Now, the Voconian law, so far from protecting the interests of children, frequently operated in the case of daughters to prejudice them;--of this we have a remarkable instance in the case of Annius Asellus, dwelt upon by Cicero, in the second action against Verres, _Orat._ i., c. 41--44. The law prevented all registered or assessed (_censi_) citizens of Rome from appointing a female as their _hæres_. Again, the Furian and Falcidian laws were passed to secure the person nominated as _hæres_ from being prejudiced by the excessive amount of legacies under the will. Hence, if a man died leaving only daughters, he was prohibited by the Voconian law from appointing any of them as his _hæres_; and the other two laws restrained him from appointing a nominal _hæres_, and leaving his property to his daughters by way of legacies (_legata_.) In truth, the English notion of heirship, as succession by right of blood, seems to be entirely due to the northern nations and the feudal system. Under both systems, however, it is observable how the progress of legislation and society has been to increase the privileges and diminish the duties of the constituted successor. For as, in tenure by chivalry, the heir was rather the person to whom, in consequence of proximity of blood, the lord might look for the performance of the military services, than the fortunate acquirer of the property, so the Roman _hæres_ was regarded more in the light of one on whom devolved the religious, civil, and private duties of the deceased; frequently so burdensome that the inheritance was altogether refused, until the heir was guarded by such laws as the Furian and Falcidian. While we are in the humour of finding fault, we may notice a passage in which we think Mr M'Culloch has not dealt fairly with the English law. It is as follows:--