BARTOLOMfi ClAVERO comparison of The succession laws of Christian Countries with special reference to the Law of Primogeniture in England, which dates from 1877.''* It is a contact which may precisely prove the isolation. It begins placing itself in the European continental space on comparative purposes. It starts with Tocqueville’s testimony discovering in America the virtuality of the Anglo Saxon successory disposition, experiencing the contrast with the most imperative regime of the Napoleonic codification and expressing his appreciation because, between the one’s ideas of liberty and the other’s policy of equality, these were things to which not much importance was bestowed: “I am astonished that ancient and modern publicists have not attributed to the laws relating to succession a greater influence in the march of human affairs”.'^ But the worries of our comparatist point to a very different direction from that of an observer from the other side of the mirror, that of the discoverer of Democracy in America. A subtitle. The Law of Primogeniture as it exists in England, has already made it known. The concern of this title. The Succession Laws of Christian Countries, is not precisely freedom. This is not the value that it advocates even though its position is against an imperative law system, particularly the one represented by the Napoleonic codification: “It will be a sad day for England when she takes France as a model by introducinga systemof compulsory division of property”.'^ It insists subsequently on the non-existence of any imperative law system whatsoever in England, not even that of indivisibility by the primogeniture, as the links were limited and this, the primogeniture, was the result of the social exercise of the freedomto dispose amongst the English people. This is what is upheld, the established practice. Because of this, not even the socially less conditioned exercise of the freedom of testation, peculiar of the Anglo-Saxon America, was wanted. In a different way, as it is recognised, both the United States of America and France might represent a more democratic position, the one which was unacceptable for England.'^ Fromwhat we can see, the juridical culture of the Common Lawwas, at the time, somewhat uncomfortable and on the defensive within the European scenario. It is not surprising that the communication was not produced from the opposite side either, although thus attempted. What was really of interest was a contrast with the codification, with the Civil Law, which would be useful to preserve their own social order. Isolation was wanted. In the case of Spain we should not expect to find anything about those Derechos forales which might Eyre Lloyd, The Succession Laws of Christian Countries, with special reference to the Law of Primogeniture as it exists in England, London 1977; reprint, Littleton (Colo.) 1985. Alexis de Tocqueville, De la Democratie en Amerique (1835), ed. J. P. Mayer, Oeuvres, papiers et correspondances d’A. de T., I, Paris 1961, I, pp. 46-50; E. Lloyd, Succession Laws of Christian Countries, p. VIl. E. Lloyd, Succession Laws of Christian Countries, p. 28. E. Lloyd, Succession Laws of Christian Countries, pp. 1-3 and 19-29. 34
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=