tain it[1]: for this being a debt of hers, when ſingle, ſhall like others extend to charge the huſband. But at her death, the relation being diſſolved, the huſband is under no farther obligation.
No perſon is bound to provide a maintenance for his iſſue, unleſs where the children are impotent and unable to work, either through infancy, diſeaſe, or accident; and then is only obliged to find them with neceſſaries, the penalty on refuſal being no more than 20s. a month. For the policy of our laws, which are ever watchful to promote induſtry, did not mean to compel a father to maintain his idle and lazy children in eaſe and indolence: but thought it unjuſt to oblige the parent, againſt his will, to provide them with ſuperfluities, and other indulgences of fortune; imagining they might truſt to the impulſe of nature, if the children were deſerving of ſuch favours. Yet, as nothing is ſo apt to ſtifle the calls of nature as religious bigotry, it is enacted[2], that if any popiſh parent ſhall refuſe to allow his proteſtant child a fitting maintenance, with a view to compel him to change his religion, the lord chancellor ſhall by order of court conſtrain him to do what is juſt and reaſonable. But this did not extend to perſons of another religion, of no leſs bitterneſs and bigotry than the popiſh: and therefore in the very next year we find an inſtance of a jew of immenſe riches, whoſe only daughter having embraced chriſtianity, he turned her out of doors; and on her application for relief, it was held ſhe was intitled to none[3]. But this gave occaſion[4] to another ſtatute[5], which ordains, that if jewiſh parents refuſe to allow their proteſtant children a fitting maintenance, ſuitable to the fortune of the parent, the lord chancellor on complaint may make ſuch order therein as he ſhall ſee proper.
Our law has made no proviſion to prevent the diſinheriting of children by will: leaving every man's property in his own
