up with such foul abuses. But Vidyasagar was then eagerly intent on the legislation, and he was not in a mood to venture to displease the members of the Legislative Council. In any other case, he was sure to have repudiated and protested the abuses in a strong language. He, however, did no such thing. On the contrary, he bore with them patiently, and tried his best to hurry on the enactment.
Sir John Colvile, another member of the Council, in rising to second Grant's motion, among other things, said,—' Of the custom which is now under consideration, crime and immorality are not the necessary, but merely the probable consequences.' Very true. What society is wholly free and pure from crime and immorality of the female sex? Is the European society, where remarriage of widows is not prohibited, but rather resorted to, to a large extent, wholly free from female vice? Are not abortions too frequent there? Are not illegitimate infants daily abandoned in the streets to be picked up by the Police to be taken away to the pauper-houses? Why then abuse a whole nation for a few sprinkled and rare instances of depravity among their women? Law cannot serve to make a nation or race pure. It is their own sense of right or wrong that can do so. We cannot conclude our remarks on this point better than by quoting Sir Barnes Peacock's views on the subject, given expression to on the occasion of the third reading of this Bill. Peacock said:—"The Council had lately
