passed, every Hindu, whatever his own feelings on the subject might be, was compelled to obey it. All the glory, therefore, of that law belonged to Lord William Bentinck and his Council who passed it. But the present law would afford Hindu gentlemen of station and influence a rare opportunity of illustrating their own names. The present is not a compulsory law, and can not be made a compulsory law. It is merely a permissive law, which can have effect only when those for whose benefit it is intended, will choose to avail themselves of it. Under this law, Hindu gentlemen who, from their rank and their education, may stand forward as the leaders of their nation, have it in their power to register their names in History as the names of those who shall have effected the greatest social reform ever effected in their country. The Legislative Council will have done all it can do when it shall have struck the shackles from their limbs: it will be for them, when they shall gain their freedom, to make use of it like men.'
Most of the passages, given expression to by Grant in his introductory speech, were highly objectionable to a true Hindu, whether he belonged to the orthodox community or to the so-called progressive class, in as much as they were repugnant to every feeling heart, as Grant himself admitted it. Considering Vidyasagar's character, it must be thought strange that he and those who thought with him should have allowed themselves to put
