the sin of which is inexpiable, and the penalty, death. Such is intercourse between the sexes. But, by a primary law, the lives and members of Brahmans, and the lives of women, are sacred. Subject to the modification of this primary law, the utmost vengeance of the Code is reserved for this enormous sin. Men so offending are done to death. Women have their noses amputated, are rendered outcasts, if they have castes to lose, and are banished the kingdom.

A male outcast, who has intercourse, under any circumstances, with a pure Hindú female, and whether the female be the seducer or the seduced, be maid, wife, or widow, chaste, or a wanton, is adjudged to die; and the female is rendered noseless and an outcast; unless of the sacred order, when her nose is spared. If an outcast female pass herself off for one of a pure caste, and have commerce with a Hindú, she shall have her nose cut off; and he, if he confess his sin so soon as he discovers it, shall be restored to caste by penance and purification; but if he have connection knowingly with such a female, he shall be emasculated, and made an outcast. If a Sudra, or one of lower degree, but still within the pale, have commerce with a Brahmaní, he shall suffer death, unless the Brahmaní be a prostitute, and then he shall go free.

If any such Hindú have commerce with a Khasni, she having been a chaste widow up to that time, he shall die. If she were a maid, and willing, he shall be heavily fined; if a wanton, he shall go free.

Hindús, however low, whose water will pass from hand to hand, are in no danger of life or limb from such commerce with any others than Brahman and Khas females. The latter are the Kshatriyas of Népál and wear the thread.

The following are the outcasts of Népál:

• Chaste widows are supposed to be dead to the world. and devoted to religious exercises. Most of them buru with their husbands' corpses.

The above enumeration of outcast Néwars may serve to introduce the remark, that the distinctions of caste, and their penal consequences, do not owe their existence in Népál to the Górkhú dynasty. It is true that before that event the majority of the Népálese proper were Budd'hists, having a law of their own; but so they are still. And when we advert to the facts, that the Buddhism of the most distinguished tribe of them (the Newárs) admitted the dogma of caste; that the sovereigns of Káthmándú and Pátan, though belonging to this tribe, were, for three or four ages before the conquest, with many of their subjects, Brahmanical Hindús; that the Néwárs and others, since the conquest, have all, as far as they were allowed, by availing themselves of the privileges of Hindúism, confessed its obligations to be binding on them; and that lastly, all tribes have now for seventy years acknowledged the paramountship, quoad hoc, of the Hindú law of the conquerors;-when I say, we recollect all these things, it will appear clear, I think, that we are not at liberty to question the equitableness of the application of this law to our followers in Népál, inasmuch as it is the unquestioned law of the band.*

THE PROCEDURE.

The round of operations by which a judgment is reached in a Népálese court of justice is precisely such as a man of sense, at the head of his family, would apply to the investigation of a domestic offence; and the contracted range of all rights and wrongs in Népál renders this sort of procedure as feasible as it is expeditious and effectual. The pleasing spectacle is, however, defaced by the occasional rigour arising out of the maxim, that confession is indispensable; and by the intervention, in the absence of ordinary proof, of ordeals and decisory oaths.

An open court, vivâ voce examination in the presence of the judge, confrontation of the accuser, aid of counsel to the prisoner, and liberty to summon and have examined, under all usual sanctions, the witnesses for the defence-these are the ordinary

⚫ The objection that may be raised to this law, in reference to our followers, on the ground of its inconsistency with the general principles of justice and humanity, is altogether another question, with which I presume not to meddle.

attributes of penal justice in Népál; and these would amply suffice for the prisoner's just protection, but for the vehemence with which confessions are sought, even when they are utterly superfluous, but for the fatal efficacy of those confessions and but for the intervention of ordeals. Ordeals, however, are more frequently asked for than commanded; and perhaps it is true that volenti non fit injuria: at all events, with reference to enforced confessions, it must not be supposed that the infamous ingenuity of Europe has any parallel in Népál, or that terrible engines are ever employed in secret to extort confessions. No! the only torture known to these tribunals is that of stern interrogation and brow-beating, and, more rarely, the application of the kórú: but all this is done in the face of day, under the judge's eye, and in an open tribunal; and though it may sometimes compromise innocence, its by far more common effect is to reach guilt. Besides, with respect to ourselves, the mere presence of the Residency Munshi, pending the trial of one of our followers, would prevent its use, or at least abuse, in regard to him. Or, ere submitting our followers to the Népalese tribunals, we might bargain successfully with the Darbár for the waiving of this coercion, as well as for the non-intervention of the proof ordeal, unless with the consent of the party. And if these two points were conceded to us, I should, I confess, have no more hesitation in committing one of our followers to a Népálese tribunal at Káthmándú, than I should in making him over to our own courts. I have mentioned, that the prisoner is allowed the assistance of counsel; but the expression must be understood to refer to the aid of friends and relatives, for there are no professional pleaders in Népál

There are no common spies and informers attached to the courts of justice, nor any public prosecutors in the name of the State. The casual informer is made prosecutor, and he acts under a fearful responsibility; for if he fails to prove the guilt he changes, if he have no eye-witnesses to the principal fact besides himself, and the accused resolutely persevere in denial, a man of respectability must clear his character by demanding the ordeal, in which, if he be cast, the judgment upon him may be to suffer all, or the greater part of that evil which the law • A kind of whip.

assigns to the offence he charged. At all events, deep disgrace, and fines more or less heavy, are his certain portion; and if it seem that he was actuated by malice, he shall surely suffer the doom he would have inflicted on the accused, be it greater or be it less. Informers and prosecutors, who have evidently no personal interest in the matter-those who are the retainers of the Darbár, or of the Minister-are expected and required, under a Hindú Government, to bring under judicial cognisance such breaches of the law of caste, and of the ritual purity of Hindúism, as they may chance to discover, and they are, of course, more considered than other informers; but they are liable, like ordinary informers, to the predicament of seeing their credit in society ruined, unless they dare the perilous event of purification by ordeal, with its contingency of ignominy and fines. Ordeals, however, whether for proof of innocence or for the clearing of the accuser, are rare, extraordinary, and seldom or never admitted where there is sufficient testimony of witnesses to be had. But whatever quantity of testimony be adduced, the confession of the accused must still be had. That confession is singly sufficient: without it, no quantity and quality of evidence will justify a condemnation; a strange prejudice, producing all that harshness towards the accused, which (omitting the folly of ordeals, and that the people seem to love more than their rulers) is the only grave defect in the criminal judicatures of the country.

In Népál, when the arraignment of the prisoner is completed, he is asked for his answer; and if he confess, his confession is recorded, he is requested to sign it, and judgment is at once passed. If he deny the fact, the assessors of the judge call upon the prosecutor to come forward and establish his charge. A very animated scene then ensues, in which the parties are suffered to try their strength against each other to produce their witnesses and counter-witnesses, their presumptions and counter-presumptions. The result of this conflict is usually to make the guilt of the accused very evident; and he commonly confesses when the trial is closed. But if the accused persist in refusing confession, the assessors of the judge then go formally into the evidence, and urge upon the accused all the criminative circumstances, and all the weight of testimony. If

these be strong and decisive, and he still deny, he is browbeaten, abused, whipped till he confess; or, if all will not do, he is remanded indefinitely to prison.*

If there be no eye-witness but the informer, or if the informer be not himself an eye-witness to the crime, and have no external witness to back his charge, he must, at all events, be furnished with strong presumptive proof (for woe betide him. as he well knows, if he have neither!) wherewith to confirm his accusation. This proof is vehemently urged upon the prisoner by the court and by the accuser; and if the accused prevaricate or be sullen, he is scolded and whipped as before, till he confess. If he cannot be thus brought to confess, and there be but the accuser's assertion to the denial of the accused, the accuser, if he profess to have been an eye-witness, is now expected, for his own credit's sake, to make the appeal to the God of Truth, that is, to demand the ordeal. But if he be a man of eminent respectability, the court will probably, in such circumstances, instead of permitting the ordeal, administer to the accuser, being an eye-witness, a very solemn oath (witnesses and parties are not ordinarily sworn), under the sanction of which he will be required to depose afresh; and if his evidence be positive. and circumstantial, and in harmony with the probabilities of the case, his single testimony will suffice for the conviction of the court, which will commit the prisoner indefinitely till he

confess.

In matters of illicit intercourse between the sexes, where there are two parties under accusation, if the one confess and the other deny; and there is no positive testimony, and all the circumstantial evidence, however sternly urged upon the nonconfessing party, fails to draw forth an acknowledgment, the court, as a last resort, may command that the issue be referred to ordeal of the parties; or that the contumacious party be remanded to prison for a time, whence he is again brought before the court, and urged, as before, to confess. And if this second attempt to obtain the sine qud non of judgment be ineffectual, the gods must decide where men could not; ordeal must cut the Gordian knot.

This, in capital cases, is exactly the mode of proceeding formerly observed in the Dutch courts, and probably in many others in Europe. - ED.