 Locke’s discussion of a lawful conqueror’s rights to reparations suggests how to solve it. “The right of Conquest”, Locke claims, “extends only to the Lives of those who joyn’d in the War, not to their Estates, but only in order to make reparation for the damages received, and the Charges of the War, and that too with reservation of the right of the innocent Wife and Children” (Locke 1689: sec. 180). Locke’s claim is that the lawful conqueror has rights to reparations from the estates of those who unjustly waged war against him, though some part of these estates should be reserved for their wives and children. The clear implication is that the wives and children would have gotten a larger part of the estates in question had their husbands and fathers not harmfully transgressed against the lawful conqueror; but Locke would be guilty of self-contradiction if he had meant that the wives and children were being forced to pay or make reparations for the harms their fathers’ and husbands’ the crimes caused. His view was that when people unjustly harm others, a portion of their estates may be used to make reparations to the people they harmed, and as a necessary result their children cannot inherit that portion of their estates.