The sheets of livid lightning, flaming wide, So fair a sight could scarcely speak of wrath- Their sinking souls, and bid them fear no more? For ever. In the clouds I set my bow, END. J. B. DISCUSSION: IS THE SALIC LAW UNJUST IN EXCLUDING FEMALES FROM THE THRONE? On this question the Opener proposed to contend, that there was injustice in excluding females from the throne. In this he should wish to be understood as not opposing the provisions of the Salic law, but the construction which French jurists had given them, in the celebrated contest between Edward III. of England, and Philip of Valois. The text of the Salic law under the head de alode, which formed the subject of contention, did not mention the exclusion of females from the throne, but merely a certain preference to the male sex.* The question appeared naturally to divide itself into two parts: first, the consideration of justice as depending on the abstract principle, which decided the individual rights of human beings; and, secondly, justice as it related to the institution of society. If it should appear, according to both these views, that the exclusion of females from the throne was inconsistent with justice, he hoped he should be entitled to a decision in his favour. As to the first point, if we believed either natural or revealed religion, all members of the human race were equal. *The text of the Salic Law to which our discussion refers, is tit. 62, de alode. 1. Si quis homo mortuus fuerit et filios non dimiserit; si pater aut mater superfuerint ipsi in hæreditatem succedant.-2. Si pater, aut mater non superfuerint, et patres vel sorores reliquerit ipsi hæreditatem obtineavit. -3. Quod si nec isti fuerint, sorores patris in hæreditatem ejus succedant.-4. Si vero sorores patris non extiterint, sorores matris ejus hæreditatem sibi vendicent.-5. Si autem nulli horum fuerint quicunque proximiores fuerint de paterna generatione ipsi in hæreditatem succedant. -6. De terra verò Salica, nulla portio hæreditatis mulieri veniat: sed ad virilem sexum tota terræ hæreditas perveniat. There can be no doubt that this is the true reading of the law as it is thus quoted by Pithou and Rapin. Strange as it may appear, the President Montesquieu has strangely erred in his translation of the third and fourth articles of the law: thus, 3. S'il n'a ni frère ni soeur la soeur de sa mère lui succédera.-4. Si sa mère n'a point de soeur la soeur de son père lui succédera, liv. 18, c. 22. This is not a mere mistake of the printer, for Montesquieu proceeds to reason on this faulty translation. M. Echard, as quoted by the president, proves that salic is derived from sala, a house. This by figure was extended to the land appertaining to the house of each German. Some persons of high rank in the literary world have imagined that the Salic lands were feudal. But the title of the law "de alode," proves the opinion incorrect. It is almost impertinent to remark that al-od meant absolute property, while fe-od meant stipendiary property. Besides, the exclusion of females from property in lands was a custom among the Germans in the age of Tacitus (de Mor. Ger, c. 26.) long before the ferdal obligation. When men left their homes to seek new settlements, the division was naturally made without reference to the other sex, and the customs of their ancestors of course continued their effect. VOL. IV. PART II. U Women, as members of that race, were undoubtedly sharers of that equality. Were they viewed with relation to their necessity in the continuation of society, they must be regarded as of equal importance with men. It might as well be said that colour could exist without light, as society without women. This was as to their mere corporeal qualities, which they enjoyed in common with men. Of their rights they could only be deprived by the institutions of society. How far these were just, came next to be considered. The justice of that deprivation, depended on the injury the non-deprivation could produce to society. As the present question related to the government of countries, the injury must be produced principally by an inferiority of intellect: but the powers of intellect could only be displayed by the influence of education; they would be displayed in different ways, according to the difference of education; consequently, if the intellectual powers were required to produce similar effects, they must be cultivated in a similar manner. Until this similarity of education existed, any conclusion as to the intellectual powers of a number of human beings must be imperfect. The education of women was entirely unlike that of men, and therefore the judgment formed as to their equality or inequality of intellectual powers, must be imperfect or unjust. How then, it might be demanded, could we arrive at a conclusion that the minds of women were fitted to embrace the ideas and to form the plans necessary in the government of a country. We could only form an opinion from those instances where chance had allowed women to be raised to the head of government. In most of those instances, women had shewn a far greater proportion of the talents necessary for government, than those generally possessed by the male occupiers of thrones.* Remember Anne of England, who could humble Louis XIV. -the Empress Queen of Hungary, who resisted the efforts of Louis XV. Frederick the Great, and the Elector of Bavaria,— Elizabeth of England, who supported the protestant Henry IV. against the league, and her own power against the supposed mighty Philip II.—the four Empresses of Russia, who in constant succession took possession of the throne. Still further to supply examples, look at the lives of the queens and female regents of France.t From these, the fair conclusion was that, if a similarity of education and opportunity existed, there would be a similarity in the actions of both sexes. * Vide Voltaire, "Dictionnaire Philosophique, tome 7me, article Loi Salique." ↑ Vies des Reines et Regentes de France, par Dreux du Radier, en 6 tomes. ་ But what was the practice in the principal countries of Europe? Spain, England, Naples, Hungary, Russia, and Scotland, had admitted females to their respective thrones; no inconvenience had thence been experienced. What consistency there was in that nation which called itself the most gallant and enlightened in the world, thus denying the other sex the privilege of royal rank, was rather difficult to prove! Besides, what was the opinion of the legislation who formed the law, as to its justice? In the 1st, 2d, 3d, and 4th articles, it expressly directed that females should obtain the estate of the last possessor. The 6th article could not, therefore, with propriety, be construed as of general effect, and operating to the exclusion of the whole sex, but merely as vesting in each possessor a species of estate tail male. The five first articles referred to the inheritance when a possessor died without sons: the sixth, to the inheritance when he had both sons and daughters. Thus, the Opener hoped he had made it appear that, in the first place, the construction put on the law by the French jurists was unjust; and, in the second, that the law itself did not warrant the construction. ON THE OTHER SIDE, the following observations were made.—With regard to the interpretation of the Salic law, there seems no reason for disturbing that which has been so `long admitted. It has been said that the first four articles admit females to inherit; and the sixth only excludes them where there are sons. It is worthy of remark that, in the 1st, 2d, 3d, and 4th articles, which admit females in certain cases to inherit, the word land does not occur; while the 6th article most expressly excludes them from such inheritance, and declares that no portion o the Salic land shall descend to a female; but that the whole inheritance of the land, shall be confined to the male sex. What can be understood from this, but that females were permitted to inherit any species of property, land excepted;* from which they were rigorously excluded. If this be not so, the 6th article seems to have been framed for no earthly purpose. But the intention of it can hardly be doubted: it is scarcely possible for language to be more precise and explicit. But if a mere precedence were given to males, the case is not much mended for our opponents. For it matters little whether females are excluded altogether, or only allowed to inherit in case of the failure of heirs male. As to the throne not being expressly mentioned, it can scarcely be supposed probable that the law which forbade a fe The title "de alode" may seem opposed to this interpretation; but the word is applicable not only to land, but to any other species of property held absolutely. male to inherit a single rood of land, should call her to the exercise of the sovereign power. The land of the house, or family, gave power and authority to him who held it for that reason the succession was confined to males. On the whole, there seems no ground for questioning the accuracy of that interpretation which has been received for centuries. In But whatever may be the true meaning of the Salic Law, that into which we have to enquire is the presumed injustice of the exclusion, whether effected by the Salic law, or by any other. Now, wherein does this injustice consist? An action cannot be said to be unjust, unless it deprives an individual of something to which he has a right, either by the law of nature, or by the law of the community of which he is a member. By the law of nature, every human being has a right to his life, his limbs, his liberty. To deprive him of any of these, is, therefore, an act of injustice. In addition to their natural rights, men have certain civil ones conferred upon them by the state. England, a man possessing a freehold of forty shillings per annum, is entitled to vote at the election of the members for the county. The legislature having conferred this right, it is unjust by fraud or violence to invade it. Is a right to a throne a natural or a civil right? It cannot be a natural right. Monarchy is indeed a lawful form of government, but it is not the only lawful form. No one can be said to have a natural right to a throne; because a man may be born in a country where monarchy does not exist, or on an island inhabited by a single family, where civil government does not exist. A right to a throne, therefore, is a civil right: it must be created by some previous act, either of the legislature, or of the whole people. It is desirable, for the sake of the community, that the limitations of the succession should be wise and beneficial; but no one has a right to complain of personal injury, because that is withheld, to which he had no previous claim. There is no such thing as a natural order of succession to the supreme power every community must decide for itself as to the most eligible. When any one is established, it ought not indeed to be lightly departed from. But, previous to the establishment of any, no one is more just or legal than another; and, after one has been adopted, no individual, with a view to his own personal aggrandizement, or personal emolument, is entitled to say that it is wrong. It may be very pleasant to have a chance of obtaining a crown; but the law is not unjust which refuses to give it. The opposite opinion would lead to universal discontent. If a female may complain because a throne is denied her; the commoner may complain that he has not the privileges of the peerage; the peer, that he has not those of the |