"ably observed by the British Government, of ma"nifesting every possible indulgence to the religious opinions and prejudices of the Natives, to "abolish the custom in question." "It appears, "however, to the Court, that hope may be reason"ably entertained that this very desirable object 66 may be gradually effected, and at no distant pe❝riod of time. With this view, and for the pur66 pose of preventing illegal, unwarrantable, and "criminal practices," they then proceed to propose, for the sanction of the Supreme Government, several prohibitory regulations affecting those Suttees which are supposed to be not in conformity with the Hindoos' own religion.

It is remarkable here, that the Legal Court, in this reply to the letter of the Governor General in Council, of the 5th of February preceding, entirely omit the important distinction then laid down by the Supreme Government as fundamental: namely, that Toleration must consist with "the prin"ciples of Morality, Reason, and Humanity;" and they state a different basis of action, which is untenable and inadmissible; for they here assert it to be "a principle invariably observed by the "British Government, to manifest every possible "indulgence to the religious opinions and prejudices "of the Natives"-a canon of legislation absolutely distinct from, and opposed to, the rule of the Governor General in Council, as stated in his letter of the 5th of February preceding, and under which new and unsound view of the duty of Go

Three Governments reject Prohibitory Regulations. 19 vernment, it will be seen that the indulgence claimed for the Natives, might be extended to the toleration of the grossest possible outrages against humanity for all future time, inasmuch as it is not limited in its extent by any reference to the fundamental principles of "Morality, Reason, or Humanity."

Lord Wellesley's Government accordingly did nothing whatever, on this judicial recommendation that they should adopt the Prohibitory Regulations, and, indeed, it is understood that something more than the negative testimony of Lord Wellesley against this detestable practice characterized the concluding acts of that Nobleman's administration.

The Marquis Wellesley was succeeded by the Marquis Cornwallis, who, however, in like manner, did nothing, on the recommendation of the legal Court. Lord Cornwallis was succeeded by Sir George Barlow, who equally omitted to accede to the recommendation. Sir George Barlow was succeeded by Lord Minto, when on the 3d Sept. 1812, after more than seven years and an half had transpired from the first recommendation, and when not only the Marquis Wellesley who was Governor in Chief, in June 1805, but when every individual member of that Government had been changed [the supreme Court now consisting of Lord Minto, Sir George Hewitt, Mr. Lumsden and Mr. Colebrooke] the Court of Nizamut Adawlut, by their letter dated 3d September, 1812, forwarded to the Supreme Government the letter

of a Magistrate who had recently applied for Instructions for his guidance, and the Legal Court then remind such new Government of the letter of the Governor-General in Council [Marquis Wellesley] dated the 5th Feb. 1805-of their consequent reference to the Pundits-and of the Prohibitory Regulations then proposed by them to be adopted, but which had never to that hour been sanctioned by Lord Wellesley's, or by any succeeding Government. Upon this, Lord Minto, the GovernorGeneral in Council, replies, under date of 5th Dec. 1812, observing that "it is a fundamental principle of the British Government to allow the most

66

66

complete toleration in matters of religion to all "classes of its native subjects;" but his Lordship very remarkably omits the former limitation of the Marquis Wellesley, his predecessor, namely "in "all cases practicable, consistently with the principles of Morality, Reason and Humanity;"--and, after noticing the opinions of the Pundits, that the woman is "permitted to burn herself," and "that "the performance will contribute essentially both to "her own happiness and that of her husband in a "future state;" it is added, "The practice, gene

rally speaking, being thus recognized and encou"raged by the doctrines of the Hindoo religion," [it being as clearly only permitted by them] "it ap

66

pears evident that the course which the British "Government should follow, according to the prin"ciple of religious toleration already noticed," [that being, as we have seen, a distinct principle from the Marquis Wellesley's]" is to ALLOW the prac

and sanctions the Prohibitory Regulations.

21

"tice in those cases in which it is countenanced by "their religion, and to prevent it in others, in which "it is by the same authority prohibited," as in the cases of

1st. Compulsion.

2d. Obtaining the woman's assent to the sacrifice by administering intoxicating drugs.

3d. Non-Age [the proper term of years for performing the sacrifice, being to be ascertained from the Pundits, and which is subsequently reported to be 16.]

4th. Pregnancy.

The Governor-General in Council then states, that the measures already proposed by the Court of Nizamut Adawlut appear well adapted to the purpose, (tho' upwards of seven years and an half had now elapsed without their adoption,) and these measures are---that the Magistrates should direct the Police officers to obtain the earliest information of an intended sacrifice, and such officers were then either to attend, or depute an officer under them to ascertain the circumstances, and if within the prohibited rules, the officer was to take the necessary measures to prevent the women being burned, apprizing the relations or others concerned that they would be dealt with as criminals if they proceeded, and the officers were directed to report monthly to the Magistrate every case and its circumstances.

In October, 1813, a woman having been burnt in the Burdwan District of Bengal, who had a child

of two years and an half old, the Magistrate requested instructions, and was answered by the Legal Court of Nizamut Adawlut, on the 9th Dec. 1813, that they did not intend to authorize the police to interfere in such a case, and they required him to issue the strictest injunctions against such interference for the future. On this, he remonstrated (18th December, 1813) and, stated, that no fewer than four women had, in the six months since the Regulations had been in force, been actually prevented from burning, on the sole ground of their having infant children, and he intreated the Court to reconsider their order, under which, they again consulted the Pundits, as usual, and discovered that a woman having a child under three years of age might not burn unless some one would agree to maintain the child, in consequence of which opinion, the case of women so circumstanced was then added to the four prohibited cases before-mentioned, of course inviting engagements for the maintenance of infants, or in other words, legalizing the sacrifice of the mother in all cases where a person could be found who would become bound to maintain the infant offspring of the wretched woman. This invitation to new crime, and open toleration of it, is most deeply to be deplored, as, indeed, the Court themselves are subsequently compelled to admit in five years after, namely, by their Report on the Returns of 1815 and 1816, dated 25th June, 1817, where they state that, "From two Texts cited in the