coarse meal a day, and the betel-leaf, which terminates every repast in India, and is often substituted for a meal, is denied her. Besides other fasts, perhaps a dozen in the year, the 'Hindu widow is required to abstain absolutely from food and drink twice a month one day and night, during every bright and dark period of the moon, on the 25th and 26th day of her age, from which not even severe sickness can give her a dispensation.'"
Farther on, he said—'I now come to the immorality which the petition states the prohibition engenders. I do not wish to dwell on this point longer than is absolutely necessary"; for it is one which can be agreeable to nobody, and must be peculiarly distasteful to those for whose benefit this Bill is intended. But it is impossible to shirk the point altogether; for, in truth, it is the strongest argument in favour of the Bill. The Hindu practice of Brahmacharyya is an attempt to struggle against Nature, and like all other attempts to struggle against Nature, is entirely unsuccessful. Every candid Hindu will admit that, in the majority of cases, young Hindu widows fall into vice; that in comparatively few cases are these severe rules for a life of mortification virtuously observed; that in many cases, a licentious and profligate life is entered upon in secret; and that in many other cases the wretched widows are impelled to desert their homes and to live a life that brings open disgrace upon their families. I will read to the Council a
