Coleman1 says: "The style of it (Manu) has a certain austere majesty that sounds like the language of legislation and extorts a respectful awe. The sentiments of independence on all beings but God, and the harsh administrations even to kings are truly noble, and the many panegyrics on the Gayatri prove the author to have adored that divine and incomparably-greater light which illumines all, delights all, from which all proceed, to which all must return, and which can alone irradiate our intellect." Dr. Robertson says: "With respect to the number and variety of points the Hindu code considers it will bear a comparison with the celebrated Digest of Justinian, or with the systems of jurisprudence in nations most highly civilized. The articles of which the Hindu code is composed are arranged in natural and luminous order. They are numerous and comprehensive, and investigated with that minute attention and discernment which are natural to a people distinguished for acuteness and subtlety of understanding, who have been long accustomed to the accuracy of judicial proceedings, and acquainted with all the refinements of legal practice. The decisions concerning every point are founded upon the great and immutable principles of justice which the human mind acknowledges and respects in every age and in all parts of the earth. Whoever examines the whole work cannot entertain a doubt of its containing the jurisprudence of an enlightened and commercial people. Whoever looks into any particular title will be surprised with a minuteness of detail and nicety of distinction which, in 1 Coleman's Mythology of the Hindus, p. 8. many instances, seem to go beyond the attention of European legislation; and it is remarkable that some of the regulations which indicate the greatest degree of refinement were established in periods of the most remote antiquity."1 Mr. Mill says that "the division and arrangement of Hindu law is rude and shows the barbarism of the nation"; upon which Professor Wilson, with his usual candour, remarks: "By this test, the attempt to classify would place the Hindus higher in civilization than the English."2 Mr. Mill's review of Hindu religion and laws is a piece of stupendous perversity, ignorance and stupidity. Professor Wilson speaks of it in the following terms :— "The whole of this review of the religion as well as of the laws of the Hindus is full of serious defects arising from inveterate prejudices and imperfect knowledge."3 Of Mill's History of British India, Prof. Max Muller says:-"The book which I consider most mischievous, nay, which I hold responsible for some of the greatest misfortunes that have happened in India, is Mills' History of India, even with the antidote against its poison which is supplied by Professor Wilson's notes."4 Professor Max Muller deplores that "the candidates for the Civil Service of India are recommended to read it and are examined in it."5 What wonder, then, that there is often misunderstanding between the rulers and the ruled in India! 1 Disquisition concerning India, Appendix, p. 217 2 Mills' India, Vol. II, pp. 224-25. 3 Mills' India, Vol. II, p. 436 (Note). 4 India: what can it teach us, p. 42. 5 Max Muller's India: What can it teach us? p. 42, While discussing Mill's views, Professor Wilson again says: "According to this theory (Mill's theory contained in his explanation of the causes of complex procedure in the English courts of law) the corruption of the judge is the best security for justice. It would be dangerous to reduce this to practice."1 1 Mill's India, Vol. II, p. 512.-Mill says that because the Hindus lend money on pledges, therefore they are barbarous. On this, Professor Wilson says:-"Lending on pledges can scarcely be regarded as proof of a state of barbarism, or the multitude of pawn-brokers in London would witness our being very low in the scale of civilization." Mill declares the Mohammedan Code to be superior to the Hindu Code. 'In civil branch," replies Wilson, "the laws of Contract and Inheritance, it is not so exact or complete as the latter (Hindus'). Its (Mohamedan) spirit of barbarous retaliation is unknown to the Hindu Code." But Mill thinks that perjury is a virtue according to the Hindu Code. Wilson clearly proves that this is a creation of Mill's diseased imagination. 66 It is further objected that the uncertainties of the Hindu law are very great. Prof. Wilson (Essays, Vol. III, page 5th) remarks: "If the uncertainties of the English law are less perplexing than those of the Hindu law, we doubt if its delays are not something more interminable. A long time elapses before a cause comes for decision and abundant opportunity is therefore afforded for the traffic of underhand negotiations, intrigues and corruption. It is needless to cite instances to prove the consequence or to make any individual application: public events have rendered the fact notorious. It can scarcely be otherwise." But he returns to the charge and says :-" They say that Pandits don't agree in the discharge of Hindu law. But see in the case of Virapermah Pillay versus Narain Pillay, the opinion of the two English judges. The Chief Justice of Bengal declares that a decision pronounced and argued with great pains by the Chief Justice at Madras, will mislead those by whom it may be followed, and that the doctrine which it in culcates is contrary to law." Professor Wilson again says:-The Chief Justice of Bengal says that he would connive at immoral acts if he hought they led to useful results." An eminent authority, the late Chief Justice of Madras, Sir Thomas Strange, says of the Hindu Law of Evidence: "It will be read by every English lawyer with a mixture of admiration and delight, as it may be studied by him to advantage." A writer in the Asiatic Journal (p. 14) says: "All the requisite shades of care and diligence, the corresponding shades of negligence and default are carefully observed in the Hindu law of bailment, and neither in the jurisprudence nor in the legal treatises of the most civilised States of Europe are they to be found more logically expressed or more accurately defined. In the spirit of Pyrrhus' observation on the Roman legions, one cannot refrain from exclaiming, "I see nothing barbarous in the jurisprudence of the Hindus." Of the Commentary of Calluca on Manu, Sir W. Jones says: "It is the shortest yet the most luminous; the least ostentatious yet the most learned; the deepest yet the most agreeable commentary ever composed on any author ancient or modern, European or Asiatie.”1 1 Preface to Houghton's Institutes of Hindu Law, p. 18. III.-SOCIAL SYSTEM. Hail, social life! into thy pleasing bounds -THOMSON: Agamemnon. THE Hindus perfected society. The social organization of the people was based on scientific principles, and was well calculated to ensure progress without party strife. There was no accumulation of wealth in one portion of the community, leaving the other portion in destitute poverty; no social forces stimulating the increase of the wealth of the one and the poverty of the other, as is the tendency of the modern civilization. The keynote of the system, however, was national service. It afforded to every member of the social body, opportunities and means to develop fully his powers and capacities, and to use them for the advancement of the common weal. Everyone was to serve the nation in the sphere in which he was best fitted to act, which, being congenial to his individual genius, was conducive to the highest development of his faculties and powers. There was thus a wise and statesmanlike classification which procured a general distribution of wealth, expelled misery and want from the land, promoted mental and moral progress, ensured national efficiency, and, above all, made tranquillity compatible with advancement; in one word, dropped manna all round |