Page:Native Tribes of South-East Australia.djvu/318

292 The following is the sequence of individuals:—

1. The eldest son (12) of the widow's sister (7).

2. The eldest son (15) of the widow's sister's daughter (13).

3. The son (14) of the male cousin (8) of the widow on the mother's side.

4. The brother of the widow's mother (1).

5. The brother of the widow's deceased husband (4), provided that he has not succeeded to the property of the deceased.

6. He who is nearest after the above-mentioned, taken consecutively down to the sixth "joint" of kindred, if he have not succeeded to the property of the deceased husband.

7. Failing these, the King's purse.

The difference between this law and that of the other version is the introduction of the male cousin (8) and his son (14) instead of the female cousin and her son. The former certainly belong to the kindred counted through the female line, and this is probably a survival of the old custom.

But the commentators seem not to be satisfied with it, and have introduced further corrections, which are shown in the diagram by the individuals numbered 6, 10, 11, being the widow's son, her brother, and her son. I find it difficult to understand how under female descent the widow's son can be one of the group which would have a claim upon her Reippus. Her brother under the customs of tribes having that form of descent would certainly be of that group. His son would also come in under the arrangement which admitted 14. But there seems to be a further departure from the original principle of a group of kindred bound together by female descent, who claimed a compensation for the loss of one of their members.

Eccard suggests that "parentella" in the third clause of this law implies "familia, cognatio, consanguinitas," but he naturally refers to the Roman customs with which he was well acquainted, while he had no knowledge of the customs