4 TlMEHRI. 
when she deserts him for another man partly on account 
of jealousy and revenge but more often because he is angry 
at being robbed of his jewelry with which he had loaded 
her. By the Law as administered in- this colony the jewelry 
given to the wife or mistress during cohabitation becomes 
her personal property and when she leaves her husband 
she takes it with her. Now in India, if a wife commits 
adultery or leaves her husband for any cause, her jewelry 
is stripped from off her, and remains her husband's 
property, so that if he loses his wife he does not lose his 
money which he generally values most. 
This was pointed out to the Attorney General and he 
made some alterations in the Immigration Law by a 
recent Ordinance (No. 2 of 1887) to meet such cases. 
But that law in my opinion does not go half far enough. 
Every woman who leaves her husband should be com- 
pelled to deliver up to him all the jewelry which he has 
given to her ; and any man harbouring or enticing away 
a woman with her husband's jewelry in her possession 
should be liable to arrest as a thief together with the 
wife, as they would be in England, where if a man 
elopes with a married woman and some of her husband's 
towels are found in her box, he may be tried and 
convicted of theft. 
Great hardship is inflicled by the laws of the colony 
upon Hindoos, who are a most conservative people, and 
who, although they change their country, are unable to 
divest themselves of their ancient faith and customs. 
The crimes of perjury and false-swearing are unknown 
to the Hindoos in the same sense as we. understand 
them, and the necessity of telling the truth under all 
circumstances — so deeply engrafted in the constitution 
