MADRAS IN 1714. 



15 



assumed to prescribe the succession of the eldest son, for, if 

 the eldest son always succeeded as a matter of course, there 

 would seem to be no occasion for the dying King " duly to 

 commit his kingdom " to him. 



Poligars and heads of villages, Father Bouchet tells us, 

 invariably preferred their younger to their elder sons, if 

 more competent. 



And then the letter goes on to give a remarkable instance 

 of a partition of a kingdom : — 



"On a vu avec admiration les deux freres Princes de Tan- 

 jaor gouverner tous deux ensemble le payis qui leur a este 

 laisse* par leur frere aine qui n'avait pas d'enfants. II est 

 vrai que l'experience leur ayant appris que cette autorite* 

 commune embarrassoit leurs sujets, ils ont partage entre 

 eux le Eoyaume de Tanjaor, mais ils ne laissent pas de 

 demeurer ensemble dans le meme Palais, et d'y vivre dans 

 une parfaite union. Ils sont les enfans d'un frere du fameux 

 Sivagi." 



This passage should afford food for reflection to those who, 

 following the unsupported opinions of the two Stranges and 

 others, and rejecting the sound arguments of Jagannatha, 

 maintain that, according to Hindu law and usage, the 

 Raj yam cannot be divided, " because division would destroy 

 it." I have examined this proposition in Chapter II of my 

 View of the Hindoo Law. 



The 3rd maxim is : " Quand les biens n'ont point este 

 partagez apres la mort du Pere, tout le bien que peut avoir 

 gagne un des enfans, doit estre mis a la masse commune, et 

 estre partage egalement." Father Bouchet observes that this 

 is generally followed amongst Indians, and an infinite number 

 of disputes are settled in accordance with the principle in- 

 volved in it. If, for example, a man dies leaving five sons and 

 an estate of the value of 100 pagodas, and one of these sons 

 \>y his own unaided exertions acquires 10,000 pagodas, he 



