not　give　a　pledge　to　fasting　is　an　evader　of　all；　he　who
  disregards　all　things　shall　not　be　paid　by　God　or　man。'
  Mr。　Whitley　Stokes　was　the　first；　I　believe；　to　point　out
  that　the　institution　here　referred　to　was　identical　with　a
  practice　diffused　over　the　whole　East；　and　called　by　the　Hindoos
  'sitting　dharna。'　I　will　presently　read　you　a　passage　in　which
  the　proceeding　is　described　as　it　was　found　in　India　before　the
  British　government；　which　has　always　regarded　it　as　an　abuse；　had
  gone　far　in　its　efforts　to　suppress　it。　But　perhaps　the　most
  striking　examples　of　the　ancient　custom　are　to　be　found　at　this
  day　in　Persia；　where　（I　am　told）　a　man　intending　to　enforce
  payment　of　a　demand　by　fasting　begins　by　sowing　some　barley　at
  his　debtor's　door　and　sitting　down　in　the　middle。　The　symbolism
  is　plain　enough。　The　creditor　means　that　he　will　stay　where　he　is
  without　food；　either　until　he　is　paid　or　until　the　barley…seed
  grows　up　and　gives　him　bread　to　eat。
  The　corresponding　Indian　practice　is　known；　I　before　stated；
  as　'sitting　dharna'　　dharna；　according　to　the　better　opinion；
  being　exactly　equivalent　to　the　Roman　'capio；'　and　meaning
  'detention'　or　'arrest。'　Among　the　methods　of　enforcing　payment
  of　a　debt　described　in　the　collection　of　rules　attributed　to　the
  semi…divine　legislator；　Manu　（viii。　49）；　is　one　which　Sir　William
  Jones　renders　'the　mediation　of　friends；'　but　more　recent
  Sanscrit　scholars　assert　that　the　expression　of　the　original　text
  signifies　'dharna。'　And　in　the　Vyavahara　Mayukha；　a　Brahminical
  law…book　of　much　authority；　Brihaspiti；　a　juridical　writer
  sometimes　classed　with　Manu；　is　cited　as　enumerating；　among　the
  lawful　modes　of　compulsion　by　which　the　debtor　can　be　made　to
  pay；　'confining　his　wife；　his　son；　or　his　cattle；　or　watching
  constantly　at　his　door。'　This　remarkable　passage　not　only
  connects　Hindoo　law　with　Irish　law　through　the　reference　to
  'watching　constantly　at　the　door；'　but　it　connects　it　also　with
  the　Teutonic；　and　among　them　with　the　English　bodies　of　custom；
  by　speaking　of　the　distraint　of　cattle　as　a　method　of　enforcing　a
  demand。　We　have　not　in　the　Western　world；　so　far　as　I　am　aware；
  any　example　of　so　strong　a　form　of　distress　as　seizing　a　man's
  wife　or　children；　but　it　is　somewhat　curious　that　we　have
  evidence　of　its　having　been　common　in　ancient　Ireland　to　give　a
  son　as　a　pledge　to　the　creditor　for　the　purpose　of　releasing　the
  distrained　property。
  Lord　Teignmouth　has　left　us　a　description　（in　Forbes'
  'Oriental　Memoirs；'　ii。　25）　of　the　form　which　the　'watching
  constantly　at　the　door'　of　Brihaspiti　had　assumed　in　British
  India　before　the　end　of　the　last　century。　'The　inviolability　of
  the　Brahmin　is　a　fixed　principle　with　the　Hindoos；　and　to　deprive
  him　of　life；　either　by　direct　violence　or　by　causing　his　death　in
  any　mode；　is　a　crime　which　admits　of　no　expiation。　To　this
  principle　may　be　traced　the　practice　called　dharna；　which　may　be
  translated　caption　or　arrest。　It　is　used　by　the　Brahmins　to　gain
  a　point　which　cannot　be　accomplished　by　any　other　means；　and　the
  process　is　as　follows：　The　Brahmin　who　adopts　this　expedient　for
  the　purpose　mentioned　proceeds　to　the　door　or　house　of　the　person
  against　whom　it　is　directed；　or　wherever　he　may　most　conveniently
  arrest　him；　he　then　sits　down　in　dharna　with　poison　or　a　poignard
  or　some　other　instrument　of　suicide　in　his　hand；　and　threatening
  to　use　it　if　his　adversary　should　attempt　to　molest　or　pass　him；
  he　thus　completely　arrests　him。　In　this　situation　the　Brahmin
  fasts；　and　by　the　rigour　of　the　etiquette　the　unfortunate　object
  of　his　arrest　ought　to　fast　also；　and　thus　they　both　remain　till
  the　institutor　of　the　dharna　obtains　satisfaction。　In　this；　as　he
  seldom　makes　the　attempt　without　the　resolution　to　persevere；　he
  rarely　fails；　for　if　the　party　thus　arrested　were　to　suffer　the
  Brahmin　sitting　in　dharna　to　perish　by　hunger；　the　sin　would　for
  ever　lie　upon　his　head。　This　practice　has　been　less　frequent　of
  late　years；　since　the　institution　of　the　Court　of　Justice　at
  Benares　in　1793；　but　the　interference　of　the　Court　and　even　of
  the　Resident　has　occasionally　proved　insufficient　to　check　it。'
  You　will　observe　that　the　old　Brahminical　writer　merely
  speaks　of　confining　a　man　to　his　house　by　'watching　constantly　at
  the　door'　as　one　among　several　modes　of　extorting　satisfaction。
  He　classes　it　with　forms　of　distraint　more　intelligible　to　us
  the　seizure　of　the　debtor's　cattle；　of　his　wife；　or　of　his　child。
  Though　the　ancient　rule　has　not　descended　to　us　along　with　its
  original　context；　we　need　not　doubt　that　even　in　the　earliest
  times　it　was　enforced　by　a　supernatural　sanction；　since　every
  violation　of　the　Brahminical　Code　was　regarded　by　its　authors　not
  only　as　a　civil　offence　but　as　a　sin。　Thus　a　Brahmin　might　quite
  well　be　conceived　as　saying　with　the　writer　in　the　Senchus　Mor；
  'He　who　does　not　give　a　pledge　to　fasting　is　an　evader　of　all；　he
  who　disregards　all　things　shall　not　be　paid　by　God　or　man。'　Many
  centuries　then　elapse；　which　it　would　be　vain　to　calculate；　and
  almost　in　our　own　day　we　find　the　ancient　usage　practised　in
  India；　but　with　modifications　corresponding　to　a　great　deal　of
  change　which　is　suspected　to　have　occurred　in　Hindoo　theology。
  The　indefinite　supernatural　penalty　has　become　the　definite
  supernatural　penalty　incurred　by　destroying　life；　and
  particularly　human　life。　The　creditor　not　only　'watches　at　the
  door；'　but　kills　himself　by　poison　or　dagger　if　the　arrest　is
  broken；　or　by　starvation　if　payment　is　too　long　delayed。　Finally；
  we　have　the　practice　described　by　Lord　Teignmouth　as　one
  peculiarly　or　exclusively　resorted　to　by　Brahmins。　The　sanctity
  of　Brahminical　life　has　now　in　fact　pretty　much　taken；　in　Hindoo
  idea；　the　place　once　occupied　by　the　sanctity　of　human　life；　and
  'sitting　dharna；'　when　the　English　law　first　endeavoured　to
  suppress　it；　was　understood　to　be　a　special　mode　of　oppression
  practised　by　Brahmins　for　a　consideration　in　money　This　is　the
  view　taken　of　it　by　the　Indian　Penal　Code；　which　condemns　it　in
  the　following　terms　（s。　508）：
  'Whoever　voluntarily　causes。。。　any　person　to　do　anything
  which　that　person　is　not　legally　bound　to　do。。。　by　inducing。。。
  that　person　to　believe　that　he。。。　will　become　by　some　act　of　the
  offender　an　object　of　Divine　displeasure；　if　he　does　not　do　the
  thing　which　it　is　the　object　of　the　offender　to　cause　him　to
  do。。。　shall　be　punished　with　imprisonment；　&c。'
  It　seems　to　me　that　a　reasonable　explanation　may　be　given　of
  the　origin　of　these　practices　which　now　seem　so　strange。　Let　us
  not　forget　that　all　forms　of　Distress；　the　seizure　of　wife；
  child；　or　cattle；　even　when　wholly　unregulated　by　law；　were
  improvements　on　older　custom。　The　primitive　proceeding　was
  undoubtedly　the　unceremonious；　unannounced；　attack　of　the　tribe
  or　the　man　stung　by　injury　on　the　tribe　or　the　man　who　had
  inflicted　it。　Any　expedient　by　which　sudden　plunder　or　slaughter
  was　adjourned　or　prevented　was　an　advantage　even　to　barbarous
  society。　Thus；　it　was　a　gain　to　mankind　as　a　whole　when　its
  priests　and　leaders　began　to　encourage　the　seizure　of　property　or
  family；　not　for　the　purpose　of　permanent　appropriation；　but　with
  a　view　to　what　we　should　now　not　hesitate　to　call　extortion。
  Similarly；　it　was　a　step　forwards　when　men　learned　to　pause
  before　attacking　instead　of　attacking　at　once。　We　are　told；　in
  the　Compendium　of　Kafir　Laws　and　Customs　published　by　Mr　Dugmore
  and　other　missionaries　（p。　38）；　that　the　regular　procedure　of　a
  Kafir　law…suit　simulates　an　expedition　in　force　of　the　plaintiff
  and　his　friends　against　the　village　to　which　the　defendant
  belongs。　'On　their　arrival　they　sit　down　together　in　some
  conspicuous　position　and　await　quietly　the　result　of　their
  presence。　This。。。　is　the　signal　for　mustering　all　the　adult　male
  residents　that　are　forthcoming。　These　accordingly　assemble　and
  also　sit　down　within　conversing　distance。'　After　long　silence　a
  conversation　ensues；　and　the　proceeding；　which　is　a　perfectly
  peaceable　one；　is　continued　by　a　long　series　of　technical
  formalities　and　intricate　pleadings。　This　silent　pause　of　the
  attacking　party　is　an　early　form　of　Notice；　in　itself　one　of　the
  most　valuable　of　institutions；　and　with　it　is　connected　another
  primitive　contrivance；　shutting　a　man　up　in　his　house　till　he
  gives　satisfaction；　instead　of　setting　on　him　at　once。　A　very
  striking　illustration　of　it　is　found　in　a　law　of　Alfred；　familiar
  to　historical　scholars　（Kemble；　'Saxons；'　i。　272；　Thorpe；
  'Ancient　Laws；'　i。　91）：
  'Let　the　man　who　knows　his　foe　to　be　homesitting　fight　not
  before　he　have　demanded　justice　of