in the same degree, of the whole blood, are yet not excluded. (Wms. Real Prop. 118-'19, 121-22.)

The remaining rules of inheritance are only rules of evidence, calculated to aid in investigating the question of who the purchasing ancestor was; which in feuds vere antiquis has in process of time been forgotten, and is supposed so to be in feuds that are held ut antiquis. These rules may therefore be denominated secondary canons. (2 Bl. Com. 223-'4.)

25. Secondary Canons of Descent at Common Law; W. C. 1h. Canon VI The collateral heir of the person last seised must be his next collateral kinsman of the whole blood. (2 Bl. Com. 224 & seq.)

The heir must be first the next collateral kinsman, either personally or jure representationis, as already described (Ante p. 460), which proximity is recokoned according to the canonical degrees of consanguinity before mentioned; and he must be secondly, at common law, of the whole blood, that is descended not only from the same ancestor, but from the same couple of ancestors. The total exclusion of the half-blood from the inheritance is not so much to be considered in the light of a rule of descent, as of a rule of evidence; an auxiliary rule to carry into execution the fifth canon, which requires that the inheritance shall continue in the blood of the first purchaser. A collateral relative of the whole blood can have no ancestors beyond or higher than the common stock, but what are equally the ancestors of the propositus also, and those of the propositus are vice versa his. He, therefore, is very likely to be derived from that unknown ancestor of the propositus from whom the inheritance descended. But a kinsman of the half-blood has but one-half of his ancestors above the common stock, the same as those of the propositus, and therefore there is not the same probability of that requisite of the common law, that he be derived from the blood of the first purchaser. This is doubtless the best reason that can be given for this exclusion of the half-blood, but it must be admitted to be very far from satisfactory. In the first place, it does not justify the peremptory and total exclusion of the half-blood, but only its postponement; and next, it neglects the obvious consideration, that there is or may be a greater probability that a nearer kinsman of the half-blood is derived from the blood of the first purchaser, than a more remote kinsman of the whole blood. (2 Bl. Com. 224, 227, 228, & n (29).)

This canon is also materially changed by the statutes

before referred to (3 & 4 Wm. IV, c. 106, and 22 & 23 Vict. c. 36), whereby kinsmen of the half-blood are not excluded, but only postponed. Thus, it is provided that a kinsman of the half-blood shall inherit next after a kinsman in the same degree of the whole blood, and after the issue of such kinsman, when the common ancestor is a male, and next after the common ancestor, when such ancestor is a female. (Wms. Real Prop. 121.)

By the effect of this provision, and of that referred to above, under Canon V, (Ante p. 463), the collateral kinsman who is to succeed, whether of the whole or half-blood, must trace his descent from the last purchaser; or if his heirs have failed, and where the land is descendible as if an ancestor had been the purchaser thereof; if his heirs have also failed, then from the person last entitled to the land. (Wms. Real Prop. 114'15, 122.) 2h. Canon VII. In collateral inheritances, the male stock shall be preferred to the female, (that is, kindred derived from the blood of the male ancestors, however remote, shall be admitted before those from the blood of the female, however near), unless where the lands have, in fact, descended from a female. (2 Bl Com. 234 & seq.)

This is also an auxiliary canon, or mere rule of evidence founded upon Canon V, which insists upon collateral kinsmen, in order that they may be heirs, being of the blood of the first purchaser; for if it is not known whether the inheritance came by the male or female line of ancestors, it is probable that it came by the male, because in the descending line, by Canon II, males are preferred to females. In the absence, therefore, of any contrary proof, the first purchaser and his blood are more likely to be found amongst the male than the female stocks. (2 Bl. Com. 235-'6; Wms. Real Prop. 120.)

5. The Kindred who by Statute in England, are to take as Heirs, and their Shares.

It will be sufficient under this head merely to state the rules without enlarging on them. The student, however, will not fail to observe that if in some cases antique fancies, and in others what savors of want of reason, not to say of injustice, has been obviated, the system of descents as a whole has been rendered more complicated, and more difficult of application. The summary of the rules is derived from Mr. Williams's neat and perspicuous, but very brief essay on the principles of the law of real

property for the use of students in conveyancing; and the student is advised to study the table of descents given by that writer, in illustration of the rules. (Wms. Real Prop. 122.)

W. C.

18. First Rules. Inheritances shall lineally descend, in the first place, to the issue of the last purchaser, in infinitum. (Wms. Real Prop. 114.)

The word purchase here is employed, of course, in its technical sense, to denote possession to which one comes not by title of descent; so that the purchaser from whom descent is to be traced is the last person who had a right to the land, and who cannot be proved to have acquired it by descent, &c. (Wms. Real Prop. 114.)

28. Second Rule. The male issue shall be admitted before the female. (Wms. Real Prop. 115.)

35. Third Rule. Where two or more of the male issue are in equal degree of consanguinity to the purchaser, the eldest only shall inherit; but the females shall inherit all together. (Wms. Real Prop. 116.)

48. Fourth Rule. All the lineal descendants in infinitum,
of any person deceased shall represent their ancestor;
that is, shall stand in the same place as the person him-
self would have done, had he been living. (Wms. Real
Prop. 117.)

58. Fifth Rule. On failure of lineal descendants, or issue
of the purchaser, 'the inheritance shall descend to his
nearest lineal ancestor. (Wms. Real Prop. 118.)
6. Sixth Rule. The father, and all the male paternal an-
cestors of the purchaser, and their descendants, shall be
admitted, before any of the female paternal ancestors,
or their heirs; all the female paternal ancestors and
their heirs before the mother, or any of the maternal
ancestors, or her or their descendants; and the mother
and all the male maternal ancestors, and her and their
descendants, before any of the female maternal ances-
tors, or their heirs. (Wms. Real Prop. 120.)

78. Seventh Rule. A kinsman of the half-blood shall be
capable of being heir; and such kinsman shall inherit
next after a kinsman in the same degree of the whole
blood, and after the issue of such kinsman, when the
common ancestor is a male, and next after the common
ancestor, when such ancestor is a female. (Wms. Real
Prop. 121.)
88. Eighth Rule. In the admission of female paternal an-
cestors, the mother of the more remote male paternal
ancestor, and her heirs, shall be preferred to the mother
of a less remote male paternal ancestor, and her heirs;

and so in the admission of female maternal ancestors. (Wms. Real Prop. 122; 2 Bl. Com. 238.) 98. Ninth Rule. Where there is a total failure of heirs of the purchaser, or where any land shall be descendible as if an ancestor had been the purchaser thereof, and there is a total failure of the heirs of such ancestor, the land shall descend, and the descent shall thenceforth be traced from the person last entitled to the land, as if he had been the purchaser thereof. (Wms. Real Prop. 122.) 4. The Virginia Law of Descents.

From the first settlement of the colony of Virginia, down to 1st January, 1787, the common law of descent prevailed within its limits. The independence of the colony having been declared by the convention-legislature, 29th June, 1776, in October of the same year, an act was passed for a general revisal of the whole code of laws. The commission for the purpose consisted of Edmund Pendleton, George Wythe, George Mason, Thomas Ludwell Lee, and Thomas Jefferson; and Mr. Jefferson has preserved an interesting, though very brief memorial of its deliberations. and action.

"We agreed to meet," says he, "at Fredericksburg, to settle the plan of operation, and to distribute the work. We met there accordingly on the 13th of January, 1777. The first question was, whether we should propose to abolish the whole existing system of laws, and prepare a new and complete institute, or preserve the general system, and only modify it to the present state of things. Mr. Pendleton, contrary to his usual disposition in favor of ancient things, was for the former proposition, in which he was joined by Mr. Lee. To this it was objected, that to abrogate our whole system would be a bold measure, and probably far beyond the views of the legislature; that they had been in the practice of revising, from time to time, the laws of the colony, omitting the expired, the repealed, and the obsolete, amending only those retained, and probably meant we should now do the same, only including the British statutes as well as our own; that to compose a new institute, like those of Justinian and Bracton, or that of Blackstone, which was the model proposed by Mr. Pendleton, would be an arduous undertaking, of vast research, of great consideration and judgment; and when reduced to a text, every word of that text, from the imperfection of human language, and its incompetence to express distinctly every shade of idea, would become a subject of question and chicanery, until settled by repeated adjudications; that this would involve us for ages in litigation, and render property uncertain, until like the statutes of old, every word

had been tried and settled by numerous decisions, and by new volumes of reports and commentaries; and that no one of us, probably, would undertake such a work, which to be systematical, must be the work of one hand. This last was the opinion of Mr. Wythe, Mr. Mason, and myself. When we proceeded to the distribution of the work, Mr. Mason excused himself, as, being no lawyer, he felt himself unqualified for the work, and he resigned soon after. Mr. Lee excused himself on the same ground, and died indeed in a short time. The other two gentlemen, therefore, and myself, divided the work among us. The common law, and statutes to the 4 James I. (when our separate legislature was established), were assigned to me; the British statutes, from that period to the present day, to Mr. Wythe; and the Virginia (colonial) laws to Mr. Pendleton. As the law of descents, and the criminal law fell, of course, within my portion, I wished the committee to settle the leading principles of these, as a guide for me in framing them; and with respect to the first I proposed to abolish the law of primogeniture, and to make real estate descendible in parcenary to the next of kin, as personal property is by the statute of distribution. Mr. Pendleton wished to preserve the right of primogeniture, but seeing at once that that could not prevail, he proposed we should adopt the Hebrew principle, and give a double portion to the elder son. I observed that, if the elder son could eat twice as much, or do double work, it might be a natural evidence of his right to a double portion; but being on a par in his powers and wants with his brothers and sisters, he should be on a par also in the partition of the patrimony; and such was the decision of the other members.

"On the subject of the criminal law, all were agreed that the punishment of death should be abolished, except for treason and murder; and that for other felonies should be substituted hard labor in the public works, and in some cases the Lex talionis. How this last revolting principle came to obtain our approbation, I do not remember. There remained, indeed, in our laws, a vestige of it in the single case of a slave; it was the English law in the time of the Anglo-Saxons, copied probably from the Hebrew law of "an eye for an eye, a tooth for tooth," (Exod. xxi. 24; Levit. xxiv. 20; Deut. ix. 21), and it was the law of several ancient people; but the modern mind had left it far in the rear of its advances. These points, however, being settled, we repaired to our respective homes for the preparation of the work.

"In the execution of my part, I thought it material not to vary the diction of the ancient statutes by modernizing