immoveables, declaring, “Though immoveables and bipeds have been acquired by a man himself,” &c. &c. In what a strange situation is the father placed, if such be really the law! How thoroughly all power over his own possessions is taken away, and his credit reduced!
30. The author quotes also two passages from Narudu, as confirming the course of reasoning, which he has pursued, with regard to the independence claimable by each of all the coheirs in a joint property. The passages above alluded to are thus read: “When there are many persons sprung from one man, who have duties apart and transactions apart, and are separate in business and character, if they be not accordant in affairs, should they give or sell their own shares, they do all that as they please; for they are masters of their own wealth” (Ch. II. Sec. 31).
31. After I had sent my manuscript to the Press, my attention was directed to an article in the “Calcutta Quarterly Magazine, No. VI. April—June, 1825,” being a Review of Sir F. W. McNaghten’s Considerations on Hiudoo Law. In this essay I find an opinion offered by the writer, tending to recommend that any disposal by a father of his ancestral immoveables should be nullified, on the principle that we ought “to make that invalid which was considered immoral” (p. 225). I am surprised that this unqualified maxim should drop from the pen of the presumed reviewer, who, as a scholar, stands very high in my estimation, and from whose extensive knowledge more correct judgment might be expected. Let us, however, apply this principle to practice, to see how far, as a general rule, it may be safely adopted.
32. To marry an abandoned female, is an act of evil
