relating to wills, came within the cognizance of ecclefiaftical courts; under the jurifdiction of which, wills of perfonals (the only wills that were made formerly) ftill continue, though in truth, no more now-a-days connected with religion, than any other inftruments of conveyance. This is a peculiarity in the English law.

Succeffion to inteftates must be regulated by pofi tive rules of law, there being no principle of natural juftice whereby to afcertain the proportion of the different claimants; not to mention that the claim itself, efpecially of collateral kindred, feems to have little foundation in the law of nature. These regulations fhould be guided by the duty and prefumed inclination of the deceased, fo far as thefe confiderations can be confulted by general rules. The fta

tutes of Charles the Second, commonly called the ftatutes of diftribution, which adopt the rule of the Roman in the diftribution of perfonals, are fufficiently equitable. They affign one-third to the widow, and two-thirds to the children; in cafe of no children, one-half to the widow, and the other half to the next of kin, where neither widow nor lineal defcendants survive, the whole to the next of kin, and to be equally divided amongst kindred of equal degrees; without diftinction of whole blood and half blood, or of confanguinity by the father's or mother's fide.

The defcent of real eftates, of houfes, that is, and land, having been settled in more remote and in ruder times, is lefs reasonable. There never can be much to complain of in a rule, which every person may avoid by fo eafy a provifion as that of making his will; otherwife, our law in this refpect is chargeable with fome flagrant abfurdities; fuch as that an estate shall in no wife go to the brother or fifter of the half blood, though it came to the deceased from the common parent; that it fhall go to the remotest relation the inteftate has in the world, rather than to

his own father or mother, or even be forfeited for want of an heir, though both parents furvive; that the most distant paternal relation fhall be preferred to an uncle or own coufin by the mother's fide, notwithstanding the eftate was purchased and acquired by the inteftate himself.

Land not being fo divifible as money, may be a reafon for making a difference in the courfe of inhe ritance; but there ought to be no difference but what is founded upon that reafon. The Roman law made

non

MORAL

USE the term Charity neither in the common fenfe of bounty to the poor, nor in St. Paul's fense of benevolence to all mankind, but I apply it at prefent, in a fenfe more commodious to my purpose, to fignify the promoting the happiness of our inferiors.

M 2

Charity

Charity in this fenfe I take to be the principal province of virtue and religion: for whilft worldly prudence will direct our behaviour towards our fuperiors, and politenefs towards our equals, there is little befide the confideration of duty, or an habitual humanity which comes into the place of confideration, to produce a proper conduct towards those who are beneath us, and dependent

upon us.

There are three principal methods of promoting the happiness of our inferiors:

1. By the treatment of our domestics and dependants.

2. By profeffional affiftance.

3. By pecuniary bounty.

CHA P.

СНА Р. II.

CHARITY.

THE TREATMENT OF

OUR DOMESTIC

AND DEPENDANTS.

PARTY of friends fetting out together upon a journey, foon find it to be the best for all fides, that while they are upon the road, one of the company fhould wait upon the reft; another ride forward to feek out lodging and entertainment; a third carry the portmanteau; a fourth take charge of the horses; a fifth bear the purfe, conduct and direct the route: not forgetting however, that as they were equal and independent when they fet out, fo they are all to return to a level again at their journey's end. The fame regard and refpect; the fame forbearance, lenity, and referve in ufing their fervice; the fame mildness in delivering commands; the fame ftudy to make their journey comfortable and pleasant, which he, whofe lot it was to direct the reft, would in common decency think himself bound to obferve towards them; ought we to fhow to those, who, in the cafting of the parts of human fociety, happen to be placed within our power, or to depend

upon us.

Another reflection of a like tendency with the former is, that our obligation to them is much greater than theirs to us. It is a miftake to fuppofe, that the rich man maintains his fervants, tradefmen, tenants, and labourers: the truth is, they maintain him. It is their induftry which fupplies his table, furnishes his wardrobe, builds his houfes, adorns his equipage, provides his amufements. It is not his

estate,