>b"ケ ब्रिांशू बश्व्र उभांड्र्श-sब्रिड् । Brahmic nuptial rites nothing, and the form of marriage imposed by the Legislature everything? Is not this a plain insult to our religion? I do not condemn the Legislature for this but those who applied for the law. What could the Legislature do when they were implored to make such law? How could the applicants for the law, being religious men, act in this way I am at a loss to conceive. Had the bill ordained the simple registration of marriages previously solemnized according to Brahmic rites only, it would have been a different thing, but when the Legislature is going to impose a civil form of marriage contrary to the spirit of the Brahmic form, how can you, I ask, being true Brahmos, submit to the same? You must have lost every sense of respect towards our holy religion, if you can do so. You deceive yourselves with the thought that the civil form is a mere superaddition to the religious. How can this be, when the religious rites are non-essential, and the civil form the essential thing in the matter? Moreover, how can a Brahmo say before the Registrar that he takes a woman as his wedded wife, when he has already done so (or will do so) in the solemn presence of God and the ministers of religion? Will not this be a plain lie? 峰 称 # * 铬 * There is another point to be taken into consideration in connection with the Bill and that the most Willwyth mur
- ( Will do so') these words were not in the original.
