in the Courts of the Madras Presidency. 3 



ing our religion, our language and our dress, and it is impos- 

 sible to see why he should not be allowed to adopt our laws 

 if he chooses. In fact this was the very point that was 

 mooted in the important case of Abraham v. Abraham, now 

 pending in the Privy Council,* where a family of Hindu Chris- 

 tians had assumed the European in everything but colour, 

 but were told by the late Sadr Court of Madras that they 

 were still an undivided Hindu, family, and were gravely re- 

 ferred for their rule of conduct to Manu and the Mitakshara. 

 If any such impassable gulf is to be fixed between the races, 

 it is idle to talk of educating the Native to the level of the 

 European. It is a mere mockery to imbue him with the 

 principles of Justinian or Biackstone, if he cannot in his own 

 person escape from the frivolities of the shasters or the Kuran. 



It seems to me, then, that the law which is applied to a 

 conquered nation should be made to conform to the following 

 canons : 



First, that the subject-race should be allowed to retain so 

 much of their own substantive law, as is necessary for the 

 maintenance of their religion and their social usages, pro- 

 vided it infringes upon no rule of morality or of public 

 policy. 



*The decision of the Sadr Court has beea reversed by the Privy Coun- 

 cil, in a judgment which reached this country after the above passage was 

 in type. Their Lordships have ruled — 



1st. That Hindu law is not obligatory on a Christian convert. 



2nd. That his status after conversion is not necessarily governed by 

 English law, but that he may adopt Hindu usage or English usage, or a 

 usage compounded of both, at his pleasure. 



3rd. That the usage so adopted is itself only binding upon him, or upon 

 his family, during pleasure, and that he may change it whenever, and how- 

 ever he thinks fit. 



This decision is an immense boon to the community of Native converts. 

 But the state of uncertainty in which it leaves their legal position is cer- 

 tainly one which calls for legislative interference. 



