REMARKS, &c. On the 26th May, 1853, Lord Monteagle presented a petition to the Upper House of Parliament from 8,401 Hindu inhabitants of Bengal, Behar, and Orissa against Act XXI. of 1850 of the Government of India, otherwise called the Liberty of Conscience Act. "By the ancient Hindoo law," said his lordship, any person entitled to what was considered to be ancestral property, held it subject to a religious trust, in respect to certain observances of a religious character. If he lost caste or quitted his religion, he became incapable of performing those religious trusts, and, by the ancient Hindoo law, became incapable of holding the estate he had received." This law was amended by Lord W. Bentinck, who in 1832 passed a regulation for the province of Bengal, by which the civil disability consequent on the renunciation of Brahminism was taken away. "However, this ordinance remained dormant, and in 1845 the whole question was brought under the consideration of the Law Commissioners appointed B under the India Act of 1833, who carried Lord W. Bentinck's regulation beyond Bengal, and made it applicable to the whole of India, with certain exceptions. While the Hindoo convert's property was thus secured to him, the rights of third parties were nevertheless cautiously guarded. That Act of the Law Commissioners, however, did not pass into law, from the want of co-operation on the part of the East India Company; and thus the matter stood until 1850, when an Act was passed absolutely securing to the Christian convert all the property he could have possessed if he had remained a Hindoo, and thereby depriving other parties of the rights, privileges, and property to which they were entitled under the old law." "It was against this law," continued his Lordship, "that the complaint in the present petition was raised, not only on the ground of the hardship inflicted by its provisions, but because it went beyond the intention of its framers. For instance, the loss of caste did not occur solely on the conversion of a Hindoo, but was also a penalty for immorality and illegal conduct, and yet the words of the Act of 1850 would save the rights of a person who lost his caste by reason of immorality or violation of the laws." Lord Monteagle considered the Act XXI. of 1850 as a violation of the pledges which were given to the natives of India, as well by various acts of Parliament, as also by regulations of Government. Those pledges guaranteed to the Hindus the enjoyment of their ancient laws. These laws, again, ordained that a person should forfeit his ancestral property, if he lost caste or renounced the religion of his fathers, because he was thereby incapacitated for the performance of the conditions on which he inherited his property. The Earl of Ellenborough supported the observations of Lord Monteagle. His Lordship's speech is so remarkable and characteristic, that I cannot help quoting it in full as it appeared in the Times : "The Earl of Ellenborough said, that after the very clear and accurate statement of his noble friend he would not be justified in delaying their Lordships but for a very few moments. Having, however, taken considerable interest in this question, he felt at the same time that he would not be justified if he did not express, however shortly, his entire concurrence in what had fallen from his noble friend. (Hear, hear.) He thought the petitioners had been placed under a great grievance by the legislation which had taken place on this subject, and he was bound also to declare that that legislation had been conducted on principles altogether inconsistent with all the promises and pledges which, from time to time, had been made to the inhabitants of India by successive Governments; and that it was wholly inconsistent with the practical condition on which we held our dominions in that country-the condition of respecting the laws and the religion of the people. (Hear, hear.) Convinced as he was of the impropriety of the measure of which the petitioners complained, and injurious as he thought it was to our interests in that country, without assisting the higher interests to which his noble friend had adverted, he was yet of opinion that in practice it would not produce very great evil, and on this account,—that the number of converts, or pseudo-converts, to Christianity was, up to the present time, so infinitely small that there were few cases indeed in which the Act would be called into operation. (Hear, hear.) There could hardly be a stronger proof of this than the fact, that from 1832 to 1845 the existence of the law to which his noble friend had adverted was actually unknown to the people. (Hear, hear.) At that time it was not customary to publish the laws which were passed regarding India, and the people had no means of be |