The duty of parents to provide for the maintenance of their children is a principle of natural law; an obligation, ſays Puffendorf[1], laid on them not only by nature herſelf, but by their own proper act, in bringing them into the world: for they would be in the higheſt manner injurious to their iſſue, if they only gave the children life, that they might afterwards ſee them periſh. By begetting them therefore, they have entered into a voluntary obligation, to endeavour, as far as in them lies, that the life which they have beſtowed ſhall be ſupported and preſerved. And thus the children will have a perfect right of receiving maintenance from their parents. And the preſident Monteſquieu[2] has a very juſt obſervation upon this head: that the eſtabliſhment of marriage in all civilized ſtates is built on this natural obligation of the father to provide for his children; for that aſcertains and makes known the perſon who is bound to fulfil this obligation; whereas, in promiſcuous and illicit conjunctions, the father is unknown; and the mother finds a thouſand obſtacles in her way; — ſhame, remorſe, the conſtraint of her ſex, and the rigor of laws; — that ſtifle her inclinations to perform this duty: and beſides, ſhe generally wants ability.
The municipal laws of all well-regulated ſtates have taken care to enforce this duty: though providence has done it more effectually than any laws, by implanting in the breaſt of every parent that natural ςοργη, or inſuperable degree of affection, which not even the deformity of perſon or mind, not even the wickedneſs, ingratitude, and rebellion of children, can totally ſuppreſs or extinguiſh.
The civil law[3] obliges the parent to provide maintenance for his child; and, if he refuſes, "judex de ea re cognoſcet." Nay, it carries this matter ſo far, that it will not ſuffer a parent at his death totally to diſinherit his child, without expreſſly giving his
