most interest, and afforded some amusement, was that of the age at which girls should be given in marriage, which had been brought forward at the meeting of the day previous.  Some discussion ensued regarding it, when it appeared that the point as to which the representatives were really most concerned, was that of elderly men who had no children marrying again and again with the hope of getting them, regarding which one of the representatives said to me in conversation, “We object to old fogies marrying young girls.”  The point was especially urged by one member, who argued in the most serious manner that, if a man when in the prime of life had no family there was little likelihood of success when he was between sixty and seventy years of age.  This remark was received with general laughter, and shortly afterwards the Dewan made a judicious reply on the whole question, and said that, in his opinion, the interference of the Government was inadvisable, and that the question was one that ought to be settled by the people consulting privately on the subject.  Then the Assembly turned to other matters, and finally adjourned at midday.

I may here mention that I subsequently had some conversation with natives regarding the marriage question, especially as to the age for consummation, when I found that the pressure of public opinion, and the various discussions on the subject, which had appeared in the newspapers, had already produced a considerable effect in delaying the time for married girls leaving the paternal roof to join their husbands.

It may perhaps be not uninteresting to mention too that, on the afternoon of the day on which I made my speech I fell in with two native gentlemen who spoke to me about it.  What I found had been particularly appreciated (and very naturally so as water is of such vital importance in India), was the firm protest I had made against the Supreme Government restricting the Mysoreans as to the use, for irrigation, of the waters of Mysore on the ground that a more extended use of them would lessen the supply to the adjacent British territory.  In the course of my speech, I made a very telling point by supposing, for the sake of argument, that Mysore had, as had been originally proposed, been annexed, and made an integral part of the Madras Presidency.  In that case, I asked, would the Government have limited the supply of the water to the Mysore part of the presidency in order to improve the more distant irrigated tracts in other parts of British territory?  I then argued that the British Government would certainly not have done so, seeing that, to have so acted would have diminished the means available for contending with famine, for, as I fully urged, it is perfectly well known that the further the water travels the greater is the waste from percolation and evaporation, and the smaller the amount of land it can irrigate.  If, then, the British Government would not have so acted had Mysore been annexed, what right, I asked, had it to interfere with Mysore regarding the use of its waters, and thereby to increase the risks of famine in that country?  It was no wonder, I continued, that an English officer in the Mysore service had been heard to say that he supposed Mysore would not be allowed to plant a tree, in case it might precipitate some moisture that might otherwise pass over into British territory.