BOOK II. form. CHAP. 3. "No man is refused access to the Durbar, or seat of judgment; which is exposed to a large area, capable of containing the multitude. The plaintiff discovers himself by crying aloud, Justice! Justice! until attention is given to his importunate clamours. He is then ordered to be silent, and to advance before his judge; to whom, after having prostrated himself, and made his offering of a piece of money, he tells his story in the plainest manner, with great humility of voice and gesture, and without any of those oratorical embellishments which compose an art in freer nations.-The wealth, the consequence, the interest, or the address of the party, become now the only considerations. He visits his judge in private, and gives the jar of oil: his adversary bestows the hog which breaks it. The friends who can influence intercede; and, excepting where the case is so manifestly proved as to brand the failure of redress with glaring infamy (a restraint which human nature is born to reverence), the value of the bribe ascertains the justice of the cause.-This is so avowed a practice, that if a stranger should inquire how much it would cost him to recover a just debt from a creditor who evaded payment, he would every where receive the same answer; the government will keep one-fourth, and give you the rest.-Still the forms of justice subsist; witnesses are heard, but brow-beaten and removed: proofs of writing This publicity of judicial proceedings is common to rude nations. In the country and days of Job, the judge sat at the gate of the city, ch. ix. ver. 7. Moses alludes to the same practice, Gen. xxiii. 18; and Homer tells us it was the practice in the heroic ages of Greece, Il. lib. xviii. ver. 497. СНАР. 3. are produced, but deemed forgeries and rejected, BOOK II. until the way is cleared for a decision, which becomes totally or partially favourable, in proportion to the methods which have been used to render it such; but still with some attention to the consequences of a judgment, which would be of too flagrant iniquity not to produce universal detestation and resentment. -Providence has, at particular seasons, blessed the miseries of these people with the presence of a righteous judge. The vast reverence and reputation which such have acquired are but too melancholy a proof of the infrequency of such a character. The history of their judgments and decisions is transmitted down to posterity, and is quoted with a visible complacency on every occasion. Stories of this nature supply the place of proverbs in the conversations of all the people of Indostan, and are applied by them with great propriety."1 Such are the principal branches of the duty of the sovereign, and in these various institutions may be contemplated an image of the Hindu government. It is worthy of a short analysis. The powers of government consist of three great branches, the legislative, the judicial, and the administrative; and we have to inquire in what hands these several powers are deposited, and by what circumstances Orme on the Government and people of Indostan, p. 444-446. Another of our most instructive travellers, Mr. Foster, in the Dedication prefixed to his Journey from Bengal to England, p. vii., calls Hindustan, "A land whose every principle of government is actuated by a rapacious avarice, whose people never approach the gate of authority without an offering."This is a subject to which he often adverts; he says again, (i. 7,)" In Asia, the principles of justice, honour, or patriotism, as they confer no substantial benefit, nor tend to elevate the character, are seldom seen to actuate the mind of the subject." BOOK II. their exercise is controlled. As the Hindu believes, СНАР. 3. that a complete and perfect system of instruction, which admits of no addition or change, was conveyed to him from the beginning by the Divine Being, for the regulation of his public as well as his private affairs, he acknowledges no laws but those which are contained in the sacred books. From this it is evident, that the only scope which remains for legislation is confined within the limits of the interpretations which may be given to the holy text. The Brahmens enjoy the undisputed prerogative of interpreting the divine oracles; for though it is allowed to the two classes next in degree to give advice to the king in the administration of justice, they must in no case presume to depart from the sense of the law which it has pleased the Brahmens to impose. The power of legislation, therefore, exclusively belongs to the priesthood. The exclusive right of interpreting the laws necessarily confers upon them, in the same unlimited manner, the judicial powers of government. The king, though ostensibly supreme judge, is commanded always to employ Brahmens as counsellors and assistants in the administration of justice; and whatever construction they put upon the law, to that his sentence must conform. Whenever the king, in person, discharges not the office of judge, it is a Brahmen, if possible, who must occupy his place. The king, therefore, is so far from possessing the judicial power, that he is This state of things then is very different from that which, a few pages back, (p, 203, &c.) was described as applying, apparently, to the Hindu system; in which the king was represented as the sole source and administrator of the law.-W. CHAP. 3. rather the executive officer by whom the decisions of BOOK II. the Brahmens are carried into effect. They who possess the power of making and interpreting the laws by which another person is bound to act, are, by necessary consequence, the masters of his actions. Possessing the legislative and judicative powers, the Brahmens were, also, masters of the executive power, to any extent whatsoever, to which they wished to enjoy it. With influence over it they were not contented. They secured to themselves a direct and no contemptible share of its immediate functions. On all occasions, the king was bound to employ Brahmens as his counsellors and ministers; and, of course, to be governed by their judgment. Let the king, having risen early," says the law, "respectfully attend to Brahmens learned in the three Vedas, and by their decision let him abide." It thus appears that, according to the original laws of the Hindus, the king was little more than an instrument in the hands of the BrahHe performed the laborious part of government, and sustained the responsibility, while they chiefly possessed the power." mens. 66 The uncontrollable sway of superstition, in rude and ignorant times confers upon its ministers such Laws of Menu, ch. vii. 37. Even under a system, where the power of the altar was from the beginning rendered subservient to the power of the sword, the right of interpreting a code of sacred laws is found to confer an important authority. Hear the opinion of a recent, and penetrating observer:-" L'expression vague des préceptes du Koran, seule loi écrite dans les pays Musulmans, laisse aux docteurs une grande latitude pour les interprétations, et bien des moyens d'augmenter leur autorité. Quoique cette religion ait peu de dogmes, le fanatisme qu'elle inspire est un instrument que les prêtres savent employer avec succès." De l'Egypte, par le Gen. Reynier, p. 62. СНАР. 3. BOOK II. extraordinary privileges, that the king and the priest are generally the same person; and it appears somewhat remarkable that the Brahmens, who usurped among their countrymen so much distinction and authority, did not invest themselves with the splendour of royalty. It very often happens that some accidental circumstances, of which little account was taken at the time, and which after a lapse of ages it is impossible to trace, gave occasion to certain peculiarities which we remark in the affairs and characters of nations. It is by no means unnatural to suppose, that to a people, over whom the love of repose exerts the greatest sway, and in whose character aversion to danger forms a principal ingredient, the toils and perils of the sword appeared to surpass the advantages with which it was attended; and that the Brahmens transferred to the hands of others, what was thus a source of too much labour, as well as danger, to be retained in their own.1 3 This is not a very liberal interpretation of the motives of the Brahmans, nor is it, in all probability, the correct one. We are too ignorant of the circumstances under which the system originated, to speculate upon the motives or purposes of those with whom it commenced. Apparently. however, it was contrived by a religious confederation, as the scheme best adapted to introduce order amongst semi-civilized tribes, and with no view to their own advantage or aggrandizement, or enjoyment of indolent ease. The authority of influence, of advice, the Brahmans necessarily retained, and they were the only competent expounders of the laws which they promulgated. They had no other means of protection than the character of sanctity with which they invested themselves, and which was equally necessary to ensure attention to their instructions. They laboured to deserve the opinion of sanctity by imposing burdensome duties on themselves, of a domestic and religious character, and it was probably in the true spirit of contemplative devotion, as well as from motives of prudence and policy, that they divested themselves ef temporal rank. Every thing in the Hindu Institutes indicates their originating not from political but religious principles.-W |
