LEGITIMACY. 



m fwwnd, established two houses, on the plan of 



. "..,., i ,. | , . j - .;,s. In I 1 .. li\ia. tlie lejii-la- 

 [artmrnl romists of three branches, the tri- 

 bunes, the senator- antl tlie censors. (See J!i;t-il. 

 Prrm, Mexico. &c ) We ought to mention, in con 

 iwxion with lliis subject, that, in most governments. 

 is also a legislative voice, in so far 

 Hint iu sanction is required to give the force of law 

 Native bodies. Thus, in Bri- 

 tain and France, tlie royal assent is necessary to the 

 passage of a bill. In tlie United States of America, 

 it, and, in the larger part of the states, 



\ i rnors, have a provisional reto. 

 I.KtaTl.MACY; from lex (the law), whence Irgiti- 

 mtu (conformable to law) ; hence legitimate children 

 are the oH'-pring of a lawful marriage ; and those 

 which are born out of wedlock are said to be legiti- 

 mated when they are declared legitimate by the state. 

 A person legitimates his claims when he produces 

 legal proof of their justice. After the French revolu- 

 tion, in the last century, had deprived the Bourbons 

 of tlie throne of France, to which they laid claim by 

 virtue of their right of succession, and, in particular, 

 after their recovery of it, in 1814, the word legiti- 

 macy became very common in the language of 



.an politics. The question, Who is the legiti- 

 mate ruler? is intimately connected with the general 

 subject of sovereignty, (q. v.) Formerly, when 

 political questions were treated less scientifically, 

 legitimacy was not so much a point of contest. States, 

 countries, nations, passed by inheritance, conquest, 

 marriage contracts, &c., and the legitimacy of a 

 prince was decided, generally, like an affair of ordi- 

 nary diplomacy ; less, however, in the case of Bri- 

 tain tlian of the continent. But when the allies 

 dethroned Napoleon and his brothers, they wanted 

 something to oppose to the claims which he derived 

 from his election by the people. A phantom was 

 therefore created, at the congress of Vienna, called 

 legitimacy, and since that time, has been constantly 

 used, but never defined, which, indeed, it cannot be, 

 because tlie facts before the world are too stubborn 

 for this theory of the hereditary descent of nations, 

 like common property. If this right of inheritance 

 could be proved, legitimacy would be something very 

 easily definable; but there is a difference between an 

 estate and a nation. The Austrian Observer, a semi- 

 official paper, in order to prove the Turks legitimate 

 masters of Greece, once defined legitimacy thus : 

 " Every sovereign is legitimate who is such by a long 

 series of treaties with other lawful sovereigns." 

 Austrian logic ! Misconceptions of certain passages 

 of the Old Testament, a confusion of religious and 

 political ideas, together with feudal views surviving 

 the institutions which gave them birth, have involved 

 the question of legitimacy in great obscurity. The 

 most absurd doctrines have been broached in the 

 attempt to support this doctrine of the holy alliance, 

 and other follies, which have been maintained at the 

 expense of the blood and happiness of nations. If it 

 rests on long possession, we might ask how many 

 generations are required to legitimate robbery; or we 

 iiiijlit say, with Luther, that, on this principle, Satan 



iiiu-t legitimate of rulers, because his kingdom 

 i- the oldest. In our prosaic times, those who rest 

 the right of sovereignty on birdi cannot, like the 

 ancients, make a Jupiter or an Apollo the founder of 

 a royal line, and deduce tlie divine right of princes 

 from their ili% ine descent ; and, if they look no higher 

 than a human ancestor, it will be hard to prove the 

 direct descent of many a princely house from the 

 source wlience it derives its claims to sovereignty. 

 The memoirs of courts show how often plebeian blood 

 has been mixed with royal. But it is needless to 

 Spend time in refuting a theory which even Chateau- 



briand, once its staunch defender, has declaimed. In 

 a late speech, he says, " I do not believe in the 

 divine right of kings," and "monarchy is no longer 

 a religion ; it is a political form.'' 



For all who consider the state as a society of men 

 with equal rights, and the government as established 

 for their welfare, the question is easily solved. He 

 who rules with the approbation of the people is 

 legitimate. If, after submitting, for a while, to one 

 family, they choose to transfer their allegiance to 

 another, they have, incontestably, the right to do so. 

 The mistakes to which they may be liable, in using 

 their rights, do not allect the rights themselves. 

 The good of the people is the sole object of govern- 

 ment, and no title, however, high-sounding, or old, 

 or well-earned, can contest with it. History, more- 

 over, is full of instances of reigning houses displaced 

 by revolutions, and succeeded by others, which have 

 been considered legitimate, on account of their ac- 

 ceptance by the people. 



*The word legitimacy is now commonly used, in 

 Europe, to denote the lawfulness of the government, 

 in a hereditary monarchy, where the supreme dig- 

 nity and power pass by law from one regent to 

 another, according to the right of primogeniture. In 

 this sense, Napoleon Bonaparte is called an illegiti- 

 mate ruler of France, though he was acknowleded by 

 the French nation, and by other powers (even by 

 Britain, which negotiated and concluded with him, 

 as first consul, the peace of Amiens). Louis Stanis- 

 laus Xavier, on the contrary, as the eldest brother of 

 Louis XVI., is called a legitimate ruler of France, 

 because (agreeable to the Salic law, which prevails 

 in the French monarchy), after the death of Louis 

 XVI., his son was to succeed to the throne, under the 

 title of Louis Xf^II.; and, as he died without children 

 or brothers, and his sister could not succeed, his first 

 uncle (formerly count of Provence) was to be consider- 

 ed as Louis XVIII., although the Bourbon dynasty, 

 in fact, ceased to rule at the death of Louis XVI. 

 This signification of the word is plainly too limited ; 

 for, I. it is not adapted testates with elective govern- 

 ments, notwithstanding a regular government is 

 established in them, as well, as in hereditary states, 

 by constitutional laws, and consequently there are 

 legitimate rulers in them ; 2. it is not adapted to 

 hereditary states, if the reigning family becomes ex- 

 tinct, when a new family must be called by the nation 

 to the throne, or a different form of hereditary suc- 

 cession be adopted in regard to the persons who are 

 to fill the highest offices of dignity and power. But 

 there is an error, also, at the very foundation of the 

 above definition of legitimacy : it supposes that the 

 state, that is, the people living in a certain territory, 

 in civil union, is the private property of a single 

 family, transmissible, like all other private posses- 

 sions, from the parents to their children, or other re- 

 lations, as long as any branch of the family is living; 

 for one man can never, rightfully, be the property of 

 another still less a multitude of people, in civil 

 union, or a state. If the idea of property was appli- 

 cable in this case, the ruler ought rather to be called 

 the property of the state, than the state the property 

 of the ruler ; but the idea does not admit of being ap- 

 plied to the relation existing between a state and its 

 governor. This relation can be properly considered 

 only as a contract by which the dominion of the state 

 is given to tlie ruler, whether the compact be merely 

 virtual and tacit, or express and formal, and whether 

 the supreme power is given to a definite individual, 

 who is appointed anew every time, or to a whole 



* What follows of the article Legitimacy from this point, 

 must be taken as the view of Continental jurists on the 

 subject. 



