took
advantage of it must declare that he (or she) was neither a Hindoo, nor
a Mohammedan, nor a Parsee, nor a Sikh, nor a Jaina, nor a Buddhist, nor
a Christian, nor a Jew.[110] This measure would be applicable to any
persons whatever who might hereafter abandon their traditional religion,
but it would not enable anyone to break the laws of a religion to which
he still professed to belong.

Fitzjames explained his views very fully upon introducing the measure on
January 16, 1872. The debate was then adjourned, and upon March 19 other
members of the Council made various criticisms to which he again replied
at some length. These two speeches give the fullest statement of his
views upon a very important question. They deal in part with some purely
legal questions, but I shall only try to give the pith of the views of
policy which they embody. I may briefly premise that the ground taken by
his opponents was substantially the danger of shocking native
prejudices. The possibility that the measure would enable rash young men
to marry dancing-girls out of hand was also noticed, but, I fancy, by
way of logical makeweight. It was admitted that the Brahmos had a
claim, but it was strongly urged that it would be enough if, in
accordance with the former proposal, an act were passed dealing with
them alone. One member of the Council, I notice, complains that the
demand is associated with talk about 'nationality,' 'fraternity,' and
'equality'--a kind of talk for which Fitzjames had remarkably little
sympathy. It is of the more importance to point out what were the
principles which he did admit. His main contention was simple. Maine, he
said, was absolutely right in deciding that, where an injustice was
proved to exist, we should not shrink from applying a remedy. 'I think
that one distinct act of injustice, one clear instance of unfaithfulness
to the principles upon which our government of India depends, one
positive proof that we either cannot or will not do justice to all
classes, races, creeds or no-creeds, in British India would in the long
run shake our power more deeply than even financial or military
disaster. I believe that the real foundation upon which the British
Empire in this country rests is neither military force alone, as some
persons cynically assert' (though such power is no doubt an
indispensable condition of our rule), 'nor even that affectionate
sympathy with the native population, on which, according to a more