in **Anatomy**, a term introduced by Erasistratus, signifying all that substance which is contained in the interstices betwixt the blood vessels of the viscera, which he imagined to be extravasated and concreted blood.

**Parenchyma of Plants.** Grew applies the term parenchyma to the pith or pulp, or that inner part of a Parenchyma fruit or plant through which the juice is supposed to be distributed. See **Plants**.

**Parent**, a term of relation applicable to those from whom we immediately derive our being. See **Moral Philosophy**, No. 129, and 137.

To this article belongs an inquiry into, 1. The legal duties of parents to their legitimate children. 2. Their power over them.

I. The duties of parents to legitimate children consist in three particulars; their maintenance, their protection, and their education.

1. The duty of parents to provide for the maintenance Blackwood of their children, is a principle of natural law; an obligation, says Puffendorff, 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 their 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 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 rigour 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 affection, 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 obliges the parent to provide maintenance for his child; and if he refuse, judex de eo re cognoscat. 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 reason for so doing; and there are 14 such reasons reckoned up, which may justify such disinherison. If the parent alleged no reason, or a bad, or a false one, the child might set the will aside, tanquam testamentium inofficium, a testament contrary to the natural duty of the parent. And it is remarkable under what colour the children were to move for relief in such a case; by suggesting, that the parent had lost the use of his reason when he made the inofficious testament. And this, as Puffendorff observes, was not to bring into dispute the testator's power of disinheriting his own offspring; but to examine the motives upon which he did it; and if they were found defective in reason, then to set them aside. But perhaps this is going rather too far; every man has, or ought to have, by the laws of society, a power over his own property: and as Grotius very well distinguishes, natural right obliges to give a necessary necessary maintenance to children; but what is more than that, they have no right to, than as it is given by the favour of their parents, or the positive constitutions of the municipal law.

Let us next see what provision our own laws have made for this natural duty. It is a principle of law, that there is an obligation on every man to provide for those descended from his loins; and the manner in which this obligation shall be performed, is thus pointed out. The father and mother, grandfather and grandmother, of poor impotent persons, shall maintain them at their own charges, if of sufficient ability, according as the quarter sessions shall direct; and, if a parent runs away, and leaves his children, the church wardens and overseers of the parish shall seize his rents, goods, and chattels, and dispose of them towards their relief. By the interpretations which the courts of law have made upon these statutes, if a mother or grandmother marries again, and was before such second marriage of sufficient ability to keep the child, the husband shall be charged to maintain it; for this being a debt of her's, when single, shall, like others, extend to charge the husband. But, at her death, the relation being dissolved, the husband is under no further obligation.

No person is bound to provide a maintenance for his issue, unless where the children are impotent and unable to work, either through infancy, disease, or accident; and then is only obliged to find them with necessaries, the penalty on refusal being no more than 2s. a month. For the policy of our laws, which are ever watchful to promote industry, did not mean to compel a father to maintain his idle and lazy children in ease and indolence; but thought it unjust to oblige the parent, against his will, to provide them with superfluities, and other indulgencies of fortune; imagining they might trust to the impulse of nature, if the children were deserving of such favours. Yet, as nothing is so apt to stifle the calls of nature as religious bigotry, it is enacted, that if any Popish parent shall refuse to allow his Protestant child a fitting maintenance, with a view to compel him to change his religion, the lord chancellor shall by order of court constrain him to do what is just and reasonable. But this did not extend to persons of another religion, of no less bitterness and bigotry than the Popish; and therefore, in the very next year, we find an instance of a Jew of immense riches, whose only daughter having embraced Christianity, he turned her out of doors; and on her application for relief, it was held she was entitled to none. But this gave occasion to another statute, which ordains, that if Jewish parents refuse to allow their Protestant children a fitting maintenance, suitable to the fortune of the parent, the lord chancellor, on complaint, may make such order therein as he shall see proper.

Our law has made no provision to prevent the disinheritance of children by will; leaving every man's property in his own disposal, upon a principle of liberty in this as well as every other action; though perhaps it had not been amiss if the parent had been bound to leave them at the least a necessary subsistence. Indeed, among persons of any rank or fortune, a competence is generally provided for younger children, and the bulk of the estate settled upon the eldest by the marriage articles. Heirs also, and children, are favourites of our courts of justice, and cannot be disinherited by any dubious or ambiguous words; there being required the utmost certainty of the testator's intentions to take away the right of an heir.

2. From the duty of maintenance we may easily pass to that of protection; which is also a natural duty, but rather permitted than enjoined by any municipal laws; nature, in this respect, working so strongly as to need rather a check than a spur. A parent may, by our laws, maintain and uphold his children in their law-suits, without being guilty of the legal crime of maintaining quarrels. A parent may also justify an assault and battery in defence of the persons of his children; nay, where a man's son was beaten by another boy, and the father went near a mile to find him, and there revenged his son's quarrel by beating the other boy, of which beating he afterwards unfortunately died; it was not held to be murder, but manslaughter merely. Such indulgence does the law show to the frailty of human nature, and the workings of parental affection.

3. The last duty of parents to their children is that of giving them an education suitable to their station in life: a duty pointed out by reason and of far the greatest importance of any. For, as Puffendorf very well observes, it is not easy to imagine or allow, that a parent has conferred any considerable benefit upon his child by bringing him into the world, if he afterwards entirely neglects his culture and education, and suffers him to grow up like a mere beast, to lead a life useless to others, and shameful to himself. Yet the municipal laws of most countries seem to be defective in this point, by not constraining the parent to bestow a proper education upon his children. Perhaps they thought it punishment enough to leave the parent who neglects the instruction of his family, to labour under those griefs and inconveniences which his family, so uninstructed, will be sure to bring upon him. Our laws, though their defects in this particular cannot be denied, have in one instance made a wise provision for breeding up the rising generation: since the poor and laborious part of the community, when past the age of nurture, are taken out of the hands of their parents, by the statutes for apprenticing poor children; and are placed out by the public in such a manner as may render their abilities, in their several stations, of the greatest advantage to the commonwealth. The rich indeed are left at their own option, whether they will breed up their children to be ornaments or disgraces to their family. Yet in one case, that of religion, they are under peculiar restrictions; for it is provided that if any person sends any child under his government beyond the seas, either to prevent its good education in England, or in order to enter into, or reside in, any Popish college, or to be instructed, persuaded, or strengthened in the Popish religion; in such case, besides the disabilities incurred by the child so sent, the parent or person sending shall forfeit 100l. which shall go to the sole use and benefit of him that shall discover the offence. And if any parent, or other, shall send or convey any person beyond sea, to enter into or be resident in, or trained up in, any priory, abbey, nunnery, Popish university, college or school, or house of Jesuits or priests, or in any private Popish family, in order to be instructed, persuaded or confirmed, in the Popish religion; or shall contribute any thing towards their maintenance when abroad by any pretext whatever, the person both sending and sent shall be disabled to sue in law or equity, or to be executor or administrator to any person, or to enjoy any legacy or deed of gift, or to bear any office in the realm, and shall forfeit all his goods and chattels, and likewise all his real estate for life. See Nonconformists.

II. The power of parents over their children is derived from the former consideration, their duty; this authority being given them, partly to enable the parent more effectually to perform his duty, and partly as a recompense for his care and trouble in the faithful discharge of it. And upon this score the municipal laws of some nations have given a much larger authority to the parents than others. The ancient Roman laws gave the father a power of life and death over his children; upon this principle, that he who gave had also the power of taking away. But the rigour of these laws was softened by subsequent constitutions: so that we find a father banished by the emperor Hadrian for killing his son, though he had committed a very heinous crime; upon this maxim, that patria potestas in pietate debet, non in atrocitate, consistere. But still they maintained to the last a very large and absolute authority: for a son could not acquire any property of his own during the life of his father; but all his acquisitions belonged to the father, or at least the profits of them for his life.

The power of a parent by the English law is much more moderate; but still sufficient to keep the child in order and obedience. He may lawfully correct his child, being under age, in a reasonable manner: for this is for the benefit of his education. The consent or concurrence of the parent to the marriage of his child under age, was also directed by our ancient law to be obtained: but now it is absolutely necessary; for without it the contract is void. And this also is another means which the law has put into the parent's hands, in order the better to discharge his duty; first, of protecting his children from the snares of artful and designing persons; and next of settling them properly in life, by preventing the ill consequences of too early and precipitate marriages. A father has no other power over his son's estate, than as his trustee or guardian; for though he may receive the profits during the child's minority, yet he must account for them when he comes of age. He may indeed have the benefit of his children's labour while they live with him and are maintained by him; but this is no more than he is entitled to from his apprentices or servants. The legal power of a father (for a mother, as such, is entitled to no power, but only to reverence and respect), the power of a father, we say, over the persons of his children ceases at the age of 21; for they are then enfranchised by arriving at years of discretion, or that point which the law has established (as some must necessarily be established) when the empire of the father, or other guardian, gives place to the empire of reason. Yet, till that age arrives, this empire of the father continues even after his death; for he may by his will appoint a guardian to his children. He may also delegate part of his parental authority, during his life, to the tutor or schoolmaster of his child; who is then in loco parentis, and has such a portion of the power of the parent committed to his charge, viz. that Parent of restraint and correction, as may be necessary to answer the purposes for which he is employed.

In the Gentleman's Magazine for 1750, we have the following case of conscience. "A person has his own parents and his own children living, both parties equally indigent, both equally incapable of assisting themselves, and both equally earnest in calling upon him for relief. Things are so circumstanced that he can possibly assist but one party, and not both. Query, Which party has the greatest claim to his assistance, and to which is he obliged, by all ties human and divine, to give the preference?" One solves this difficulty, by informing us of a pretty print done at Rome, representing a young woman suckling her aged father, on which the following lines are quoted.

My child and father vital nurture crave, Parental, filial, fondness both would save, But if a nursling only one can live, I choose to save the life I cannot give.

Here we find the preference given to the parent; and another correspondent gives the same decision in these words. "The obligations arising from nature, and natural affection, seem to be in this case reciprocal and equipollent; the child is as strongly attracted to the parent, as the parent to the child. But will not filial gratitude operate and decide in favour of the parents? Does not the person, either mediately or immediately, owe his present power and abilities to relieve, to his parents? and are they not on that account best entitled to relief? Does not the fifth commandment declare more strongly in favour of the parents, than any other divine precept does in favour of the children? If a person had an opportunity given him of delivering either his parent or his child (but not both) from certain death, I dare say the voice of nature and of mankind would applaud him that saved his parent, and condemn him that should prefer his child. There is more of selfishness in preferring the child; and to save the parent seems to me to be much the more generous, noble and exalted conduct. It is indeed, upon the whole, a melancholy alternative; but if both parties continue importunate, and neither will relinquish their claims in favour of the other, I say relieve the parent." There are two correspondents, however, who think differently, and their reasons are as follows:

"A person's children have the greatest claim to his assistance, and he is obliged by all ties to prefer them, in that respect, to his parents. It is true, when a man's parents are in want, they have a claim to his assistance; but that claim is not equal to that which his children have. His parents he has of necessity; his children, of choice. It is his duty before he beget children, to consider how he is to provide for them: and by being wilfully the cause of their existence, he comes under such an obligation to provide for their comfortable subsistence, as must be stronger than any obligation of that kind he can be under to persons with whom his connexion is involuntary. But nature and reason point it out as the duty of all parents to provide for their children; but not vice versa. If a man's parents happen to be indigent, and he himself able, he is bound to maintain them out of respect and gratitude; but his obligation to provide for his children is