The concubine's son has the same ight of succession to the father'
tate as those born of the wife, jaw making no distinction on acaunt of their mother. In the case of the wife having no male issue, and the only son or sons. of the family is or ave born of concubine, in which event the wife is "com ly eclipsed. Law recognizes]
legal.rights' of a: bastard son: vided she. ig recognized'? by thie father, giving him one half of] what a son or an heir receives from the cher's estate, without making provision for his mother, The line of demarcation between a concubine and a kept "mistress is so very obscure that it is impo determine, As law does not intend to favour illicit cobination therefore a mistress has absolutely no legal status.
Neither the wife or the con-it to the husband's property, both are entitled to. the tenance in accordance with the social standing of the family, the heir being' under legal. obligation to support them, even if the father} left nothing. There is nothing law whereby a wife may control her} own property as her separate and independent estate.
Whatever she possesses, including her which she brought parents' home, in fact, very. person, are deemed to belo to the husband, over which he has absolute control with fall right alienation, and on her death, -he automatically becomes her heir. the other hand, on the husband's death, she may be appointed administratrix by his will, or during} her. sons' minority, or with their consent in case the ~sons are of] age. She admini for the exclusive benefit of the heirs without right of alienation except in case, of absolute necessity. A recent decision permits her to recover, on divorce from the husband, her dowry, but the burden of ' proof! falls upon her, and any property, which abe falls to prove that it is dowry, goes to him Legally speaking, the concubine, 30 long as the widow lives, is not, qualified to administer the' family estate, In order to. preserve the family solidarity, when both have gon, each of them is permitted to assume control of her ow share of inheritance, nor wil son be likely tora objection to his own mother administering his share. The real di ieulty lies when one of them has a son and other who is more unfortunate has not. Even under these circumstances, the' widow has the preference.
The Sonless Widow A. widow possessing property but} who has no son will have a reali problem on hand in. checking the satiety of her kinsman. the first place, law does not vest in her right of alienation of the real property belonging to her husband, her kinsman, who aspire to become fu some future time, the latter's heir, arg inclined to be on the! alert all the time to watch her every movement, the insidious rel tives are apt to be particularly' vigilant in the event of their female elder relative having a daughter of her own, for fear that she might make away with her possessions in her favour at the expense' of the heir presumptive. This is ally true among the peasant class in rural districts. A poor help widow possessing a small house: with a patch of land of 3 or 4 mow. attached, will be tormented and will have mo peace on account of the intrigues of her nephews. She isa goat to be fleeced against which Taw and custom afford her little or no protection worthy gone arch is always in position to force an undesirable ye on her as her adopted son or heir.
Law denies her the right} of electing her own he which in strict legal sense, is not her hei but that of her deceased husband. In adopting an heir she must "secure the consent of family assembly, any of the genearc "nevertheless, neglects to state definitely as to) how thi family assembly is to be called, ind who to be its constituents, lea og all to local usages and custom as well tothe gene arch. These express provisions in law ive unseruplous clansmen such a strong hold over her from which a poor jow will be unable: to extricate herself.
Any one of her clansmen wishing to. make himself obnoxious, may the adoption, or may conspire with obstruct] Every
one of the qualified inheritors to rob "her, "If the legitimate inheritor has been adverse to her husband, she might defer the adoption until nother qualified inheritor is) found.'
Here is another gap. Suppose the other qualified inheritor never found, must she then sop? cro who is known to have been adverse to her fai for an heir.
Another supreme court eelibata"iwidow," emphasize fang "it that fon the question of adoption,".but law dees not give her final decision. How much- her voice carries is a questionable factor. She would] certainly have to thank her stars. if she wore ty be left with "no nephews, near-or remote, qualified to be adopted," for it is only under these circumstances she that be able to take her own daughter for fan heiress, subject again to the] permission of the gene arch, and the members of the family concurring." So she is never absolutely free from interference of her Kinsmen, unless she has a son of hee own, in which event the perplexing problem is definitely solved:
Intrigue All Round If an affluent family were placed in circumstances as described above, the sole survivor of which being a celibate widow, ora celibate coneubine. Her position and life would] be-anything but enviable. She will Jat once be besieged by her "nephews, near or remote," each claim to be qualified for adoption. The gene arch, unless he himself jo rich man or one of merit, wi of course, also come in ~for share of spoil. This will unavoi ably lead to all kinds of conspiracy and under hand' business with the] sole object of depriving the widow, fof her property. She has a right) of action against her designing and intriguing relatives, but as law] is a0 losely worded and is capable of many interpretations, she is not} Mikely to accomplish much in taking] that' drastic measure. The cot cubine's right of adoption is still less, she may only exercise it when both the husband and wife are] dead, there being no elders in the family, and "the matter of adoption is vested in the family assembly." During coverture the wife has no voice in the selection and adoption of the heir for the adoptive is not] her heir but that of her husband's.
The fundamental principle under. tying all this one sided and unequal tion is that the Chinese regard ancestral worship not a mat-for of personal obligation, but one concerning the lan, which every individual member has, 'a voice. This explains why law, vests in the hands of the gene arch and the family council power to veto, in case one of its members: attempts to adopt or adopts into] hhis family, an heir of alien blood, amongst whom includes the son law.
The Daughter's Legal Rights Whereas the son is held the legis Jand conclusive heir to his father's property, real and personal the so Rot true with the daughter. He lof the list of eligibles, and accrue to her where there is no person in existence belonging to lineage qualified to be adopt-Even then she cannot inherit in liber own name as the heir, but her husband acquires that title. In other! words, if there were a person corresponding to that legal description, however, remote ho maybe to the adopter, he has the preference, to] whom the daughter must surrender her parent's property whether she; likes it or not.
An unmarried daughter is entitled to her maintenance, and on her mat-_ to her dowry out of the estate. 'A parent, may give to the daughter, maried or unmarried, at his or hee}
Jdiseretion, a share, but she has no legal claim as to what that share should be. She has a lesser right} than the bastard son.
'The Chinese law of succession emphasized affinity and blood relationship' and a ancestral worship. It is Jonly males who are qualified to participate in the worship at the family shrine installed in the family ancestral hall and the females a not worthy of it. Law denies one of alien blood right to worship, this is} the historical background that places the daughter at so unfavourable ant disadvantageous a position from point of view.
Grounds for Divorce Divorce was practically unknown China in the good old days and [when it happened was regarded as social scandal. It is one of the] many things which Chinese have learnt from the West and is getting} the quite a fashion at present.
'Under the old law the husband would be justified in putting away his for anyone of the seven lexat the voice of the jeazses:—(E)" barrenneas,: (2) licen-the tousneas, (3) refusing to' serve hus-fand's parents, (4)—talkativeness,
and (7) loathsome disease. On the other hand, the husband could not] divorce his wife, if any of the fol ing circumstances occurred, (1) when [she had mourned for his parents fcr three years, (2) he had become rich when he was poor before, and (2) she had no home to which she could! sent. 'The, husband's desertion for the period of three years would constitute a legal ground for the [wife to ask for separation, the [groutd by which she.covld' free herself from an undesirable union.
Barrenness could have been caused by his defect, but nevertheless. it was iniputed to her alone for which she alone had been held accountable, Nothwithstanding legal provisions, it was held a public disgrace not only: to the immediate parties, but also one affecting the honour of both families that a few would dare to face the popular censure. The modern Chinese have a lesser regard for sanctity of matrimony than their forebears. Chinese law on the subject to-day is same as those fauna in etaer countries and it mutual unlike the obsolete law which had been distinctly one! jed being in favour of the husband:
Formerly, the husband might kil" hill' wife for misconduct _provided the man was likewise killed at tha same time being caught in the act, for which he could get off with a nominal punishment, a hundred blows plus a short term of imprisonment. lad the reverse occurred, law not vest in her same right of self help. It was held in the former} tease, that he had received suff ignt provoeawon to resort even murder. The wife's marder of her husband was a most heinous crime for which she would be punished in. the most severe degree. Law and custom did not see fit to place them fon an equal basis.
The Man's Exclusive Rights A man may commercialize his wife's shame, and-may trade her a3 if she were a chattel without the wits being able to do a thing to help herself; not one single case has been known of the wife doing the like the husband. A widower is permitted to remarry, as a matter of course fand right and may still keep his property without any! Jing a dissentient voice against it; further, his second wife will be taken by his first parents as their step daughter. widow's remarriage is immediately, condemned as unchaste and wnfaithful to her dead husband and she} fis held to have committed an un+ pardonable social crime, She forteite her claim to maintenance out of her first husband's tate as well as her rights over her children out of the first marriage. In short, as a result of her second marriage she is at] once expelled from the first hus band's family. The second marriage Chirese Woman and Her Four] will remain her life-long stigma and will be a matter which her own] children will try to disown or hide. 'A widow's legal rights are conditional_on her remaining chaste and celibate, Chastity and purity of life are woman's virtues and a slight defection calls for popular condemnation, and man is free to act in the way he deems fit. Monuments were formerly erected in honour of chaste! women only, man might or might not be chaste, that is his choice, the society would not consider him a whit better or worse for it. He would not be honoured if he were, not would he be condemned if not, That virtue has no application to
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.