Marquis Wellesley's sound Policy.

13

"Government to consult the religious opinions, "customs, and prejudices of the natives, in all "cases in which it has been practicable, CONSIST66 ENTLY WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF MORALITY, REASON, AND HUMANITY;" after which, the Governor General in Council adds, that he "considers it to be

66

66

an indispensable duty to ascertain whether this "unnatural and inhuman custom can be abolished "altogether;" and desires they will "ascertain how "far the practice is founded on the religious opi"nions of the Hindoos. If not grounded in any

66

If,

precept of their law, the Governor General in "Council hopes that the custom may gradually, if "not immediately, be altogether abolished. "however, the entire abolition should appear to the "Court to be impracticable in itself, or inexpedi❝ent, as offending any established religious opinion "of the Hindoos," then the Court are desired to "consider the best means of preventing the abuses;" among which, are noticed the administering of intoxicating drugs, and sacrifices at immature age. Now, taking this letter as a whole, nothing can be clearer than that Marquis Wellesley and his Council intended, throughout, that the toleration even of "religious opinions, customs, and prejudices,” (I quote their own words) could only be permitted when they should be (again I quote them) " in con"sistency with the principles of Morality, Reason, "and Humanity."

I apprehend this to be clearly a sound and legitimate principle of legislation, for which the Su

preme Government had the sanction of no less

authority than Mr. LOCKE, which has never yet been attempted to be controverted. He says, "The

66

magistrate ought not to forbid the preaching, or "professing of any speculative opinions, because 66 they have no relation to the civil rights of the "subject, nor do they break the public peace of So"cieties. The post of a magistrate is only to take "care that the commonwealth receive no prejudice, "and that there be no injury done to any one in "life and estate. You will say, if some have a "mind to sacrifice infants, or practice any other "such heinous enormities, is the magistrate ob"liged to tolerate them, because they are com"mitted in a religious assembly?-I answer, No.

66

They are not lawful in the ordinary course of "life, nor in any private house, and, therefore, "neither are they so in the worship of God."

And again." I say no opinions contrary to "human society, or to those moral rules which are 66 necessary to the preservation of civil society, are "to be tolerated by the magistrate."

Now, Sir, upon this principle precisely is the letter of Lord Wellesley, and his Council, founded; --a principle only to be shaken when the primitive elements of society shall sustain an overthrow, but not before; for, according to the principle of all natural law, and of our own in particular, “ Jura Naturæ immutabilia sunt." The letter recognizes the amplest toleration, so far as is consistent with "the principles of Morality, Reason, and Humanity,"

England under no obligation to sanction Crime. 15 but no further; and it affords a complete answer to all those who argue that we cannot act as we are required, because we have made a treaty, or compact, with India to respect her religion. We have indeed, made a treaty, but not in defiance of the law of nature;—we have entered into a compact, but not with crime and bloodshed-not at the price of life, nor amidst the groans and sufferings of our common humanity. The moment a purely religious rite infringes upon the laws of society, its character is changed, and it becomes a civil crime.

I contend, therefore, that we are not bound hand and foot by any supposed compact, which is in conflict with principles as old as the creation itself, and the obligation of which principles had force long antecedent even to the moral law; and, perhaps, a remark of Colonel Walker, in the Parliamentary papers, (who will be noticed hereafter,) will illustrate this part of my subject, when he says, "When the customs and rites of any people are harmless, whatever form they assume, "and from whatever source they may be derived, they are entitled to toleration and protection; but

66

66

they ought to be punished or amended, when their " evident tendency is to diminish population, and to "alienate the natural affections of mankind."Vol. 5, p. 31.

Under this letter of Lord Wellesley, and his Council, a reference took place by the Legal Court, to the Pundits, as to the authority for the rite;

with whose detailed opinions it is not my intention to trouble the Court, but merely with the result, which is, that even they-the heathen interpreters of heathen laws-do not hold the practice to be any where commanded or prescribed by their sacred law, but only permitted by it. The distinct answer by them to the simple question-" whether a "woman is enjoined by the Shaster voluntarily to "burn herself with the body of her husband?" being

66

Every woman of the four Castes is permitted "to burn herself," (except in certain cases then enumerated;) and they cite the authority of their principal Legislator MENU, who clearly discountenances the practice, declaring, that " a virtuous "wife ascends to heaven, if, after the decease of her "Lord, she devotes herself to pious austerities."*

In conformity with this authority are the following equally strong opinions :

"In childhood, a female must be dependant on her father;in youth, on her husband;-her lord being dead, on her sons;if she have no sons, on the near kinsmen of her husband.”. Ordinances of MENU, translated by SIR W. JONES.

In addition to this, the head Jurist of the College of Fort William, and the Supreme Court, (Mrityoorjuya,) has given it as his opinion, that a life of mortification is the law for a widow. That, in former ages, nothing was ever heard of the practice, it being only peculiar to a later and more corrupt æra; and that a woman's burning herself from the desire of connubial bliss, ought certainly to be rejected with abhorrence. And he argues further, that burning being at best only an alternative for mortification, no alternative can have the force of direct law.-See his opinion, drawn up at the desire of the Chief Judge of the

Pundits' Opinions reported to Government.

17

If, indeed, the Pundits had been far more decided in their opinion, and had held the practice to be a constituent and integral part of their religion, (which they no where do,) still, an attention to the fundamental principle laid down by Lord Wellesley, and his Council, of only "consulting religious opinions, "customs, and prejudices, when consistent with "Morality, Reason, and Humanity," would effectually have prevented the sanction of the Government from being given. Let us however inquire what really did take place. The opinions of the Pundits were transmitted by the Legal Court of Nizamut Adawlut, to the Governor General in Council, on the 5th of June, 1805, then composed of precisely the same Members as on the 5th of February preceding; and the Legal Court accompanied the Pundits' opinions by a letter from themselves, dated the 5th of June, 1805, in which they say, they "apprehend it would be impracticable at the pre"sent time consistently with the principles invari

Sudder Dewannee Adawlut, in the periodical work, entitled the Friend of India.-Vol. 1. p. 310.

And in further proof that MENU is decidedly in favour of the widow's living, may be quoted his own injunction from Sir W. Jones's translation of his Institutes, p. 143.-" Let her emaciate her body by living voluntarily on pure flowers, roots, and fruits; but let her not, when her lord is deceased, even pronounce the name of another man. Let her continue, till death, forgiving all injuries, performing harsh duties, avoiding every sensual pleasure, and cheerfully practising the incomparable rules of virtue, which have been followed by such women as were devoted to one husband."

C