Appendix B. (the great majority of Hindoos) certainly looked upon the rite of the Suttee as enjoined by the Shastras; others did not. Many of your memorialists now entertain, as they then held, discordant opinions on that question. But it is not the intention of your memorialists to discuss the case of the Suttee in any way. In the present case there is no discordance of opinion, there is no difference, there can be no difference amongst Hindoos; and in the Memorial presented to Lord Dalhousie (the sentiments of which your memorialists are but desirous to echo or repeat), not one maxim of their religion has been advanced but what rests on translations from the books of the first authorities in their religion, which are found in those English writers who at former periods have made the Hindoo religion and law their study, and which are accessible to all Englishmen. The chief authorities on which the memorialists relied being to be found in Sir Edward Colebrooke's Digest; Sir William Jones' Institutes of Munoo; the Dayabhaga Mitakshara, &c., and other well-known works on Hindoo law translated into English. It is a well-known fact, that in the Suttee case Lord William Bentinck brought forward the Regulation for its abolition, distinctly on the ground, that the Suttee was not enjoined by the Shastras as incumbent on Hindoo widows as a substantive part of the Hindoo law; but that the practice of it was merely spoken of by several sages as a praiseworthy act in a Hindoo widow. This was contested by the great majority of Hindoos who held it to be enjoined by the Shastras; but such was the ground taken by Government and Lord William Bentinck, who considered that, as the destruction of life was in direct opposition to other precepts of the Hindoo Shastras, the permission of self-immolation, which was opposed to the opinions of mankind in general, ought to be done away with. In the present case all Hindoos are unanimous in considering that this law is a violation of their religion: all the Hindoo law-books clearly and distinctly show that the Hindoos only advance, what cannot be denied, that the Act in question does directly seek to annihilate one of the fundamental principles of their religion. The first question for inquiry is, what is the proposition contended for by your memorialists? It is this: "that no forfeiture of property which a Hindoo has acquired by his own exertion or by gift, is created by his being converted to any other religion;" in fact, that no forfeiture arises thereon in any case, but that an incapacity is thereby by himself voluntarily created to continue to hold the property which he derives by inheritance, and hold on condition, a condition which he is no longer able to perform; why is this? As more fully stated in the former Memorial to Lord Dalhousie, every Hindoo when he inherits property, whether a son of the body or by adoption, takes an estate coupled with a condition, which, if he by his own act (or in some cases owing to the visitation of the Almighty) cannot perform, he cannot continue to hold the property. The benefit which by the Hindoo religion (the due performance of its worship) is conferred upon all the ancestors of the deceased, by a meritorious service to their memory of the rites enjoined by the Shastras, by virtue of which alone the party in possession holds the property, is no longer conferred. The performance by a person of any other religion, or of any inferior caste, would be a desecration of the rite and place of worship, and an impiety injurious, instead of beneficial (according to the belief of Hindoos) to the departed souls of their ancestors. But as the Hindoo religion attaches the utmost importance to the perpetuity of male heirs, and the performance by them of these sacred rites, it has provided, that on the incapacity of the direct or other heir in possession to perform the duties attached to the property, he is incapacitated from holding it, and the property derived from his ancestor or ancestors by inheritance passes (as if the holder were then to die) to the next heir in succession; but if this ancestorial property be worth 20 or 2,000 or 200,000 Rs., or whatever that value may be, this, and this only, is what he ceases, as incapacitated, to hold. He has committed no crime punishable by Hindoo law; he has not incurred any attainder. If the holder by trade, by arms, by erudition, or by labour, or in any way, has made by his own exertions 20 lacs of rupees, or any sum whatever, he does not lose that. No forfeiture is created by his apostacy. The Hindoo religion and the Hindoo law, in whatever light they may look upon conversion, does not treat it as a crime; on conversion a Hindoo is simply blotted out from the Hindoo community. His relatives and friends lament him as a lost sheep from their fold, and look upon him as dead; they hold no converse with him. It is possible that they may not think his chance of happiness in that future state and other world (in which all Hindoos most devoutly believe) is greater than some bigoted Christians believe, will be the fate of all who do not believe in the religion which Christians profess. If connected with the apostate, his Hindoo friends would consider that they were, to a certain degree, debased by his apostacy from the religion of his ancestors; the latter alone, in the belief of Hindoos, would be injured thereby. To obviate that injury, as far as possible, the Hindoo law provides, that all property, which the apostate derived from his ancestors, goes, upon his apostacy, to the next male heir capable of performing the duties which attach to it. In this your memorialists are unable to discover the alleged "illiberality," "persecution," or "intolerance" of the Hindoos. But if it be so, it arises from the Hindoo law being founded, as to this point, on, and directly blended with, their religion; and this Act cannot be passed without directly assailing it. If such be the law and religion of Hindoos, handed down to them from the remotest antiquity, and tolerated without alteration by their Mahomedan conquerors (in practice, whatever be their theory), where is the "illiberality," the "persecution," or the "intolerance," "intolerance," which should induce the British Government thus to annihilate a main principle of the religion of Hindoos, which was left untouched by the less liberal and more intolerant government of the Mahomedans? It is an article of their faith, received from their ancestors from the remotest antiquity, arising out of, founded at the same time with and forming part of their religion; why is it illiberal to desire to maintain that princple, which, as blended with and springing out of their religion, they conceive to be essential to its maintenance in purity and integrity, and essential to uphold and to promote the eternal happiness of the ancestors of those Hindoos who may possibly be affected by this law if passed and confirmed? Finally, is it more or less than a Protestant minister being compelled, on becoming a member of the church of Rome, to vacate his cure? he is incapacitated from holding it, and yet it may be his own property, as your memorialists are told. It may be own his living to which he may have presented himself, but he held the property subject to its being held by a Protestant divine, who should administer the Protestant rites which for a time he was capable of administering; by his apostacy he incapacitated himself from a continuance of those duties. He incurs no other forfeiture than from incapacity, no punishment; so the Hindoo. A Hindoo derives property from his ancestors to be held by him on the condition, that (and as long as) he shall perform certain duties for the benefit of his departed ancestors, he shall hold his ancestors' property; he voluntarily disqualifies himself from the ability to perform them. Then he ceases to have any right to the property, and the next heir takes it by law. He, as the Protestant clergyman, incurs no punishment, and loses nothing which he has earned for himself. Your memorialists submit, then, that the "illiberality, the persecution, the intolerance" of such a provision of the Hindoo laws is not more than that which deprives the Rev. Mr. A., a Protestant divine, when he becomes a Roman-catholic priest, from further continuing to hold the living, which otherwise he would have enjoyed for his life; and the difference between Catholic and Protestant is only the difference between two sects of the same religion. But the Protestant divine converted to the Romish church must give up his living, even though he himself, as already observed, was the patron of the living; for he had in it only a trust for the benefit of that sect of the Christian religion from which he has seceded, and he is no longer capable to perform the worship according to the Church discipline of the sect he quits. So must the Hindoo for the self-same reason: he merely holds the property subject to a sacred trust. He had not an absolute property in it, and must give it up, therefore, as incapacitated to perform the duties attached to it to one who is not. In a country which professes to despise the religion of the Hindoos, and the inhabitants of which are profoundly ignorant of the real tenets of the religion professed and believed in by Hindoos, and of the general ordinances of the law by which for ages they have been governed and directed; in a country, which in no way entertains, or is capable of forming a just or fair estimate of the devout feeling with which pious Hindoos address themselves to the various incarnations of the sole God of the Universe in which they believe, whilst they apparently seem only to address the image, (which is presented to them merely as the symbol of such incarnation); it would be worse than useless, and might be construed into disrespect to the Christian religion professed by their rulers, to enter into discussions which would not, and could not, be appreciated in the meridian of London. They enter therefore into no discussion which is not necessary to show the connexion of this proposed law, and of the law which the promoters of it now seek to abrogate, with the principles of their religion, of which, since the obscurest ages of antiquity, it has formed an integral part, and without which, its entirety would be destroyed, and the fundamental principle upon which all succession to property and the hopes of Hindoos attaining future bliss is mainly founded, would be violated. But your memorialists are strongly impressed with the necessity which there is, that in a matter which so nearly, so closely, so vitally, affects those most valued and sacred rights, the Hindoos of the Bengal Presidency should be represented by some one who has lived some years in India, and has, at least, a general knowledge of the habits, manners, customs, and feelings of Hindoos, and an intimate knowledge of the extent to which their laws are blended with, and in many respects founded on, their religion. Under this feeling, your memorialists generally have requested Mr. John Farley Leith, late a member of the bar of the Supreme Court in Calcutta (who has kindly consented to act for them), to take charge of the case of the Hindoos of Bengal in general, and of your memorialists in particular, and to become their advocate. For that purpose they have constituted, and by this their Memorial, testified by their subscription to this Memorial, do constitute him the iragent and attorney, to support and urge this their Memorial, and if allowed, to advocate those rights at the bar of your Honourable Court, and if need be, to carry up the same to the Government and Parliament of Great Britain, where at least, if compelled to go, your memorialists are informed their humble Memorial may be heard at the bar of either, or both, of the Houses of the British Legislature. In the apprehensions, the fears, the sentiments of the memorialists to Lord Dalhousie, as expressed by them, your memorialists desire to express their entire concurrence. That the lasting and pernicious effect which this measure, if forced upon the Hindoo community, will have upon their minds and feelings towards the British Government, will be such as described by the memorialists to Lord Dalhousie, your memorlalists can entertain no doubt; but they look for better things at the hands of your Honourable Court. They feel every confidence in the solicitude which must be felt by your Court for the maintenance of the Government of the extensive territories committed to your charge, in peace, happiness, and general confidence and satisfaction. Of the many races inhabiting them, the Hindoos Appendix B. Appendix B. are by far the most numerous. Should this inroad upon their religion be allowed by your Honourable Court, your memorialists expect no outbreak at present-no present disturbance-but they expect, and they would not do their duty as loyal subjects of the British Crown, if they did not candidly state their belief, that if this odious attack upon the Hindoo religion shall become an acknowledged act of British Indian law, Her Majesty will have eighty millions of Hindoo subjects in India dissatisfied and discontented-rendered so by an Act of the Legislature of India, passed for the sake of courting a small, though influential party in Great Britain, which the Legislature of India probably thought might be useful and necessary at this period, when the renewal of the Charter of the East East Company was a question about to be discussed. That this feeling of dissatisfaction and discontent may not be excited in so large a portion of Indian British subjects, your memorialists most sincerely hope, and, therefore, most earnestly pray, that your Honourable Court will be pleased to disallow, and to signify to the Governor-general of India your disallowance of the said Act, No. XXI., of 1850, passed by the Legislative Council of India, intituled, "An Act for extending the Principle of Section 9, Regulation VII., of 1832, of the Bengal Code, throughout the Territories. subject to the East India Company;" and your memorialists further pray, that if Section 9 of the said Regulation of 1832 of the Bengal Code is now in force as part of the Code of Bengal, and has the theoretical effect, which the Indian Government appear to suppose it to have, and is capable of application to the Hindoos of Bengal, that your Honourable Court will be pleased to disallow such last-mentioned clause, and to order and direct the Governor-general of India to pass an Act repealing the said Section 9 of that Regulation, as subversive in principle of those rights, and of that law which, founded on their religion, they have enjoyed from time immemorial; and of the continuance of which the local Government and the Parliament of Great Britain have, at least, held out the most. unequivocal assurances, and as a clause passed in 1832 in so silent and concealed a manner, that it was unknown to, and unsuspected by, the great mass of the Hindoo population, until many years after it was passed, and which has remained a dead letter, and inoperative from 1832 to 1850. And your memorialists shall ever pray. Appendix C. PUBLIC EXAMINATIONS OF 1851. THE papers on the various subjects were prepared by the under-mentioned gentlemen: 'The senior and junior scholarship answers were examined by the gentlemen who set the questions. The Arabic and Sanscrit scholarship answers were examined by the Principal of the Calcutta Mudrissa, and by Major G. T. Marshall. I. The scholarship examinations of all the Colleges and Schools in Bengal were held upon the dates and at the hours specified below : DATES. 1851. : Junior Scholarships. Grammar. Mathematics. Geography. Translations. Literature. Mixed Mathematics English Essay Vernacular or Latin Essay. The examinations were held daily from 10 A. M. to 1 P. M., and from 2 to 5 P. M. precisely, at which hours all answers to the morning and afternoon papers respectively were given in. II. The |