2. Right of possession was vested in the kin, or clan. The idea of alienation was never entertained. 3. Individuals only held the right to use certain lots. 4. No rights of possession were attached to any office or chieftaincy. 5. For tribal business certain lands were set apart independent of persons. 6. Conquest was followed not by annexation or apportionment, but by tribute. 7. Feudalism could not prevail under these conditions. Of the kin, or clan, it should be noted that, first, the kin claimed the right to name its members; second, it was the duty of the kin to educate its members; third, it was accustomed to regulate marriage; fourth, one attribute of the kin was the right of common burial; fifth, the kin had to protect its members; sixth, it exercised the right of electing its officers and of deposing them. (Montezuma, “chief of men,” was deposed before he died.)--M. [43] This was an exception.--In Egypt, also, the king was frequently taken from the warrior caste, though obliged afterwards to be instructed in the mysteries of the priesthood: ὁ δὲ ἐκ μαχίμων ἀποδεδειγένος εὐθὺς ἐγίνετο τῶν ίέρων. Plutarch, de Isid. et Osir., sec. 9. [44] Torquemada, Monarch. Ind., lib. 2, cap. 18; lib. 11, cap. 27.--Clavigero, Stor. del Messico, tom. ii. p. 112.--Acosta, Naturall and Morall Historie of the East and West Indies, Eng. trans. (London, 1604).--According to Zurita, an election by the nobles took place only in default of heirs of the deceased monarch. (Rapport, p. 15.) The minute historical investigation of Clavigero may be permitted to outweigh this general assertion. [45] [“Chief of men.”--M.] [46] Sahagun, Hist. de Nueva-España, lib. 6, cap. 9, 10, 14; lib. 8, cap. 31, 34.--See, also, Zurita, Rapport, pp. 20-23.--Ixtlilxochitl stoutly claims this supremacy for his own nation. (Hist. Chich., MS., cap. 34.) His assertions are at variance with facts stated by himself elsewhere, and are not countenanced by any other writer whom I have consulted. [47] [The spacious palace in which the “chief of men” lived was the chief communal house of the clan. The “privy council” was made up of the clan officers specified on page 33.--M.] [48] Sahagun, who places the elective power in a much larger body, speaks of four senators, who formed a state council. (Hist. de Nueva-España, lib. 8, cap. 30.) Acosta enlarges the council beyond the number of the electors. (Lib. 6, ch. 26.) No two writers agree.