. 
Well 11. 
be diftributed totally different from an 
eftate in the funds, though both are effen- 
tially- alike as tar-as regards the mere 
propriety. Hence, landed property ‘is 
faid, in the language of ‘he law, always to 
deicend, witile periovai property is allow- 
“ed tu afcend. In other words, if a man, 
poffefied of a landed eftate, unfortunately 
dies without a will, or if that will be not 
formally executed, that eitate fhall go to 
the 48th coufin, in preterence to his father 
or mother, though the milerable parents 
may perifh ma worklioule. What but 
the criminal indolence of a legiflature, 
added to the felfith views of the proteffors 
of the law, could permit fuch a fyftem of 
tegal injuitice, {uch a contradiction to the 
very f{pirit ot all laws, to difgrace for cen- 
turtes the code of an enlightened nation? 
On'‘the fame principle it 1s well known, 
that if a perion, fraudulently difpofed, 
only invefts his property m land, at his 
death he completely wrongs. his creditors 
of all. the debts which he had contract- 
ed, perhaps entirely on the credit of that 
fame landed property ; as land by our law 
is not chargeable with the juft debts of the 
proprietor, thoie who are converfant in Je- 
gal antiquities know the reafons upon 
which theie diftinétions: were formerly 
eftablifmed ; but no man can fhew the 
fmallett reafon why they at prefent fhould 
exilt. 
Thus alfo primogeniture is the ftand- 
ing principle of our law of defcents. But 
this is not only departed from with re- 
- Spek to perfonal property; but fo abiurd 
is this relict of feudal barbariim, and {fo fa- 
tal in its coniequences, that, contrary te 
the fyftem of thofe who ettablifhed it, our 
Jegiflature has been obliged to fanétion a 
continued violation of it in teftamentary 
difpofitions ; and even in moft cafes where 
the law unfortunately happens to be the 
diftributor of property, the event is la- 
mented as a moft fatal accident, and is 
often attended withthe worft confequences; 
configning the younger branches of atamily 
to dependance, beggary, and pyoftitution. 
I have heard but one argument, why 
the law fhould not adopt a better diftribu- 
tion of the effecis of inteftates; and that 
is, that it might prove injurious to the fy- 
ftem of hereditary nobility. This, however, 
I cannot account an argument of general 
cogency. . 
ception might eafily be eftablifhed, and a 
certain portion of property might be. al- 
ways referved to accompany the title... I 
refpeét the nobility of England, and feel 
no predilection for any levelling fyitem ; 
but it cannot be'right, that the real wp. 
J 
Heads of an Effay on Civil Furifprudence. 
In the cafe of nobility an ex- 
O47 
terelt of nine millions of people fhould be 
facrificed to what is pernaps only the 
imaginary intereft of 300l. Gai 
The law of Efcheat is another of the 
cruel and unjult principles, derived from 
the feudal fperftition. ‘That the offence 
of an individual, who is guilty of telony, 
fhould not only caufe the whole of his read 
property to revert to the lord, but fhould 
incapacitate the whole of his family, both 
upwards and downwards, for twenty ge- 
nerations, from the power of inheriting 
any landed property whatever, is fo'thock- 
ing an invafion of all equity, of all huma- 
nity, that the legiflature which fanctions 
the continuance of fuch a law for a fingle 
feffion, muft be unaccountably inattentive © 
to their firft duty, which is to eftablith as 
perfect a fyftem of jurifprudence as may 
be for the whole realm. 
¥ cannot conclude thefe inftances of ab- 
furdity, without neticing a decifion which 
but lately took place in a court of juiftice 3 
I do not exattly recollect where. A phy- 
fician fued his patient for attendance up- 
on him during a fit of fickneis; but, ta 
the aftonithment of all reafonable perfons, 
the court diicovered that a phyfician 
ftands upon a different footing from all 
other men, (I fay all, because the lawyers 
take care to be paid before hand) and that 
he has no right to demand any remunera- 
tion for his perfonal fervices. I think 
honorarium: was the barbarous phrafe by 
which the plaintiff was defrauded of his 
jut demand: but, furely the faculty may 
fay with Faiftaff, “I like not uch grin- 
«¢ ning honour as Sir Walter Blunt hath.” 
Reafon and contcience diftate that ‘eve 
jabourer is worthy of his hire ;”” and that 
fytem of law is defective, which precludes 
any individual from the recovery of his 
right. Nay, the injury is even increafed, 
when this preciufion 1s founded upon fome 
obfolete’ principle, which afiords a thew, 
or more properly a mockery of juftice, to 
the utter exclufion of the fubftance and 
reality. 
‘The other evils which refult from 2 
want of fyftem, principle, and theory in 
our laws, are innumerable. Hence, that 
uncertainty, that chicane that  diffi- 
culty, which is ruinous to the fuitors, and 
only profitable to the retainers of the 
courts of juftice. Hence, the volumes of 
contradictory precedents, which render it 
in innumerable cales, dificult to pro- 
nounce what is the law. Hence, as a 
fhrewd and farcaftic writer obferves, * our 
«< laws are ftudied, not to be underftood, 
s¢ but to be difputed; not to give in- 
“formation, but to breed ae hte 
r 
