arbitrary and uncalled-for interference with the Hindu law of inheritance. Legislative intervention has never yet been able to effect a change in public opinion, while the more such interference is exercised, the more it assumes an objectionable character.
"5. Your Petitioners have been told that the Bill for the removal of legal obstacles to the marriage of Hindu widows, is merely a Permissive law. In reply they beg leave to observe that, so far as it allows a widow to contract a second marriage, at her option, it is undoubtedly of a permissive character, but in its immediate and ultimate consequences, when it interferes with the rights of others, your Petitioners humbly submit, that it is a compulsory measure. As for example, if a Hindu dies leaving two daughters, both of whom are widows, but the one has a son, and the other no children; by the Hindu law of inheritance as it is now administered, that son will be the sole heir of his maternal grandfather. But if the childless widow contracts a second marriage and has issue by her second husband, by the proposed law they would be entitled to equal shares of the property of their mother's father with the son, of the widow who has not re married. Again, if a married woman dies leaving two sons, who have acquired property. Their father marries a widow and dies leaving a son by her. One of the brothers has children while the other has not; but both of them subsequently die. By the Hindu law the said children will succeed to the whole of that property; but by the proposed law, the son of the widow will not only share equally with the two brothers at first, but will also succeed to the share of the deceased among them to the exclusion of the said children. Again, a person dies leaving a widow, but no issue, and directs her by his will to adopt a son and heir. If before the adoption takes place, she contracts a second marriage, she cannot carry out the directions of her deceased husband according to Hindu law; and the consequence will
