his conscience*; and now, if he objects to the Ganges' water, the Pundit administers the oath in some other form." Mr. Wynne's Act established the new practice as lawt.

"In other parts of India, the form of oath amongst the natives varies. Sir James Mackintosh told me that at Bombay he had a cow brought into court, that a witness might have the satisfaction of swearing with its tail in his hand. And amongst the Jungle tribes, whom I do not believe, however, to be orthodox adherents to Brahminical doctrines, it is usual that the witnesses should be sworn on a tiger's skin; and they firmly believe that those who break their oaths, become food for

* The late Ram Mohun Roy, when he appeared before Sir Edward East to be sworn to an answer in equity, objected to be sworn on the Ganges' water, and moreover, required to be sworn laying his hand on the Vedas, as we are sworn on the New Testament, declaring that he considered that mode of swearing as the most solemn and binding. The proposal being novel, Sir Edward knowing that Ram Mohun Roy had made himself obnoxious to the strict Hindus, referred the question to the Pundits, who agreed that the oath might be so administered to him as a Hindu, and a Brahmin. He was so sworn; and a strong sensation was produced by it out of doors, the matter having been at first misrepresented by a report, that he had sworn upon our Scriptures. The Pundits were, thereupon, directed by Sir Edward to make known the truth of the case, without delay.

† The Act to which we have already referred as having confounded the Moravians with the Quakers.-9 G. IV.,

c. 74.

tigers. Amongst themselves, and in private life, it is not uncommon for the Hindus, when they wish to bind any one to the performance of some atrocious deed by a very solemn oath, that something, such as a sword, or knife, should have pooja (prayer, sacrifice and anointment,) performed to it by a person of Brahminical caste, until it is supposed to become instinct with some divine or demoniac presence, and then the party is sworn upon it."

I have been also favoured with additional particulars from a very well-informed friend, who has spent many years in India. The close bond of union between that vast portion of the old world, and our own island, would of itself justify my dwelling longer upon this part of our subject, than might in strictness of argument be required. The points of chief interest in his report, I have the satisfaction of inserting in this place.

The laws of Menu provide for the delivery of evidence on oath in judicial matters*.

“Let the judge cause a priest to swear by his veracity†; a soldier, by his horse, or elephant, or weapons‡; a merchant, by his kine, grain and

Sir W. Jones's Translation of the Instit. of Menu, ch. viii., s. 113.

66

† Brahman-how like the 'Verbum Sacerdotis" of Christendom!

Kshattrea-Exactly the oath of the ancient European

warriors.

gold*; a mechanic or servile man, by imprecating on his own head, if he spake falsely, all possible cursest." These are the four great divisions of the Hindus.

On occasions of great solemnity, it is prescribed that the evidence be taken under the sanction of one of five methods of ordeal.

MAHOMEDAN LAW.

THE Mahomedan Law allows the sanction of the Divine name both in ratification of vows, and in confirmation of judicial evidence. It also provides for the expiation of the breach of vows, and falseswearing,―by alms, fasting, and the manumission of slaves. The concealment of truth, which may affect the character, or cause the punishment of a brother mussulman, is declared praiseworthy. An oath is declared not worthy of credit, unless it be taken in the name of God; and it is incumbent on the Kaje to desire the swearer to corroborate his oath, by reciting the attributes of God, as,I swear by the God, beside whom there is no other

་

* Vysya―The ancient Greeks, when in traffic, used to swear by "Mercury of the Market."

+ Sudra-The expressions of Menu's Law here remind me of a passage in Antiphon, on the murder of Herodes, c. 130. 'You ought to swear the most solemn and most binding oath, imprecating on yourself, and your race, and your house utter-ruin."

righteous God, who is acquainted with what is hidden," &c.

The punishment of false-swearing in judicial matters is left to the discretion of the judge. Branding and public exposure may be adjudged.

My friend further observes:-The population of the territories under British rule in India consists chiefly of Mahomedans and Hindus. The moral education of both people is so entirely neglected, their religion is so much matter of form and ceremony, that it cannot be a cause of surprise, if oaths administered by foreign judges, who have no reverence for the form in which they are taken, have little binding power on the consciences of the swearers. The codes of both religions sanction falsehood and deceit in certain cases; and in the application of such a principle, the limits within which the law would confine the indulgence would readily be overstepped, if self-interest, friendship, or enmity should present even slender inducement to the sacrifice of truth.

The practice of the courts established by the India Company for the administration of justice to the nations of Hindostan is regulated by local laws, enacted by the governments of the several presidencies of Calcutta, Madras, and Bombay. The courts administer oaths in the usual English form of words. The Mahomedan takes the Korán in his hand, and after repeating the oath kisses the

book, and then places it on his head. The Hindus are mostly sworn on the leaf of the sweetbasil, which is placed by a Brahmin in the hollow of the hand, with some water of the Ganges,-the leaf and water are swallowed by the swearer; but this and other modes are not of very binding effect on their conscience. Veracity is not considered essential to respectability of character; and a Hindu, in general, considers rather what evidence will best serve the cause in which he is interested, than whether what he is about to depose be true or false. Our local regulations, which provide for the administration of criminal justice, according to the Mahomedan law (subject to many important modifications), declare perjury to be punishable by exposure, by marking on the forehead of the culprit a word signifying "liar," by whipping, and by imprisonment, with hard labour, for not more than seven years. A native of India, particularly a Hindu, is not much disgraced by having been sentenced to punishment for perjury. If, for example, the convict were a priest of reputed sanctity, his followers would not fall off on that

account.

* In Rome they branded a false accuser in the forehead with a Greek K, the first letter of Calumniator or Kalumniator.