The monarchical government does not entail laws as simple as the despotic ; it requires tribunals. These tribunals hand down decisions : they must be preserved and they must be learned so that today’s judgment will be like yesterday’s, and so the property and lives of the citizens will be as assured and fixed as the constitution itself of the state.
In a monarchy, the administration of a justice which decides not only natters if life and possessions, but also of honor, requires scrupulous research. The sensitivity of the judge increases as he holds a greater trust and pronounces on greater interests.
Therefore one should not be surprised to find so many rules, restrictions, and extensions in the laws of these states, which multiply the individual cases and seem to make an art of reason itself.
The difference of rank, origin, and station which is established in the monarchical government often entails distinctions in the nature of property, and laws relative to the constitution of that state can increase the number of such distinctions. Thus, in France, properties are personal, prior legacy, or communal acquisitions, acquired by dowry, holdings of the wife, paternal and maternal ; moveable items of several kinds : free, substituted, family heirlooms or not ; noble or common fiefdoms, annuities on land or contracted for a sum of money. Each kind of property is subject to particular rules ; they must be followed in order to dispose of them, which further reduces simplicity.
In our governments, fiefs have become hereditary. The nobility had to possess a certain amount of property, in other words the fief had to have a certain substance, so the owner of the fief would be in a position to serve the prince. . That was bound to produce many varieties : for example, there are countries where fiefs could not be divided between brothers ; in others, the younger brothers were able to have their subsistence with more land.
The monarch who is familiar with each of his provinces can establish various laws or tolerate different customs. But the despot is familiar with nothing, and cannot keep an eye on anything ; he must have a general approach ; he governs with a rigid will which is everywhere the same ; everything becomes level under his feet.
As the judgments of tribunals multiply in monarchies, jurisprudence takes over decisions, which sometimes contradict each other, either because successive judges think differently, or because the same causes are sometimes well and sometimes badly defended, or finally because of innumerable abuses that slip into everything that passes through human hands. It is a necessary evil which the legislator corrects from time to time even as contrary to the spirit of moderated governments. For when one is obliged to have recourse to tribunals, that must result from the nature of the constitution, and not from the contradictions and uncertainty of the laws.
In governments where there are necessarily distinctions of persons, there must be privileges. This further diminishes simplicity and makes for a thousand exceptions.
One of the privileges least onerous to society, and especially to the person who grants it, is to plead before one court rather than another. Hence more disputes, that is, those over the court before which to plead.
The peoples of despotic states are in a very different situation. I do not know on what, in such a country, the legislator could decide or the magistrate judge. From the fact that the lands belong to the prince it follows that there are almost no civil laws over ownership of lands. It also follows from the sovereign’s right to succession that there are no disputes over successions either. In some countries, his exclusive right to engage in trade obviates all sorts of laws on commerce. Because of marriages contracted with slave girls, there are scarcely any civil laws over dowries and over the special portions of wives. A further result of this prodigious multitude of slaves is that there are very few who have a will of their own, and who consequently must answer for their conduct before a judge. Most moral acts which are but the decisions of the father, the husband, or the master, are decided by them and not by magistrates.
I neglected to say that since what we call honor is scarcely known in those states, none of the cases that involve such honor, which is such an important matter to us, can arise there. Despotism is self-sufficient ; all around it is void. So it is that when travelers describe to us the countries where it reigns, they rarely have anything to tell us about civil laws. 
All opportunities for disputes and lawsuits are thus suppressed. That is in part why litigants are so badly treated there : the injustice of their demand seems patent, not being hidden, hedged, or protected by an infinite number of laws.
Serikali ya kifalme haihusishi sheria rahisi kama ile ya kifalme; inahitaji mahakama. Mahakama hizo zinatoa maamuzi, lazima zihifadhiwe na kufundishwa, ili hukumu ya leo iwe kama ile ya jana, na hivyo mali na maisha ya raia yatakuwa salama na imara kama katiba yenyewe ya serikali. Katika utawala wa kifalme, utawala wa haki ambayo huamua si tu juu ya maisha na mali, bali pia juu ya heshima, inahitaji utafiti wa makini. Hisia za hakimu huongezeka kadiri anavyoaminiwa zaidi na kutangaza maslahi makubwa zaidi. Kwa hiyo mtu asishangae kupata sheria nyingi, vizuizi, na upanuzi katika sheria za nchi hizi, ambazo huongeza kesi za mtu mmoja-mmoja na zinaonekana kufanya sanaa ya sababu yenyewe. Tofauti ya cheo, asili, na nafasi ambayo imewekwa katika serikali ya kifalme mara nyingi hutia ndani tofauti katika asili ya mali, na sheria zinazohusiana na katiba ya jimbo hilo zinaweza kuongeza idadi ya tofauti hizo. Kwa hiyo, katika Ufaransa, mali ni binafsi, kabla ya urithi, au mapato ya umma, kupatikana kwa mahari, mali ya mke, baba na mama; vitu vya kuhamishwa vya aina kadhaa: bure, badala, urithi wa familia au la; fiefdoms ya kifalme au ya kawaida, annuities juu ya ardhi au mkataba kwa kiasi cha fedha. Kila aina ya mali ni chini ya sheria maalum; ni lazima kufuata ili kuondolewa yao, ambayo zaidi hupunguza unyenyekevu. Katika serikali zetu, milki zimekuwa za urithi. Kwa mfano, mtu wa ukoo wa kifalme alikuwa na mali fulani, na kwa hiyo, mtu wa ukoo wa kifalme alikuwa na uwezo wa kumtumikia mfalme. . "Hiyo ilisababisha tofauti nyingi: kwa mfano, kuna nchi ambapo fief haikuweza kugawanywa kati ya ndugu; katika nyingine, ndugu wadogo waliweza kupata riziki yao kwa ardhi zaidi.""" Mfalme ambaye anafahamu kila moja ya majimbo yake aweza kuanzisha sheria mbalimbali au kuvumilia desturi tofauti. Lakini mtawala hana ujuzi wa chochote, na hawezi kuangalia chochote; lazima awe na mtazamo wa jumla; yeye hutawala kwa mapenzi magumu ambayo ni sawa kila mahali; kila kitu kinakuwa sawa chini ya miguu yake. "Kama hukumu za mahakama zinavyoongezeka katika falme za kifalme, sheria huchukua maamuzi ambayo wakati mwingine yanapingana, ama kwa sababu mahakimu wanaofikirana kwa mfululizo wanafikiri tofauti, au kwa sababu sababu sababu sawa zinajitetea wakati mwingine vizuri na wakati mwingine vibaya, au hatimaye kwa sababu ya matumizi mabaya yasiyo na hesabu ambayo huingia katika kila kitu kinachopita kwa mikono ya binadamu. """ Ni uovu unaohitajika ambao mtunga sheria hulirekebisha mara kwa mara hata kama kinyume na roho ya serikali za wastani. Kwa maana mtu anapolazimika kuwahukumu watu, lazima hilo litokane na asili ya katiba, na si kutokana na utata na kutokuwa na uhakika wa sheria. Katika serikali ambapo kuna tofauti za lazima za watu, lazima kuwe na mapendeleo. Hii inapunguza zaidi unyenyekevu na hufanya kwa ajili ya elfu ubaguzi. Mojawapo ya mapendeleo yasiyo na uzito kwa jamii, na hasa kwa mtu anayetoa, ni kutetea mbele ya mahakama moja badala ya nyingine. Kwa hiyo mabishano zaidi, yaani, yale juu ya mahakama ambayo mbele ya kuomba. Watu wa mataifa ya kimabavu wako katika hali tofauti sana. Sijui ni nini, katika nchi kama hiyo, mtunga sheria angeweza kuamua au hakimu mahakimu. Kutokana na ukweli kwamba ardhi ni mali ya mkuu inafuata kwamba kuna karibu hakuna sheria za kiraia juu ya umiliki wa ardhi. Pia inafuata kutoka haki ya mtawala wa urithi kwamba hakuna mabishano juu ya urithi ama. Katika nchi fulani, haki yake ya pekee ya kufanya biashara huzuia aina zote za sheria za biashara. Kwa sababu ya ndoa zilizofanywa na wasichana watumwa, hakuna sheria za kiraia kuhusu mahari na sehemu za pekee za wake. Matokeo ya wingi huu wa watumwa ni kwamba ni wachache sana walio na mapenzi yao wenyewe, na kwa hiyo wanapaswa kujibu kwa mwenendo wao mbele ya hakimu. """Hatua nyingi za kimaadili ambazo ni maamuzi ya baba, mume, au bwana, huamuliwa na wao na si na mahakimu." """Nimesahau kusema kwamba kwa kuwa kile tunachokiita heshima haijulikani sana katika majimbo hayo, hakuna kesi yoyote inayohusisha heshima kama hiyo, ambayo ni jambo muhimu sana kwetu, inaweza kutokea huko." Utawala wa kimabavu ni wa kujitegemea; kila kitu kinachomzunguka ni tupu. Hivyo, wakati wasafiri wanatuelezea nchi ambazo zina sheria za kibinadamu, ni mara chache sana wanatuambia kuhusu sheria za kibinadamu. Kwa hiyo, fursa zote za mabishano na kesi za kisheria zinakataliwa. Hiyo ni sehemu ya kwa nini litigants ni hivyo vibaya kutibiwa huko: ukosefu wa haki ya madai yao inaonekana wazi, si kuwa siri, hedged, au kulindwa na idadi isiyo na mwisho ya sheria.