Dr. Nobin Krishna Bose wrote: "In determining the age in question, more regard is to be had to the period of life when, by its anatomical development, the female system is fitted to enter upon the functions and duties of maternity, without injury to itself, or the physical deterioration of the offspring begotton by it. I should say that our girls should not be married before they have attained at least the 18th year of their age. Before this period their system would not bear with impunity the drain which maternity must establish in it." And these are the words of a Hindu doctor. Ponder over them all Hindu patriots-and decide whether it it not time to put your 'house in order.

Dr. Atmaram Pandurang, of Bombay, wrote: "puberty is not the best criterion of proper marriageable age, for it is not the period at which development of the parts concerned in gestation and delivery is completed, nor is then the mind well adapted for the requirements of the mother in taking proper care of her delicate and tender off-spring." Dr. Atmaram Pandurang was further of -opinion that the proper age for girls to marry was twenty!

Dr. White, Professor of Midwifery at the Grant Medical College, Bombay, wrote: "Menstruation is no doubt the most important sign of puberty, but when it shows itself early, it is only the sign of commencing puberty, and in the absence of other indications, by no means implies that a girl is fitted for marriage and child-bearing. It is not until puberty has been fully established that the minimum marriageable age has been reached, and this rarely occurs in my opinion among Native girls before the 15th or 16th year i but if marriages were delayed until the 18th year, the frame would be more throughly developed, the danger of child-bearing would be lessened and healthier off-spring would be secured." These are weighty words coming from a professor of midwifery. What have our Poona friends, who hiss Social Reform advocates, to say to them.

Dr. Mohendralal Sircar wrote:- "The commencement of the menstrual function is no doubt an index to the commencement of puberty. But it is a grave mistake to suppose that the female who has just begun to menstruate is capable of giving birth to healthy children. The teeth no doubt are intended for the mastication of solid food, but it would be a grievous error to think that the child, the mo

ment he begins to cut his teeth, will be able to live upon solid food. Our anxiety, on the contrary, should be that the delicate masticatory organs are not injured or broken by giving the child too hard food. So when we see a girl beginning to have the monthly flow, we should not only anxiously watch its course and regularity, but should also watch the other collateral developments of womanhood, to be able to determine the better the time when she can become a mother, safely to herself and to her offspring. For, it should be borne in mind that while early maternity results in giving birth to short-lived or unhealthy children, it at the same time seriously compromises the health of the mother also. I can speak positively on this subject from personal experience. A host of complaints from which our females suffer lifelong, or to which they fall early victims, arise from the evils of early, marriage—namely early pubescence and early maternity." This is the language of one of whom India may well be proud, for he has spent his life in the relief of human suffering and has spared no pains to spread scientific knowledge among his countrymen. The extent of misery and distress caused by this pernicious custom cannot be exaggerated. We appeal to all educated Hindus to say if it is right-if it is even utilitarian to subject so many women to the horrors of early maternity ?-for the pain suffered by the young mother is simply heart-rending. In Heaven's name follow yourutilitarian ethics and seize the greatest happiness-we would say welfare with Darwin-of the greatest number. Be true to this standard and you must-you ought at least to organize a Social Reform Mission and support it with your purse and your intellect. Have no legislation if you please-no executive interference. But is it too much to ask you to become missionaries of the doctrine you preach ?-the doctrine of alleviating the misery of your fellow creatures.

II.

IS NOT EARLY MARRIAGE THE CAUSE OF EARLY

PUBESCENCE?

It is often stated that so long as consummation is deferred there can be no harm in marrying children at an early age. The

opinions published by Government repeat this supposed axiomatic truth almost ad nauseam. But the proposition is not true, far less axiomatic. Recently a Calcutta contemporary republished an article of Dr. Mohendralal Sircar, published in 1871, which clearly shows the fallacy of the view adopted by so many of the gentlemen consulted by Government. The opinion given by Dr. M. Sircar to Keshub Chunder Sen is to the same effect, as we shall presently show. It is extremely important to know what medical authorities have to say on this subject, and we proceed to quote them.

Dr. S. G. Chuckerbutty wrote in 1871. "The Hindu and Mahomedan girls, from the custom of early marriage, attain to forced puberty at an earlier age. This should, therefore, never influence our opinion as to what is the proper age for puberty under normal circumstances." Dr. D. B. Smith wrote on April 17, 1871. "The early betrothal system and bringing together of persons of immature age must be bad, as involving a disturbance of imperceptibly gradual sexual development, and as lighting up what in medical phraseology might be called an unnatural Erythium !"

Dr. T. E. Charles wrote::--"The great cause which induce early menstruation is undoubtedly early marriage. The girl is forced into menstruation prematurely by the abnormal conditions under which marriage places her.

"Horse-breeders are well aware of this physiological law; and owners of racing steeds habitually take advantage of this natural law when it suits their purpose, by confining a pony under the same roof, though separated from the mare by partition, when they desire that her ovaries should be forced prematurely into that condition which is analogous to the state they are in, during menstruation in the human species.

"I believe, in the young widow, and in the girl kept separate from her husband, menstruation occurs uniformly later than in those living in a state of marriage. I am also of opinion that the universality of early marriage has had a decided effect in determining the earlier appearance of menstruation, as it is well known that] instances of early and late menstruation show themselves regularly in special families, and the age at which menstruation occurs may be regarded as in a great measure hereditary. A very large number of the instances of menstruation met with before the thirteenth year, is

capable of very easy explanation on the supposition of early marriage having caused their premature appearance. If marriage became generally delayed till menstruation has been fully established, I am quite sure that after a series of generations, menstruation would come on habitually at a later period, and much more closely approach to a Western standard.''

Dr. Charles does not believe that climate has more than an insignificant influence on the development of the menstrual function. We shall in a separate contribution deal with the effect of climate-but in the meanwhile, is it not remarkable that some of our educated brethren in supreme contempt of physiology should argue that early marriage is a very beneficent institution which even Europeans would do well to adopt? Professor Bhandarkar, who differs from these gentlemen in regarding the custom as an evil, has nevertheless a great deal to say in its favour, and so has our friend Mr. Hume. "From childhood," says the learned Professor, "the girl and the boy are brought up in the belief that they are destined to be wife and husband, and that their mutual relation is as much the work of nature, and consequently inviolable, as the relation between brother and sister, or parents and children. This belief enters into the formation of their character, and they grow up as husband and wife and consequently become adapted to each other." Far be it from us to say that any evil in this world is an unmixed evil. We do not deny that some early married couple may be happy. But is the happiness of the married couple the sole object of marriage? Have our philosophic and scientific Poona Brahmins forgotton their Darwin in this instance? Darwin certainly does not believe that an institution which merely brings happiness to a given number of individuals is necessarily a good

one.

His test is: "Does it lead to the welfare of the race as a whole?", and this test is based on reasoning and in fact which the Poona Brahmins should be the last to disavow. Judged by this test, early marriage is certainly a most pernicious custom. Darwinism and Spencerism and all the isms in the world are certainly arrayed against it. Dr. Charles shows what a detrimental reflex action is exercised by early marriage on the young couple. It leads to early development and that early development perpetuates early marriage. This is exactly the way in which social evils propagate

themselves. And yet, how often do we hear-"We come to maturity too early-and ought therefore to marry early"? This is rank nonsense-as rank as the talk about early marriage adapting the wife to the husband as a rule. Yes, the wife is adapted—but to the mother-in-law. Did Professor Bhandarkar ever read Mr. Mahipatram Rupram's Sasu Wahu ni Ladai?" Can he deny that even in Poona the adaptation is to the mother-in-law and not necessarily to the husband? The husband is the wife's god according to the Hindu religion-and the worshippers do not need much adaptation to the worshipped. But the mother-in-law rubs down her poor little daughter-in-law's angles in a very short time -in the domestic social mill. Her tyranny is a proverb. Does not Professor Bhandarkar know some of the pithy saws in which Hindus themselves have crystallized this sad truth? The mother-in-law has been curiously enough ignored by most of the educated gentlemen who favoured Government with their opinions. And yet the mother-in-law is one of the wo rst evils of early marriage. And as tyranny is always morally worse for the tyrant than the slave, the mother-in-law is more to be pitied than denounced. She is but a victim of an institution which, founded on a perversion of the laws of nature, seeks to create a second nature amo ng those who come under its baneful influence-a second nature which blights the springs of human happiness-which dwarfs the race and impedes their progress in physical, moral, social and political vigour. Will the day ever dawn, when this upas tree of early marriage will crumble to dust, when a race once remarkably manly and upright will acknowledge its own imperfections and corruptions, and looking the evil full in the face uproot it from their midst ? The very opposition to social reform is a sad token of the depth tion which has pervaded Hindu society ever since its departure from purer laws and purer discipline led to its subjection to foreign rule. The outlook is certainly not very hopeful-but no patriot is worthy of this name, if on this account he has not the courage to give his tan, man and dhan to the cause.

of moral deteriora

Reverting to our quotations, we find Dr. D. B. Smith writing again in July as follows:-"I am inclined to believe that very early marriages in this country are mentally degrading as they are physiologically objectionable. It would be altogether unbecoming and