great majority of them would unavoidably curtail their respective establishments, much more their luxuries, a circumstance which would virtually impede the progress of foreign and domestic commerce. Is there any good policy in reducing the natives of Bengal to that degree of poverty which has fallen upon a great part of the upper provinces, owing, in some measure, to the wretched restrictions laid down in the Mitakshura, their standard law of inheritance? Do Britons experience any inconvenience or disadvantage owing to the differences of legal institutions between England and Scotland, or between one county of England and another? What would Englishmen say, were the Court of King’s Bench to adopt the law of Scotland, as the foundation of their decisions regarding legitimacy, or of Kent, in questions of inheritance? Every liberal politician will, I think, coincide with me, when I say, that in proportion as a dependent kingdom approximates to her guardian country in manners, in statutes, in religion, and in social and domestic usages, their reciprocal relation flourishes, and their mutual affection increases.
13. It is said that the change proposed has forced itself on the notice of the Bench upon the following premises:—
1st. Certain writings, such as the institutes of Munoo and of others, esteemed as sacred by Hindoos, are the foundation of their law of inheritance. 2ndly. That Jeemootvahun, the author of the Dayubhagu, is but a commentator on those writings. 3rdly. That from these circumstances, such part of the commentary by Jeemootvahun as gives validity to a sale or gift by a father of his ancestral immoveables, without the consent of his son
