This seems to be the only case in which a
disinherison, nearly absolute, is justifiable."
Neither should parents be capricious in the distribution of their property
among their children. They have no right to withhold a dowry from children
because they have married against their will, no more than they have a
right, for this reason, to disown, them. This would be distributing their
property upon the principle of revenge or reward. No parent has a right to
indulge a preference founded on such an unreasonable and criminal feeling
as revenge. Neither has he a right to distribute his property from
considerations of age, sex, merit, or situation. The idea of giving all to
the eldest son to perpetuate family wealth, and distinction; or of giving;
all to the sons, and withholding from the daughters; or of giving to those
children only who were more obsequious in their adherence to their parent's
tyrannical requisitions,--is unreasonable, unchristian, and against the
generous dictates of natural affection.
From this whole subject we may infer the infatuation of those parents who
toil as the slave in the galley, to amass a large fortune for their
children. To accomplish this object they become drudges all their life.
They rise early and retire late, deny themselves even the ordinary comforts
of life, expend all the time and strength of their manhood, make slaves of
their wives and children, and live retired from all society, in order to
lay up a fortune for their offspring.
Pages:
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287