We think that We are doing something which is both proper and valuable, by amending a provision that is, to some extent, absurd, and which appears to be opposed to equity. What is this provision? Poor women who are married to wealthy men (which is something that is not unusual) do not, after their death, receive the share of their estates to which they are entitled, that is to say, a fourth when they have less than four children, and a portion equal to one child's share when they have four or more. But they can not claim absolute ownership of this and the right to dispose of it by will, but only the usufruct of the same for their support; and when they die, their share vests in their children, nor while they are living do they enjoy the privilege of using it as they please; and, moreover, when they are childless, this misfortune enables them to acquire the full ownership of the said share; so that I do not know whether a woman would prefer to have children, or would rather be guilty of the indignity of praying to God not to give her any, in order that she might enjoy the ownership of the property which she will receive out of the estate of her husband. Therefore, in order to remedy this absurdity, We do hereby decree that a woman shall not be deprived of the ownership of the share aforesaid, but that she can dispose of it in any way that she may desire, and that her children shall only be entitled to what is granted to them by the terms of the Falcidian Law. She must not, however, forget her first marriage, and treat the bed of her deceased husband with contempt by introducing a second one therein; for if this should take place, she will forfeit the ownership of the property bestowed upon her by this law, and it will then go to her children.