mount importance, connected mainly with the constitution of the so-called Joint Family. To this end I must give abstracts of a considerable number of cases, comments on each, and conclusions as to the probable results of the aggregate. If, as I hope to be able to do, I succeed in showing that the state of Hindu law in Madras is past praying for, no doubt the plan of operations I have suggested, or something like it, will be taken into consideration by the Government.

Another object I have in view, one of less importance, is to revise and improve, as well as I can, what I have written about some of the fifteen 'false principles' dealt with in my View. A considerable space of time has passed since the View was written, during which I have been able to put together a good deal of additional information bearing on matters discussed in its pages, and I shall be glad if I can strengthen certain positions I took up in 1877.

A few miscellaneous chapters on usage, Manu, Nārada, the Gentoo Code, the Joint Family, and other necessary subjects of study, will make up the first part of this book. Then will come chapters on the 'false principles.' Lastly, the third part will consist of the review of decisions.

I must here take the opportunity of tendering my hearty thanks to the Orientalists and scholars who have done me the honour of reviewing, or noticing, my little works on Hindu law. As I have no Sanskrit, and can only utilise the labours of others in making short excursions into the dangerous field of Oriental learning, I had not hoped for serious

criticism of my humble efforts, such as I have been favoured with by savants like Professor Barth. That such a one should have taken the trouble to point out in the most kindly manner some of my numerous errors and shortcomings, is an honour to me as welcome as it was unexpected; and I have endeavoured to show my appreciation of it by aiming in this present work at greater carefulness and moderation. I may observe, however, that some of the errors of which I have been found guilty are not mine, but those of eminent Sanskritists. For example, it was my lamented friend, Doctor Burnell, who told me that 'Ç'ūdra' comes from the root vid, and means 'sweater,'

I cannot but regret that Mr. Mayne should have been advised to speak, in the preface to his third edition of his Hindu Law, of Professor Barth's review of my Prospectus, in such a manner as necessarily to lead his readers to suppose that the reviewer had snuffed me out, with every circumstance of ignominy. In justice to myself I must quote the more important parts of the last section of Professor Barth's monograph in the Revue Critique, of August 28, 1882. They run as follows:

'J'ai commencé ce compte rendu avec l'intention de dire beaucoup de bien de ce livre, et je m'aperçois, en finissant, que je n'ai guère fait que le critiquer. Mon opinion sur l'ouvrage n'a pourtant pas changé en chemin. Je le crois toujours encore juste, et vrai dans le fond, en progrès quant à la façon d'envisager ces études, plein d'idées et surtout d'intentions excel

lentes, éminemment utile et malheureusement justifié en beaucoup de ses attaques. Même pour le pro

fane, il est visible que sur bien des points il y a abus, que la loi qu'on applique n'est pas toujours celle à laquelle les parties auraient droit et que, dans cette application, la jurisprudence n'est parfois conséquente, ni avec la loi, ni avec elle-même. Il est impossible de ne pas condamner avec l'auteur les envahissements progressifs de ce judge-made law, dont certaines exigences en matière de transmission des biens et de statut personnel sont vraiment iniques et de nature à porter de graves atteintes à la prospérité du pays. On lui pardonne alors ses vivacités, ses exagérations et sa trop grande facilité à faire, comme on dit, flèche de tout bois. Car ce livre, écrit avec une opiniâtre conviction, est avant tout une œuvre de combat, et c'est comme tel qu'il faut le juger, si on veut être équitable envers lui.'

I am entirely at one with Mr. Mayne in thinking this monograph to be a model of acute, candid, and courteous criticism;' and I sincerely wish that more such were forthcoming. I do not profess to be an Orientalist, or a 'philologue,' and am only too happy to be corrected, when my ignorance of Sanskrit misleads. me (as from time to time it must) into error. My sole object in writing about Hindu law is to arouse attention, by all available means, to a neglected and very important question.

CHAPTER II.

'USAGE IS HIGHEST DHARMA.'

THE aphorism Usage is highest dharma' occurs in Verse 108 of the First Lecture of Manu, and is thus amplified and explained by the words next following (It is) mentioned in the Vedas and approved by tradition; therefore a prudent twice-born (man) should ever be intent on this. A Brahman who has fallen away from usage gets not the fruit of the Veda; but (if he be) attached to usage, he enjoys the full fruit. Thus devotees, having seen (that) the course of dharma is according to usage, comprehend usage to be the final root of all austerity.' See Burnell's Manu.

Verse 107 states, in brief, the subject-matter of the whole book. 'In this (treatise) dharma is fully declared, also the good and bad qualities of actions ; likewise, also, the perpetual usages of the four castes.'

Then, verses 111-18 give a more extensive account of the contents of the work, the last of which are declared to be the eternal dharma of countries, castes, families; also the dharmas of heretics (and) of guilds.'

Taking this whole passage as it stands, there can be no doubt, it seems to me, that the author of Manu (or whoever may have written the first lecture thereof, by way of a preface to the work) considered that for all human beings, whether regarded as in lividuals, or as joined together in companies or nations, and whether Brahmans, women, Çûdras, heretics, or barbarians, the long established usage peculiar to each individual (or aggregate) constitutes highest dharma, for each his (or its) own.

The question then arises, What is dharma? And the answer is, that this phrase or expression cannot be satisfactorily rendered in English, inasmuch as it represents a primitive concept, wholly foreign (and indeed incomprehensible) to the modern English mind. And it is for this reason Burnell has in some places in Manu left the phrase untranslated. In a note to p. 40 of my Prospectus I have attempted to give a rough explanation of it in the following words :

This mysterious word has been greatly misunderstood. It would seem to be connected with a root signifying to hold,' and possibly may mean the inherent efficacy of acts, that holds up a man through life. Dharma is not at all comparable with our 'virtue' (manliness), or with our duty'; still less does it resemble our 'law.' According to Haradatta (see Max Müller, An. Sns. Lit., 101), ' dharma (virtue) is the quality of the individual self, which arises from action, leads to happiness and final beatitude, and is called apírva, supernatural.' According to Narada,