftheMancipatory Testament，theinnovatingPraetorhavingobviouslyprescribedto himselftheretentionoftheoldformalitiesjustsofarasthey werewarrantsofgenuinenessorsecuritiesagainstfraud。Atthe executionoftheMancipatoryTestamentsevenpersonshadbeen presentbesidestheTestator。Sevenwitnesseswereaccordingly essentialtothePraetorianWill:twoofthemcorrespondingto thelibripensandfamiliaeemptor，whowerenowstrippedoftheir symbolicalcharacter，andweremerelypresentforthepurposeof supplyingtheirtestimony。Noemblematicceremonywasgone through；theWillwasmerelyrecited；butthenitisprobable (thoughnotabsolutelycertain)thatawritteninstrumentwas necessarytoperpetuatetheevidenceoftheTestator’s dispositions。Atallevents，wheneverawritingwasreador exhibitedasaperson’slastWill，weknowcertainlythatthe PraetorianCourtwouldnotSustainitbyspecialintervention， unlesseachofthesevenwitnesseshadseverallyaffixedhisseal totheoutside。Thisisthefirstappearanceofsealinginthe historyofjurisprudence，consideredasamodeofauthentication。 ItistobeobservedthatthesealsofRomanWills，andother documentsofimportance，didnotsimplyserveastheindexofthe presenceorassentofthesignatory，butwereliterally fasteningswhichhadtobebrokenbeforethewritingcouldbe inspected。 TheEdictalLawwouldthereforeenforcethedispositionsofa Testator，when，insteadofbeingsymbolisedthroughtheformsof mancipation，theyweresimplyevidencedbythesealsofseven witnesses。Butitmaybelaiddownasageneralproposition，that theprincipalqualitiesofRomanpropertywereincommunicable exceptthroughprocesseswhichweresupposedtobecoevalwith theoriginoftheCivilLaw。ThePraetorthereforecouldnot conferanInheritanceonanybody。HecouldnotplacetheHeiror Co-heirsinthatveryrelationinwhichtheTestatorhadhimself stoodtohisownrightsandobligations。Allhecoulddowasto conferonthepersondesignatedasHeirthepracticalenjoyment ofthepropertybequeathed，andtogivetheforceoflegal acquittancestohispaymentsoftheTestator’sdebts。Whenhe exertedhispowerstotheseends，thePraetorwastechnically saidtocommunicatetheBonorumPossessio。TheHeirspecially inductedunderthesecircumstances，orBonorumPossessorhad everyproprietaryprivilegeoftheHeirbytheCivilLaw。Hetook theprofitsandhecouldalienate，butthen，forallhisremedies forredressagainstwrong，hemustgo，asweshouldphraseit， nottotheCommonLaw，buttotheEquitysideofthePraetorian Court。Nogreatchanceoferrorwouldbeincurredbydescribing himashavinganequitableestateintheinheritance；butthen， tosecureourselvesagainstbeingdeludedbytheanalogy，wemust alwaysrecollectthatinoneyeartheBonorumPossessiowas operateduponaprincipleofRomanLawknownasUsucapion，and thePossessorbecameQuiritarianownerofalltheproperty comprisedintheinheritance。 WeknowtoolittleoftheolderlawofCivilProcesstobe abletostrikethebalanceofadvantageanddisadvantagebetween thedifferentclassesofremediessuppliedbythePraetorian Tribunal。Itiscertain，however，that，inspiteofitsmany defects，theMancipatoryTestamentbywhichtheuniversitasjuris devolvedatonceandunimpairedwasneverentirelysupersededby thenewWill；andataperiodlessbigotedtoantiquarianforms， andperhapsnotquitealivetotheirsignificance，allthe ingenuityoftheJurisconsultsseemstohavebeenexpendedonthe improvementofthemorevenerableinstrument。Attheeraof Gaius，whichisthatoftheAntonineCaesars，thegreatblemishes oftheMancipatoryWillhadbeenremoved。Originally，aswehave seen，theessentialcharacteroftheformalitieshadrequired thattheHeirhimselfshouldbethepurchaseroftheFamily，and theconsequencewasthathenotonlyinstantlyacquiredavested interestintheTestator’sProperty，butwasformallymadeaware ofhisrights。ButtheageofGaiuspermittedsomeunconcerned persontoofficiateasPurchaseroftheFamily。Theheir， therefore，wasnotnecessarilyinformedofthesuccessionto whichhewasdestined；andWillsthenceforwardacquiredthe propertyofsecrecy。Thesubstitutionofastrangerforthe actualHeirinthefunctionsof\"FamiliaeEmptor\"hadother ulteriorconsequences。Assoonasitwaslegalised，aRoman Testamentcametoconsistoftwopartsorstages——aconveyance， whichwasapureform，andaNuncupatio，orPublication。Inthis latterpassageoftheproceeding，theTestatoreitherorally declaredtotheassistantsthewisheswhichweretobeexecuted afterhisdeath，orproducedawrittendocumentinwhichhis wisheswereembodied。Itwasnotprobablytillattentionhadbeen quitedrawnofffromtheimaginaryConveyance，andconcentrated ontheNuncupationastheessentialpartofthetransaction，that Willswereallowedtobecomerevocable。 IhavethuscarriedthepedigreeofWillssomewaydownin legalhistory。TherootofitistheoldTestament\"withthe copperandthescales，\"foundedonaMancipationorConveyance。 ThisancientWillhas，however，manifolddefects，whichare remedied，thoughonlyindirectly，bythePraetorianlawMeantime theingenuityoftheJurisconsultseffects，intheCommon-Law WillorMancipatoryTestament，theveryimprovementswhichthe PraetormayhaveconcurrentlycarriedoutinEquity。Theselast ameliorationsdepend，however，onmerelegaldexterity，andwe seeaccordinglythattheTestamentaryLawofthedayofGaiusor Ulpianisonlytransitional。Whatchangesnextensuedweknow not；butatlength，justbeforethereconstructionofthe jurisprudencebyJustinian，wefindthesubjectsoftheEater RomanEmpireemployingaformofWillofwhichthepedigreeis traceabletothePraetorianTestamentononeside，andtothe Testament\"withthecopperandthescales\"ontheother。Likethe TestamentofthePraetor，itrequirednoMancipation，andwas invalidunlesssealedbysevenwitnesses。LiketheMancipatory Will，itpassedtheInheritanceandnotmerelyaBonorum Possessio。Several，however，ofitsmostimportantfeatureswere annexedbypositiveenactments，anditisoutofregardtothis threefoldderivationfromthePraetorianEdict，fromtheCivil Law，andfromtheImperialConstitutions，thatJustinianspeaks oftheLawofWillsinhisowndayasJusTripertitum。Thenew TestamentthusdescribedistheonegenerallyknownastheRoman Will。ButitwastheWilloftheEasternEmpireonlyandthe researchesofSavignyhaveshownthatinWesternEuropetheold MancipatoryTestament，withallitsapparatusofconveyance， copper，andscales，continuedtobetheforminusefardownin theMiddleAges。 AncientLaw byHenryMaineChapter7AncientandModernIdeasRespectingWillsandSuccessions AlthoughthereismuchinthemodernEuropeanLawofWills whichisintimatelyconnectedwiththeoldestrulesof Testamentarydispositionpractisedamongmen，thereare neverthelesssomeimportantdifferencesbetweenancientand modernideasonthesubjectofWillsandSuccessions。Someofthe pointsofdifferenceIshallendeavourtoillustrateinthis chapter。 Ataperiod，removedseveralcenturiesfromtheeraofthe TwelveTables，wefindavarietyofrulesengraftedontheRoman CivilLawwiththeviewoflimitingthedisinherisonofchildren； wehavethejurisdictionofthePraetorveryactivelyexertedin thesameinterest；andwearealsopresentedwithanewremedy veryanomalousincharacterandofuncertainorigin，calledthe QuerelaInofficiosiTestamenti，\"thePlaintofanUnduteous Will，\"directedtothereinstatementoftheissueininheritances fromwhichtheyhadbeenunjustifiablyexcludedbyafather’s Testament。Comparingthisconditionofthelawwiththetextof theTwelveTableswhichconcedesintermstheutmostlibertyof Testation，severalwritershavebeentemptedtointerweaveagood dealofdramaticincidentintotheirhistoryoftheLaw Testamentary。Theytellusoftheboundlesslicenseof disinherisoninwhichtheheadsoffamiliesinstantlybeganto indulge，ofthescandalandinjurytopublicmoralswhichthenew practicesengendered，andoftheapplauseofallgoodmenwhich hailedthecourageofthePraetorinarrestingtheprogressof paternaldepravity。Thisstory，whichisnotwithoutsome foundationfortheprincipalfactitrelates，isoftensotoldas todiscloseveryseriousmisconceptionsoftheprinciplesof legalhistory。TheLawoftheTwelveTablesistobeexplainedby thecharacteroftheageinwhichitwasenacted。Itdoesnot licenseatendencywhichalatererathoughtitselfboundto counteract，butitproceedsontheassumptionthatnosuch tendencyexists，or，perhapsweshouldsay，inignoranceofthe possibilityofitsexistence。ThereisnolikelihoodthatRoman citizensbeganimmediatelytoavailthemselvesfreelyofthe powertodisinherit。Itisagainstallreasonandsound appreciationofhistorytosupposethattheyokeoffamily bondage，stillpatientlysubmittedto，asweknow，whereits pressuregalledmostcruelly，wouldbecastoffinthevery particularinwhichitsincidenceinourowndayisnototherwise thanwelcome。TheLawoftheTwelveTablespermittedthe executionofTestamentsintheonlycaseinwhichitwasthought possiblethattheycouldbeexecuted，viz。onfailureofchildren andproximatekindred。Itdidnotforbidthedisinherisonof directdescendants，inasmuchasitdidnotlegislateagainsta contingencywhichnoRomanlawgiverofthateracouldhave contemplated。Nodoubt，astheofficesoffamilyaffection progressivelylosttheaspectofprimarypersonalduties，the disinherisonofchildrenwasoccasionallyattempted。Butthe interferenceofthePraetor，sofarfrombeingcalledforbythe universalityoftheabuse，wasdoubtlessfirstpromptedbythe factthatsuchinstancesofunnaturalcapricewerefewand exceptional，andatconflictwiththecurrentmorality。 TheindicationsfurnishedbythispartofRomanTestamentary Lawareofaverydifferentkind。ItisremarkablethataWill neverseemstohavebeenregardedbytheRomansasameansof disinheritingaFamily，orofeffectingtheunequaldistribution ofapatrimony。Therulesoflawpreventingitsbeingturnedto suchapurpose，increaseinnumberandstringencyasthe jurisprudenceunfoldsitself；andtheserulescorrespond doubtlesswiththeabidingsentimentofRomansociety，as distinguishedfromoccasionalvariationsoffeeLingin individuals。ItwouldratherseemasiftheTestamentaryPower werechieflyvaLuedfortheassistanceitgaveinmaking provisionforaFamily，andindividingtheinheritancemore evenlyandfairlythantheLawofIntestateSuccessionwouldhave dividedit。Ifthisbethetruereadingofthegeneralsentiment onthepoint，itexplainstosomeextentthesingularhorrorof IntestacywhichalwayscharacterisedtheRoman。Noevilseemsto havebeenconsideredaheaviervisitationthantheforfeitureof Testamentaryprivileges；nocurseappearstohavebeenbitterer thanthatwhichimprecatedonanenemythathemightdiewithout aWill。Thefeelinghasnocounterpart，ornonethatiseasily recognisable，intheformsofopinionwhichexistatthepresent day。Allmenatalltimeswilldoubtlesspreferchalkingoutthe destinationoftheirsubstancetohavingthatofficeperformed forthembythelaw；buttheRomanpassionforTestacyis distinguishedfromthemeredesiretoindulgecapricebyits intensity；andithasofcoursenothingwhateverincommonwith thatprideoffamily，exclusivelythecreationoffeudalism， whichaccumulatesonedescriptionofpropertyinthehandsofa singlerepresentative。Itisprobable，apriori，thatitwas somethingintherulesofIntestateSuccessionwhichcausedthis vehementpreferenceforthedistributionofpropertyundera Testamentoveritsdistributionbylaw。Thedifficulty，however， is，thatonglancingattheRomanLawofIntestateSuccession，in theformwhichitworeformanycenturiesbeforeJustinianshaped itintothatschemeofinheritancewhichhasbeenalmost universallyadoptedbymodernlawgivers，itbynomeansstrikes oneasremarkablyunreasonableorinequitable。Onthecontrary， thedistributionitprescribesissofairandrational，and differssoLittlefromthatwithwhichmodernsocietyhasbeen generallycontented，thatnoreasonsuggestsitselfwhyitshould havebeenregardedwithextraordinarydistaste，especiallyunder ajurisprudencewhichpareddowntoanarrowcompassthe testamentaryprivilegesofpersonswhohadchildrentoprovide for。Weshouldratherhaveexpectedthat，asinFranceatthis moment，theheadsoffamilieswouldgenerallysavethemselvesthe troubLeofexecutingaWill，andallowtheLawtodoasit pleasedwiththeirassets。Ithink，however，ifwelookalittle closelyatthepre-JustinianeanscaleofIntestateSuccession，we shalldiscoverthekeytothemystery。Thetextureofthelaw consistsoftwodistinctparts。Onedepartmentofrulescomes fromtheJusCivile，theCommon-LawofRome；theotherfromthe EdictofthePraetor。TheCivilLaw，asIhavealreadystatedfor anotherpurpose，calLstotheinheritanceonlythreeordersof successorsintheirturn；theUnemancipatedchildren，thenearest classofAgnatickindred，andtheGentiles。Betweenthesethree orders，thePraetorinterpolatesvariousclassesofrelatives，of whomtheCivilLawtooknonoticewhatever。Ultimately，the combinationoftheEdictandoftheCivilLawformsatableof successionnotmateriallydifferentfromthatwhichhasdescended tothegeneralityofmoderncodes。 Thepointforrecollectionisthattheremustancientlyhave beenatimeatwhichtherulesoftheCivilLawdeterminedthe schemeofIntestateSuccessionexclusively，andatwhichthe arrangementsoftheEdictwerenon-existent，ornotconsistently carriedout。Wecannotdoubtthat，initsinfancy，thePraetorian jurisprudencehadtocontendwithformidableobstructions，andit ismorethanprobablethat，longafterpopularsentimentand legalopinionhadacquiescedinit，themodificationswhichit periodicallyintroducedweregovernedbynocertainprinciples， andfluctuatedwiththevaryingbiasofsuccessivemagistrates。 TherulesofIntestateSuccession，whichtheRomansmustatthis periodhavepractised，account，Ithink——andmorethanaccount—— forthatvehementdistasteforanIntestacytowhichRoman societyduringsomanyagesremainedconstant。Theorderof successionwasthis:onthedeathofacitizen，havingnowill ornovalidwill，hisUnemancipatedchildrenbecamehisHeirs。 Hisemancipatedsonshadnoshareintheinheritance。Ifheleft nodirectdescendantslivingathisdeath，thenearestgradeof theAgnatickindredsucceeded，butnopartoftheinheritancewas giventoanyrelativeunited(howeverclosely)withthedeadman throughfemaledescents。Alltheotherbranchesofthefamily wereexcluded，andtheinheritanceescheatedtotheGentiles，or entirebodyofRomancitizensbearingthesamenamewiththe deceased。SothatonfailingtoexecuteanoperativeTestament，a Romanoftheeraunderexaminationlefthisemancipatedchildren absolutelywithoutprovision，while，ontheassumptionthathe diedchildless，therewasimminentriskthathispossessions wouldescapefromthefamilyaltogether，anddevolveonanumber ofpersonswithwhomhewasmerelyconnectedbythesacerdotal fictionthatassumedallmembersofthesamegenstobedescended fromacommonancestor。Theprospectofsuchanissueisin itselfanearlysufficientexplanationofthepopularsentiment； but，inpointoffact，weshallonlyhalfunderstandit，ifwe forgetthatthestateofthingsIhavebeendescribingislikely tohaveexistedattheverymomentwhenRomansocietywasinthe firststageofitstransitionfromitsprimitiveorganisationin detachedfamilies。Theempireofthefatherhadindeedreceived oneoftheearliestblowsdirectedatitthroughtherecognition ofEmancipationasalegitimateusage，butthelaw，still consideringthePatriaPotestastobetherootoffamily connection，perseveredinlookingontheemancipatedchildrenas strangerstotherightsofKinshipandaliensfromtheblood。We cannot，however，foramomentsupposethatthelimitationsofthe familyimposedbylegalpedantryhadtheircounterpartinthe naturalaffectionofparents。Familyattachmentsmuststillhave retainedthatnearlyinconceivablesanctityandintensitywhich belongedtothemunderthePatriarchalsystem；and，solittleare theylikelytohavebeenextinguishedbytheactofemancipation， thattheprobabilitiesarealtogethertheotherway。Itmaybe unhesitatinglytakenforgrantedthatenfranchisementfromthe father’spowerwasademonstration，ratherthanaseverance，of affection——amarkofgraceandfavouraccordedtothe best-belovedandmostesteemedofthechildren。Ifsonsthus honouredabovetherestwereabsolutelydeprivedoftheir heritagebyanIntestacy，thereluctancetoincuritrequiresno fartherexplanation。Wemighthaveassumedapriorithatthe passionforTestacywasgeneratedbysomemoralinjustice entailedbytherulesofIntestatesuccession；andherewefind thematvariancewiththeveryinstinctbywhichearlysociety wascementedtogether。Itispossibletoputallthathasbeen urgedinaverysuccinctform。Everydominantsentimentofthe primitiveRomanswasentwinedwiththerelationsofthefamily。 ButwhatwastheFamily？TheLawdefineditoneway——natural affectionanother。Intheconflictbetweenthetwo，thefeelingwe wouldanalysegrewup，takingtheformofanenthusiasmforthe institutionbywhichthedictatesofaffectionwerepermittedto determinethefortunesofitsobjects。 Iregard，therefore，theRomanhorrorofIntestacyasa monumentofaveryearlyconflictbetweenancientlawandslowly changingancientsentimentonthesubjectoftheFamily。Some passagesintheRomanStatute-Law，andonestatuteinparticular whichlimitedthecapacityforinheritancepossessedbywomen， musthavecontributedtokeepalivethefeeling；anditisthe generalbeliefthatthesystemofcreatingFidei-Commissa，or bequestsintrust，wasdevisedtoevadethedisabilitiesimposed bythosestatutes。Butthefeelingitself，initsremarkable intensity，seemstopointbacktosomedeeperantagonismbetween lawandopinion；norisitatallwonderfulthattheimprovements ofjurisprudencebythePraetorshouldnothaveextinguishedit。 Everybodyconversantwiththephilosophyofopinionisawarethat asentimentbynomeansdiesout，ofnecessity，withthepassing awayofthecircumstanceswhichproducedit。Itmaylongsurvive them；nay，itmayafterwardsattaintoapitchandclimaxof intensitywhichitneverattainedduringtheiractual continuance。 TheviewofaWillwhichregardsitasconferringthepower ofdivertingpropertyfromtheFamily，orofdistributingitin suchunevenproportionsasthefancyorgoodsenseofthe Testatormaydictate，isnotolderthanthatlaterportionofthe MiddleAgesinwhichFeudalismhadcompletelyconsolidated itself。Whenmodernjurisprudencefirstshowsitselfinthe rough，Willsarerarelyallowedtodisposewithabsolutefreedom ofadeadman’sassets。Whereveratthisperiodthedescentof propertywasregulatedbyWill——andoverthegreaterpartof Europemoveableorpersonalpropertywasthesubjectof Testamentarydisposition——theexerciseoftheTestamentary powerwasseldomallowedtointerferewiththerightofthewidow toadefiniteshare，andofthechildrentocertainfixed proportions，ofthedevolvinginheritance。Thesharesofthe children，astheiramountshows，weredeterminedbytheauthority ofRomanlaw。Theprovisionforthewidowwasattributabletothe exertionsoftheChurch，whichneverrelaxeditssolicitudefor theinterestofwivessurvivingtheirhusbands——winning， perhaps，oneofthemostarduousofitstriumphswhen，after exactingfortwoorthreecenturiesanexpresspromisefromthe husbandatmarriagetoendowhiswife，itatlengthsucceededin engraftingtheprincipleofDowerontheCustomaryLawofall WesternEurope。Curiouslyenough，thedoweroflandsproveda morestableinstitutionthantheanalogousandmoreancient reservationofcertainsharesofthepersonalpropertytothe widowandchildren。AfewlocalcustomsinFrancemaintainedthe rightdowntotheRevolution，andtherearetracesofsimilar usagesinEngland；butonthewholethedoctrineprevailedthat moveablesmightbefreelydisposedofbyWill，and，evenwhenthe claimsofthewidowcontinuedtoberespected，theprivilegesof thechildrenwereobliteratedfromjurisprudence。Weneednot hesitatetoattributethechangetotheinfluenceof Primogeniture。AstheFeudallawoflandpracticallydisinherited allthechildreninfavourofone，theequaldistributionevenof thosesortsofpropertywhichmighthavebeenequallydivided ceasedtobeviewedasaduty。Testamentsweretheprincipal instrumentsemployedinproducinginequality，andinthis conditionofthingsoriginatedtheshadeofdifferencewhich showsitselfbetweentheancientandthemodernconceptionofa Will。But，thoughthelibertyofbequest，enjoyedthrough Testaments，wasthusanaccidentalfruitofFeudalism，thereis nobroaderdistinctionthanthatwhichexistsbetweenasystemof freeTestamentarydispositionandasystem，likethatofthe Feudalland-law，underwhichpropertydescendscompulsorilyin prescribedlinesofdevolution。Thistruthappearstohavebeen lostsightofbytheauthorsoftheFrenchCodes。Inthesocial fabricwhichtheydeterminedtodestroy，theysawPrimogeniture restingchieflyonFamilysettlements，buttheyalsoperceived thatTestamentswerefrequentlyemployedtogivetheeldestson preciselythesamepreferencewhichwasreservedtohimunderthe strictestofentails。Inorder，therefore，tomakesureoftheir work，theynotonlyrendereditimpossibletoprefertheeldest sontotherestinmarriage-arrangements，buttheyalmost expelledTestamentarysuccessionfromthelaw，lestitshouldbe usedtodefeattheirfundamentalprincipleofanequal distributionofpropertyamongchildrenattheparent’sdeath。 Theresultisthattheyhaveestablishedasystemofsmall perpetualentails，whichisinfinitelynearerakintothesystem offeudalEuropethanwouldbeaperfectlibertyofbequest。The land-lawofEngland，\"theHerculaneumofFeudalism，\"iscertainly muchmorecloselyalliedtotheland-lawoftheMiddleAgesthan thatofanyContinentalcountry，andWillswithusarefrequently usedtoaidorimitatethatpreferenceoftheeldestsonandhis linewhichisanearlyuniversalfeatureinmarriagesettlements ofrealproperty。Butneverthelessfeelingandopinioninthis countryhavebeenprofoundlyaffectedbythepracticeoffree Testamentarydisposition；anditappearstomethatthestateof sentimentinagreatpartofFrenchsociety，onthesubjectof theconservationofpropertyinfamilies，ismuchlikerthat whichprevailedthroughEuropetwoorthreecenturiesagothan arethecurrentopinionsofEnglishmen。 ThementionofPrimogenitureintroducesoneofthemost difficultproblemsofhistoricaljurisprudence。ThoughIhavenot pausedtoexplainmyexpressions，itmayhavebeennoticedthatI havefrequentlyspokenofanumberof\"coheirs\"asplacedbythe RomanLawofSuccessiononthesamefootingwithasingleHeir。 Inpointoffact，weknowofnoperiodofRomanjurisprudenceat whichtheplaceoftheHeir，orUniversalSuccessor，mightnot havebeentakenbyagroupofco-heirs。Thisgroupsucceededasa singleunit，andtheassetswereafterwardsdividedamongthemin aseparatelegalproceeding。WhentheSuccessionwasab intestato，andthegroupconsistedofthechildrenofthe deceased，theyeachtookanequalshareoftheproperty；nor， thoughmaleshadatonetimesomeadvantagesoverfemales，is therethefaintesttraceofPrimogeniture。Themodeof distributionisthesamethroughoutarchaicjurisprudence。It certainlyseemsthat，whencivilsocietybeginsandfamilies ceasetoholdtogetherthroughaseriesofgenerations，theidea whichspontaneouslysuggestsitselfistodividethedomain equallyamongthemembersofeachsuccessivegeneration，andto reservenoprivilegetotheeldestsonorstock。Somepeculiarly significanthintsastothecloserelationofthisphenomenonto primitivethoughtarefurnishedbysystemsyetmorearchaicthan theRoman。AmongtheHindoos，theinstantasonisborn，he acquiresavestedrightinhisfather’sproperty，whichcannotbe soldwithoutrecognitionofhisjointownership。Ontheson’s attainingfullage，hecansometimescompelapartitionofthe estateevenagainsttheconsentoftheparent；and，shouldthe parentacquiesce，onesoncanalwayshaveapartitioneven againstthewilloftheothers。Onsuchpartitiontakingplace， thefatherhasnoadvantageoverhischildren，exceptthathehas twoofthesharesinsteadofone。TheancientlawoftheGerman tribeswasexceedinglysimilar。Theallodordomainofthefamily wasthejoint-propertyofthefatherandhissons。Itdoesnot， however，appeartohavebeenhabituallydividedevenatthedeath oftheparent，andinthesameWaythepossessionsofaHindoo， howeverdivisibletheoretically，aresorarelydistributedin fact，thatmanygenerationsconstantlysucceedeachotherwithout apartitiontakingplace，andthustheFamilyinIndiahasa perpetualtendencytoexpandintotheVillageCommunity，under conditionswhichIshallhereafterattempttoelucidate。Allthis pointsveryclearlytotheabsolutelyequaldivisionofassets amongthemalechildrenatdeathasthepracticemostusualwith societyattheperiodwhenfamily-dependencyisinthefirst stagesofdisintegration。Herethenemergesthehistorical difficultyofPrimogeniture。Themoreclearlyweperceivethat， whentheFeudalinstitutionswereinprocessofformation，there wasnosourceintheworldwhencetheycouldderivetheir elementsbuttheRomanlawoftheprovincialsontheonehandand thearchaiccustomsofthebarbariansontheother，themoreare weperplexedatfirstsightbyourknowledgethatneitherRoman norbarbarianwasaccustomedtogiveanypreferencetotheeldest sonorhislineinthesuccessiontoproperty。 PrimogenituredidnotbelongtotheCustomswhichthe barbarianspractisedontheirfirstestablishmentwithinthe RomanEmpire。Itisknowntohavehaditsorigininthebenefices orbeneficiarygiftsoftheinvadingchieftains。Thesebenefices， whichwereoccasionallyconferredbytheearlierimmigrantkings， butweredistributedonagreatscalebyCharlemagne，weregrants ofRomanprovinciallandtobeholdenbythebeneficiaryon conditionofmilitaryservice。Theallodialproprietorsdonot seemtohavefollowedtheirsovereignondistantordifficult enterprises，andallthegranderexpeditionsoftheFrankish chiefsandofCharlemagnewereaccomplishedwithforcescomposed ofsoldierseitherpersonallydependentontheroyalhouseor compelledtoserveitbythetenureoftheirland。Thebenefices， howeverwerenotatfirstinanysensehereditary。Theywere held，atthepleasureofthegrantor，oratmostforthelifeof thegrantee；butstill，fromtheveryoutset，noeffortseemsto havebeensparedbythebeneficiariestoenlargethetenure，and tocontinuetheirlandsintheirfamilyafterdeath。Throughthe feeblenessofCharlemagne’ssuccessorstheseattemptswere universallysuccessful，andtheBeneficegraduallytransformed itselfintothehereditaryFief。But，thoughthefiefswere hereditary，theydidnotnecessarilydescendtotheeldestson。 Therulesofsuccessionwhichtheyfollowedwereentirely determinedbythetermsagreeduponbetweenthegrantorandthe beneficiary，orimposedbyoneofthemontheweaknessofthe other。Theoriginaltenureswerethereforeextremelyvarious；not indeedsocapriciouslyvariouSasissometimesasserted，forall whichhavehithertobeendescribedpresentsomecombinationof themodesofsuccessionfamiliartoRomansandtobarbarians，but stillexceedinglymiscellaneous。Insomeofthem，theeldestson andhisstockundoubtedlysucceededtothefiefbeforethe others，butsuchsuccessions，sofarfrombeinguniversal，donot evenappeartohavebeengeneral。Preciselythesamephenomena recurduringthatmorerecenttransmutationofEuropeansociety whichentirelysubstitutedthefeudalformofpropertyforthe domainial(orRoman)andtheallodial(orGerman)。Theallods werewhollyabsorbedbythefiefs。Thegreaterallodial proprietorstransformedthemselvesintofeudallordsby conditionalalienationsofportionsoftheirlandtodependants； thesmallersoughtanescapefromtheoppressionsofthat terribletimebysurrenderingtheirpropertytosomepowerful chieftain，andreceivingitbackathishandsonconditionof serviceinhiswars。Meantime，thatvastmassofthepopulation ofWesternEuropewhoseconditionwasservileorsemi-servile—— theRomanandGermanpersonalslaves，theRomancoloniandthe Germanlidi——wereconcurrentlyabsorbedbythefeudal organisation，afewofthemassumingamenialrelationtothe lords，butthegreaterpartreceivinglandontermswhichin thosecenturieswereconsidereddegrading。Thetenurescreated duringthiseraofuniversalinfeudationwereasvariousasthe conditionswhichthetenantsmadewiththeirnewchiefsorwere forcedtoacceptfromthem。Asinthecaseofthebenefices，the successiontosome，butbynomeanstoall，oftheestates followedtheruleofPrimogeniture。Nosooner，however，hasthe feudalsystemprevailedthroughouttheWest，thanitbecomes evidentthatPrimogeniturehassomegreatadvantageoverevery othermodeofsuccession。ItspreadoverEuropewithremarkable rapidity，theprincipalinstrumentofdiffusionbeingFamily Settlements，thePactesdeFamilleofFranceandHaus-Gesetzeof Germany，whichuniversallystipulatedthatlandsheldbyknightly serviceshoulddescendtotheeldestson。Ultimatelythelaw resigneditselftofollowinveteratepractice，andwefindthat inallthebodiesofCustomaryLaw，whichweregraduallybuilt up，theeldestsonandstockarepreferredinthesuccessionto estatesofwhichthetenureisfreeandmilitary。Astolands heldbyserviletenures(andoriginallyalltenureswereservile whichboundthetenanttopaymoneyorbestowmanuallabour)，the systemofsuccessionprescribedbycustomdifferedgreatlyin differentcountriesanddifferentprovinces。Themoregeneral rulewasthatsuchlandsweredividedequallyatdeathamongall thechildren，butstillinsomeinstancestheeldestsonwas preferred，insometheyoungest。ButPrimogenitureusually governedtheinheritanceofthatclassofestates，insome respectsthemostimportantofall，whichwereheldbytenures that，liketheEnglishSocage，wereoflateroriginthanthe rest，andwereneitheraltogetherfreenoraltogetherservile。 ThediffusionofPrimogenitureisusuallyaccountedforby assigningwhatarecalledFeudalreasonsforit。Itisasserted thatthefeudalsuperiorhadabettersecurityforthemilitary serviceherequiredwhenthefiefdescendedtoasingleperson， insteadofbeingdistributedamonganumberonthedeceaseofthe lastholder。Withoutdenyingthatthisconsiderationmay partiallyexplainthefavourgraduallyacquiredbyPrimogeniture， ImustpointoutthatPrimogeniturebecameacustomofEurope muchmorethroughitspopularitywiththetenantsthanthrough anyadvantageitconferredonthelords。Foritsorigin， moreover，thereasongivendoesnotaccountatall。Nothingin lawspringsentirelyfromasenseofconvenience。Thereare alwayscertainideasexistingantecedentlyonwhichthesenseof convenienceworks，andofwhichitcandonomorethanformsome newcombination；andtofindtheseideasinthepresentcaseis exactlytheproblem。 Avaluablehintisfurnishedtousfromaquarterfruitfulof suchindications。AlthoughinIndiathepossessionsofaparent aredivisibleathisdeath，andmaybedivisibleduringhislife， amongallhismalechildreninequalshares，andthoughthis principleoftheequaldistributionofpropertyextendstoevery partoftheHindooinstitutions，yetwhereverpublicofficeor politicalpowerdevolvesatthedeceaseofthelastIncumbent， thesuccessionisnearlyuniversallyaccordingtotherulesof Primogeniture。Sovereigntiesdescendthereforetotheeldestson， andwheretheaffairsoftheVillageCommunity，thecorporate unitofHindoosociety，areconfidedtoasinglemanager，itis generallytheeldestsonwhotakesuptheadministrationathis parent’sdeath。Alloffices，indeed，inIndia，tendtobecome hereditary，and，whentheirnaturepermitsit，tovestinthe eldestmemberoftheoldeststock。ComparingtheseIndian successionswithsomeoftherudersocialorganisationswhich havesurvivedinEuropealmosttoourownday，theconclusion suggestsitselfthat，whenPatriarchalpowerisnotonlydomestic butpolitical，itisnotdistributedamongalltheissueatthe parent’sdeath，butisthebirthrightoftheeldestson。The chieftainshipofaHighlandclan，forexample，followedtheorder ofPrimogeniture。Thereseems，intruth，tobeaformof family-dependencystillmorearchaicthananyofthosewhichwe knowfromtheprimitiverecordsoforganisedcivilsocieties。The AgnaticUnionofthekindredinancientRomanlaw，anda multitudeofsimilarindications，pointtoaperiodatwhichall theramifyingbranchesofthefamilytreeheldtogetherinone organicwhole；anditisnopresumptuousconjecture，that，when thecorporationthusformedbythekindredwasinitselfan independentsocietyitwasgovernedbytheeldestmaleofthe oldestline。Itistruethatwehavenoactualknowledgeofany suchsociety。Eveninthemostelementarycommunities， family-organisations，asweknowthem，areatmostimperiain imperio。Butthepositionofsomeofthem，oftheCelticclansin particular，wassufficientlynearindependencewithinhistorical timestoforceonustheconvictionthattheywereonceseparate imperia，andthatPrimogenitureregulatedthesuccessiontothe chieftainship。Itis，however，necessarytobeonourguard againstmodernassociationswiththetermoflaw。Wearespeaking ofafamily-connectionstillcloserandmorestringentthanany withwhichwearemadeacquaintedbyHindoosocietyorancient Romanlaw。IftheRomanPaterfamiliaswasvisiblystewardofthe familypossessions，iftheHindoofatherisonlyjoint-sharer withhissons，stillmoreemphaticallymustthetruepatriarchal chieftainbemerelytheadministratorofacommonfund。 TheexamplesofsuccessionbyPrimogeniturewhichwerefound amongtheBeneficesmay，therefore，havebeenimitatedfroma systemoffamily-governmentknowntotheinvadingraces，though notingeneraluse。Somerudertribesmayhavestillpractised it，or，whatisstillmoreprobable，societymayhavebeenso slightlyremovedfromitsmorearchaicconditionthattheminds ofsomemenspontaneouslyrecurredtoit，whentheywerecalled upontosettletherulesofinheritanceforanewformof property，Butthereisstillthequestion，WhydidPrimogeniture graduallysupersedeeveryotherprincipleofsuccession？The answer，Ithink，is，thatEuropeansocietydecidedlyretrograded duringthedissolutionoftheCarlovingianempire。Itsanka pointortwobackevenfromthemiserablylowdegreewhichithad markedduringtheearlybarbarianmonarchies。Thegreat characteristicoftheperiodwasthefeebleness，orratherthe abeyance，ofkinglyandthereforeofcivilauthority，。andhence itseemsasif，civilsocietynolongercohering，menuniversally flungthemselvesbackonasocialorganisationolderthanthe beginningsofcivilcommunities。Thelordwithhisvassals， duringtheninthandtenthcenturies，maybeconsideredasa patriarchalhousehold，recruited，notasintheprimitivetimes byAdoption，butbyInfeudation；andtosuchaconfederacy， successionbyPrimogeniturewasasourceofstrengthand durability。Solongasthelandwaskepttogetheronwhichthe entireorganisationrested，itwaspowerfulfordefenceand attack；todividethelandwastodividethelittlesociety，and voluntarilytoinviteaggressioninaneraofuniversalviolence。 Wemaybeperfectlycertainthatintothispreferencefor Primogeniturethereenterednoideaofdisinheritingthebulkof thechildreninfavourofone。Everybodywouldhavesufferedby thedivisionofthefief。Everybodywasagainerbyits consolidation。TheFamilygrewstrongerbytheconcentrationof powerinthesamehands；norisitlikelythatthelordwhowas investedwiththeinheritancehadanyadvantageoverhisbrethren andkinsfolkinoccupations，interests，orindulgences。Itwould beasingularanachronismtoestimatetheprivilegessucceededto bytheheirofafief，bythesituationinwhichtheeldestson isplacedunderanEnglishstrictsettlement。 IhavesaidthatIregardtheearlyfeudalconfederaciesas descendedfromanarchaicformoftheFamily，andaswearinga strongresemblancetoit。Butthenintheancientworld，andin thesocietieswhichhavenotpassedthroughthecrucibleof feudalism，thePrimogeniturewhichseemstohaveprevailednever transformeditselfintothePrimogenitureofthelaterfeudal Europe。Whenthegroupofkinsmenceasedtobegovernedthrougha seriesofgenerationsbyahereditarychief，thedomainwhichhad beenmanagedforallappearstohavebeenequallydividedamong all。Whydidthisnotoccurinthefeudalworld？Ifduringthe confusionsofthefirstfeudalperiodtheeldestsonheldthe landforthebehoofofthewholefamily，whywasitthatwhen feudalEuropehadconsolidateditself，andregularcommunities wereagainestablished，thewholefamilydidnotresumethat capacityforequalinheritancewhichhadbelongedtoRomanand Germanalike？Thekeywhichunlocksthisdifficultyhasrarely beenseizedbythewriterswhooccupythemselvesintracingthe genealogyofFeudalism。Theyperceivethematerialsofthefeudal institutions，buttheymissthecement。Theideasandsocial formswhichcontributedtotheformationofthesystemwere unquestionablybarbarianandarchaic，but，assoonasCourtsand lawyerswerecalledintointerpretanddefineit，theprinciples ofinterpretationwhichtheyappliedtoitwerethoseofthe latestRomanjurisprudence，andwerethereforeexcessively refinedandmatured。Inapatriarchallygovernedsociety，the eldestsonmaysucceedtothegovernmentoftheAgnaticgroup， andtotheabsolutedisposalofitsproperty。Butheisnot thereforeatrueproprietor。Hehascorrelativedutiesnot involvedintheconceptionofproprietorship，butquiteundefined andquiteincapableofdefinition。ThelaterRomanjurisprudence， however，likeourownlaw，lookeduponuncontrolledpowerover propertyasequivalenttoownership，anddidnot，and，infact， couldnot，takenoticeofliabilitiesofsuchakind，thatthe veryconceptionofthembelongedtoaperiodanteriortoregular law。Thecontactoftherefinedandthebarbarousnotionhad inevitablyforitseffecttheconversionoftheeldestsoninto legalproprietoroftheinheritance。Theclericalandsecular lawyerssodefinedhispositionfromthefirst；butitwasonly byinsensibledegreesthattheyoungerbrother，from participatingonequaltermsinallthedangersandenjoymentsof hiskinsman，sankintothepriest，thesoldieroffortune，orthe hanger-onofthemansion。Thelegalrevolutionwasidenticalwith thatwhichoccurredonasmallerscale，andinquiterecent times，throughthegreaterpartoftheHighlandsofScotland。 Whencalledintodeterminethelegalpowersofthechieftain overthedomainswhichgavesustenancetotheclan，Scottish jurisprudencehadlongsincepassedthepointatwhichitcould takenoticeofthevaguelimitationsoncompletenessofdominion imposedbytheclaimsoftheclansmen，anditwasinevitable thereforethatitshouldconvertthepatrimonyofmanyintothe estateofone。 ForthesakeofsimplicityIhavecalledthemodeof successionPrimogeniturewheneverasinglesonordescendant succeedstotheauthorityoverahouseholdorsociety。Itis remarkable，however，thatinthefewveryancientexampleswhich remaintousofthissortofsuccession，itisnotalwaysthe eldestson，inthesensefamiliartous，whotakesupthe representation，TheformofPrimogeniturewhichhasspreadover WesternEuropehasalsobeenperpetuatedamongtheHindoos，and thereiseveryreasontobelievethatitisthenormalform。 Underit，notonlytheeldestSon，buttheeldestlineisalways preferred。Iftheeldestsonfails，hiseldestsonhasprecedence notonlyoverbrothersbutoveruncles；and，ifhetoofails，the sameruleisfollowedinthenextgeneration。Butwhenthe successionisnotmerelytocivilbuttopoliticalpower，a difficultymaypresentitselfwhichwillappearofgreater magnitudeaccordingasthecohesionofsocietyislessperfect。 Thechieftainwholastexercisedauthoritymayhaveoutlivedhis eldestson，andthegrandsonwhoisprimarilyentitledtosucceed maybetooyoungandimmaturetoundertaketheactualguidanceof thecommunity，andtheadministrationofitsaffairs。Insuchan event，theexpedientwhichsuggestsitselftothemoresettled societiesistoplacetheinfantheirunderguardianshiptillhe reachestheageoffitnessforgovernment。Theguardianshipis generallythatofthemaleAgnates；butitisremarkablethatthe contingencysupposedisoneoftherarecasesinwhichancient societieshaveconsentedtotheexerciseofpowerbywomen， doubtlessoutofrespecttotheovershadowingclaimsofthe mother。InIndia，thewidowofaHindoosovereigngovernsinthe nameofherinfantson，andwecannotbutrememberthatthe customregulatingsuccessiontothethroneofFrance——which， whateverbeitsorigin，isdoubtlessofthehighestantiquity—— preferredthequeen-mothertoallotherclaimantsforthe Regency，atthesametimethatitrigorouslyexcludedallfemales fromthethrone。Thereis，however，anothermodeofobviatingthe inconvenienceattendingthedevolutionofsovereigntyonan infantheir，anditisonewhichwoulddoubtlessoccur spontaneouslytorudelyorganisedcommunities。Thisistoset asidetheinfantheiraltogether，andconferthechieftainshipon theeldestsurvivingmaleofthefirstgeneration。TheCeltic clan-associations，amongthemanyphenomenawhichtheyhave preservedofanageinwhichcivilandpoliticalsocietywerenot yetevenrudimentarilyseparated，havebroughtdownthisruleof successiontohistoricaltimes。Withthem，itseemstohave existedintheformofapositivecanon，that，failingtheeldest son，hisnextbrothersucceedsinprioritytoallgrandsons， whateverbetheirageatthemomentwhenthesovereignty devolves。Somewritershaveexplainedtheprinciplebyassuming thattheCelticcustomstookthelastchieftainasasortofroot orstock，andthengavethesuccessiontothedescendantwho shouldbeleastremotefromhim；theunclethusbeingpreferred tothegrandsonasbeingnearertothecommonroot。Noobjection canbetakentothisstatementifitbemerelyintendedasa descriptionofthesystemofsuccession；butitwouldbea seriouserrortoconceivethemenwhofirstadoptedtheruleas applyingacourseofreasoningwhichevidentlydatesfromthe timewhenfeudalschemesofsuccessionbeguntobedebatedamong lawyers。Thetrueoriginofthepreferenceoftheuncletothe grandsonisdoubtlessasimplecalculationonthepartofrude meninarudesocietythatitisbettertobegovernedbyagrown chieftainthanbyachild，andthattheyoungersonismore likelytohavecometomaturitythananyoftheeldestson’s descendants。Atthesametime，wehavesomeevidencethatthe formofPrimogeniturewithwhichwearebestacquaintedisthe primaryform，inthetraditionthattheassentoftheclanwas askedwhenaninfantheirwaspassedoverinfavourofhisuncle。 Thereisatolerablywellauthenticatedinstanceofthisceremony intheannalsoftheMacdonalds。 UnderMahometanlawwhichhasprobablypreservedanancient Arabiancustom，inheritancesofpropertyaredividedequally amongsons，thedaughtertakingahalfshare；butifanyofthe childrendiebeforethedivisionoftheinheritance，leaving issuebehind，thesegrandchildrenareentirelyexcludedbytheir unclesandaunts。Consistentlywiththisprinciple，the succession，whenpoliticalauthoritydevolves，isaccordingto theformofPrimogeniturewhichappearstohaveobtainedamong theCelticsocieties。InthetwogreatMahometanfamiliesofthe West，theruleisbelievedtobe，thattheunclesucceedstothe throneinpreferencetothenephew，thoughthelatterbetheson ofanelderbrother；butthoughthisrulehasbeenfollowedquite recentlyinEgypt，Iaminformedthatthereissomedoubtasto itsgoverningthedevolutionoftheTurkishsovereigntyThe policyoftheSultanshasinfacthithertopreventedcasesfor itsapplicationfromoccurring，anditispossiblethattheir wholesalemassacresoftheiryoungerbrothersmayhavebeen perpetuatedquiteasmuchintheinterestoftheirchildrenas forthesakeofmakingawaywithdangerouscompetitorsforthe throne。Itisevident，however，thatinpolygamoussocietiesthe formofPrimogeniturewillalwaystendtovary。Many considerationsmayconstituteaclaimonthesuccession，therank ofthemother，forexample，orherdegreeintheaffectionsof thefather。Accordingly，someoftheIndiaMahometasovereigns， withoutpretendingtoanydistincttestamentarypower，claimthe rightofnominatingthesonwhoistosucceed。Theblessing mentionedintheScripturalhistoryofIsaacandhissonshas sometimesbeenspokenofasawill，butitseemsrathertohave beenamodeofnaminganeldestson。 AncientLaw byHenryMaineChapter8TheEarlyHistoryofProperty TheRomanInstitutionalTreatises，aftergivingtheir definitionofthevariousformsandmodificationsofownership， proceedtodiscusstheNaturalModesofAcquiringProperty。Those whoareunfamiliarwiththehistoryofjurisprudencearenot likelytolookuponthese\"naturalmodes\"ofacquisitionas possessing，atfirstsight，eithermuchspeculativeormuch practicalinterest。Thewildanimalwhichissnaredorkilledby thehunter，thesoilwhichisaddedtoourfieldbythe imperceptibledepositsofariver，thetreewhichstrikesits rootsintoourground，areeachsaidbytheRomanlawyerstobe acquiredbyusnaturally。Theolderjurisconsultshaddoubtless observedthatsuchacquisitionswereuniversallysanctionedby theusagesofthelittlesocietiesaroundthem，andthusthe lawyersofalaterage，findingthemclassedintheancientJus Gentium，andperceivingthemtobeofthesimplestdescription， allottedthemaplaceamongtheordinancesofNature。Thedignity withwhichtheywereinvestedhasgoneonincreasinginmodern timestillitisquiteoutofproportiontotheiroriginal importance。Theoryhasmadethemitsfavouritefood，andhas enabledthemtoexercisethemostseriousinfluenceonpractice。 Itwillbenecessaryforustoattendtooneonlyamongthese \"naturalmodesofacquisition，\"OccupatioorOccupancy。Occupancy istheadvisedlytakingpossessionofthatwhichatthemomentis thepropertyofnoman，withtheview(addsthetechnical definition)ofacquiringpropertyinitforyourself。Theobjects whichtheRomanlawyerscalledresnullius——thingswhichhave notorhaveneverhadanowner——canonlybeascertainedby enumeratingthem。Amongthingswhichneverhadanownerarewild animals，fishes，wildfowl，jewelsdisinterredforthefirst time，andlandsnewlydiscoveredorneverbeforecultivated。 Amongthingswhichhavenotanowneraremoveableswhichhave beenabandoned，landswhichhavebeendeserted，and(ananomalous butmostformidableitem)thepropertyofanenemy。Inallthese objectsthefullrightsofdominionwereacquiredbythe Occupant，whofirsttookpossessionofthemwiththeintentionof keepingthemashisown——anintentionwhich，incertaincases， hadtobemanifestedbyspecificacts。Itisnotdifficult，I think，tounderstandtheuniversalitywhichcausedthepractice ofOccupancytobeplacedbyonegenerationofRomanlawyersin theLawcommontoallNations，andthesimplicitywhich occasioneditsbeingattributedbyanothertotheLawofNature。 Butforitsfortunesinmodernlegalhistorywearelessprepared byaprioriconsiderations。TheRomanprincipleofOccupancy，and therulesintowhichthejurisconsultsexpandedit，arethe sourceofallmodernInternationalLawonthesubjectofCapture inWarandoftheacquisitionofsovereignrightsinnewly discoveredcountries。Theyhavealsosuppliedatheoryofthe OriginofProperty，whichisatoncethepopulartheory，andthe theorywhich，inoneformoranother，isacquiescedinbythe greatmajorityofspeculativejurists。 IhavesaidthattheRomanprincipleofOccupancyhas determinedthetenorofthatchapterofInternationalLawwhich isconcernedwithCaptureinWar。TheLawofWarlikeCapture derivesitsrulesfromtheassumptionthatcommunitiesare remittedtoastateofnaturebytheoutbreakofhostilities，and that，intheartificialnaturalconditionthusproduced，the institutionofprivatepropertyfallsintoabeyancesofaras concernsthebelligerents。AsthelaterwritersontheLawof Naturehavealwaysbeenanxioustomaintainthatprivateproperty wasinsomesensesanctionedbythesystemwhichtheywere expounding，thehypothesisthatanenemy’spropertyisres nulliushasseemedtothemperverseandshocking，andtheyare carefultostigmatiseitasamerefictionofjurisprudence。But， assoonastheLawofNatureistracedtoitssourceintheJus Gentium，weseeatoncehowthegoodsofanenemycametobe lookeduponasnobody’sproperty，andthereforeascapableof beingacquiredbythefirstoccupant。Theideawouldoccur spontaneouslytopersonspractisingtheancientformsofWarfare， whenvictorydissolvedtheorganisationoftheconqueringarmy anddismissedthesoldierstoindiscriminateplunder。Itis probable，however，thatoriginallyitwasonlymoveableproperty whichwasthuspermittedtobeacquiredbytheCaptor。Weknowon independentauthoritythataverydifferentruleprevailedin ancientItalyastotheacquisitionofownershipinthesoilofa conqueredcountry，andwemaythereforesuspectthatthe applicationoftheprincipleofoccupancytoland(alwaysa matterofdifficulty)datesfromtheperiodwhentheJusGentium wasbecomingtheCodeofNature，andthatitistheresultofa generalisationeffectedbythejurisconsultsofthegoldenage。 TheirdogmasonthepointarepreservedinthePandectsof Justinian，andamounttoanunqualifiedassertionthatenemy’s propertyofeverysortisresnulliustotheotherbelligerent， andthatOccupancy，bywhichtheCaptormakesthemhisown，isan institutionofNaturalLaw。TheruleswhichInternational jurisprudencederivesfromthesepositionshavesometimesbeen stigmatisedasneedlesslyindulgenttotheferocityandcupidity ofcombatants，butthechargehasbeenmade，Ithink，bypersons whoareunacquaintedwiththehistoryofwars，andwhoare consequentlyignoranthowgreatanexploititistocommand obedienceforaruleofanykind。TheRomanprincipleof Occupancy，whenitwasadmittedintothemodernlawofCapturein War，drewwithitanumberofsubordinatecanons，limitingand givingprecisiontoitsoperation，andifthecontestswhichhave beenwagedsincethetreatiseofGrotiusbecameanauthority，are comparedwiththoseofanearlierdate，itwillbeseenthat，as soonastheRomanmaximswerereceived，Warfareinstantlyassumed amoretolerablecomplexion。IftheRomanlawofOccupancyisto betaxedwithhavinghadperniciousinfluenceonanypartofthe modernLawofNations，thereisanotherchapterinitwhichmay besaid，withsomereason，tohavebeeninjuriouslyaffected。In applyingtothediscoveryofnewcountriesthesameprinciples whichtheRomanshadappliedtothefindingofajewel，the Publicistsforcedintotheirserviceadoctrinealtogether unequaltothetaskexpectedfromit。Elevatedintoextreme importancebythediscoveriesofthegreatnavigatorofthe fifteenthandsixteenthcenturies，itraisedmoredisputesthan itsolved。Thegreatestuncertaintywasveryshortlyfoundto existontheverytwopointsonwhichcertaintywasmost required，theextentoftheterritorywhichwasacquiredforhis sovereignbythediscoverer，andthenatureoftheactswhich werenecessarytocompletetheadprehensioorassumptionof sovereignpossession。Moreover，theprincipleitself，conferring asitdidsuchenormousadvantagesastheconsequenceofapiece ofgoodluck，wasinstinctivelymutiniedagainstbysomeofthe mostadventurousnationsinEurope，theDutch，theEnglish，and thePortuguese。Ourowncountrymen，withoutexpresslydenyingthe ruleofInternationalLaw，neverdid，inpractice，admitthe claimoftheSpaniardstoengrossthewholeofAmericasouthof theGulfofMexico，orthatoftheKingofFrancetomonopolise thevalleysoftheOhioandtheMississippi。Fromtheaccession ofElizabethtotheaccessionofCharlestheSecond，itcannotbe saidthattherewasatanytimethoroughpeaceintheAmerican waters，andtheencroachmentsoftheNewEnglandColonistsonthe territoryoftheFrenchKingcontinuedforalmostacentury longer。Benthamwassostruckwiththeconfusionattendingthe applicationofthelegalprinciple，thathewentoutofhisway toeulogisethefamousBullofPopeAlexandertheSixth，dividing theundiscoveredcountriesoftheworldbetweentheSpaniardsand PortuguesebyalinedrawnonehundredleaguesWestofthe Azores；and，grotesqueashispraisesmayappearatfirstsight， itmaybedoubtedwhetherthearrangementofPopeAlexanderis absurderinprinciplethantheruleofPubliclaw，whichgave halfacontinenttothemonarchwhoseservantshadfulfilledthe conditionsrequiredbyRomanjurisprudencefortheacquisitionof propertyinavaluableobjectwhichcouldbecoveredbythehand。 Toallwhopursuetheinquirieswhicharethesubjectofthis volumeOccupancyispre-eminentlyinterestingonthescoreofthe serviceithasbeenmadetoperformforspeculative jurisprudence，infurnishingasupposedexplanationoftheorigin ofprivatepropertyItwasonceuniversallybelievedthatthe proceedingimpliedinOccupancywasidenticalwiththeprocessby whichtheearthanditsfruits，whichwereatfirstincommon， becametheallowedpropertyofindividuals。Thecourseofthought whichledtothisassumptionisnotdifficulttounderstand，if weseizetheshadeofdifferencewhichseparatestheancientfrom themodernconceptionofNaturalLaw。TheRomanlawyershadlaid downthatOccupancywasoneoftheNaturalmodesofacquiring property，andtheyundoubtedlybelievedthat，weremankindliving undertheinstitutionsofNature，Occupancywouldbeoneoftheir practices。Howfartheypersuadedthemselvesthatsucha conditionoftheracehadeverexisted，isapoint，asIhave alreadystated，whichtheirlanguageleavesinmuchuncertainty； buttheycertainlydoseemtohavemadetheconjecture，whichhas atalltimespossessedmuchplausibility，thattheinstitutionof propertywasnotsooldastheexistenceofmankind。Modem jurisprudence，acceptingalltheirdogmaswithoutreservation， wentfarbeyondthemintheeagercuriositywithwhichitdwelt onthesupposedstateofNature。Sincethenithadreceivedthe positionthattheearthanditsfruitswereonceresnullius，and sinceitspeculiarviewofNatureledittoassumewithout hesitationthatthehumanracehadactuallypractisedthe Occupancyofresnulliuslongbeforetheorganisationofcivil societies，theinferenceimmediatelysuggesteditselfthat Occupancywastheprocessbywhichthe\"noman’sgoods\"ofthe primitiveworldbecametheprivatepropertyofindividualsinthe worldofhistory。Itwouldbewearisometoenumeratethejurists whohavesubscribedtothistheoryinoneshapeoranother，and itisthelessnecessarytoattemptitbecauseBlackstone，whois alwaysafaithfulindexoftheaverageopinionsofhisday，has summedthemupinhis2ndbookand1stchapter。 \"Theearth，\"hewrites，\"andallthingsthereinwerethe generalpropertyofmankindfromtheimmediategiftofthe Creator。Notthatthecommunionofgoodsseemsevertohavebeen applicable，evenintheearliestages，toaughtbutthesubstance ofthething；norcouldbeextendedtotheuseofit。For，bythe lawofnatureandreasonhewhofirstbegantouseitacquired thereinakindoftransientpropertythatlastedsolongashe wasusingit，andnolonger；ortospeakwithgreaterprecision， therightofpossessioncontinuedforthesametimeonlythatthe actofpossessionlasted。Thusthegroundwasincommon，andno partwasthepermanentpropertyofanymaninparticular；yet whoeverwasintheoccupationofanydeterminedspotofit，for rest，forshade，orthelike，acquiredforthetimeasortof ownership，fromwhichitwouldhavebeenunjustandcontraryto thelawofnaturetohavedrivenhimbyforce，buttheinstant thathequittedtheuseofoccupationofit，anothermightseize itwithoutinjustice。\"Hethenproceedstoarguethat\"when mankindincreasedinnumber，itbecamenecessarytoentertain conceptionsofmorepermanentdominion，andtoappropriateto individualsnottheimmediateuseonly，buttheverysubstanceof thethingtobeused。\" Someambiguitiesofexpressioninthispassageleadtothe suspicionthatBlackstonedidnotquiteunderstandthemeaningof thepropositionwhichhefoundinhisauthorities，thatproperty intheearth’ssurfacewasfirstacquired，underthelawof Nature，bytheoccupant；butthelimitationwhichdesignedlyor throughmisapprehensionhehasimposedonthetheorybringsit intoaformwhichithasnotinfrequentlyassumed。Manywriters morefamousthanBlackstoneforprecisionoflanguagehavelaid downthat，inthebeginningofthings，Occupancyfirstgavea rightagainsttheworldtoanexclusivebuttemporaryenjoyment， andthatafterwardsthisright，whileitremainedexclusive， becameperpetual。Theirobjectinsostatingtheirtheorywasto reconcilethedoctrinethatinthestateofNatureresnullius becamepropertythroughOccupancy，withtheinferencewhichthey drewfromtheScripturalhistorythatthePatriarchsdidnotat firstpermanentlyappropriatethesoilwhichhadbeengrazedover bytheirflocksandherds。 Theonlycriticismwhichcouldbedirectlyappliedtothe theoryofBlackstonewouldconsistininquiringwhetherthe circumstanceswhichmakeuphispictureofaprimitivesociety aremoreorlessprobablethanotherincidentswhichcouldbe imaginedwithequalreadiness。Pursuingthismethodof examination，wemightfairlyaskwhetherthemanwhohadoccupied (BlackstoneevidentlyusesthiswordwithitsordinaryEnglish meaning)aparticularspotofgroundforrestorshadewouldbe permittedtoretainitwithoutdisturbance。Thechancessurely arethathisrighttopossessionwouldbeexactlycoextensive withhispowertokeepit，andthathewouldbeconstantlyliable todisturbancebythefirstcomerwhocovetedthespotand thoughthimselfstrongenoughtodriveawaythepossessor。But thetruthisthatallsuchcavilatthesepositionsisperfectly idlefromtheverybaselessnessofthepositionsthemselves。What mankinddidintheprimitivestatemaynotbeahopelesssubject ofinquiry，butoftheirmotivesfordoingititisimpossibleto knowanything。Thesesketchesoftheplightofhumanbeingsin thefirstagesoftheworldareeffectedbyfirstsupposing mankindtobedivestedofagreatpartofthecircumstancesby whichtheyarenowsurrounded，andbythenassumingthat，inthe conditionthusimagined，theywouldpreservethesamesentiments andprejudicesbywhichtheyarenowactuated，——although，in fact，thesesentimentsmayhavebeencreatedandengenderedby thoseverycircumstancesofwhich，bythehypothesis，theyareto bestripped。