![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
Abstract
Colonial agents often saw the value of improvising the corporal form of the oath for the smoother functioning of judicial bodies. In eighteenth-century Sri Lanka, the Dutch colonial government found that potential swearers were mostly nominal Christians who had few scruples about giving false oaths. This subtle resistance prompted the Dutch to make changes to accommodate local customs. Ultimately, the changes were of little use due to the mutual discrediting of potential oath-takers. A nominal Christian’s refusal to take the Dutch oath and preference for the local oath would be criticized, as also an acceptance of the Dutch form. Plural forms of the oath thus did not always provide the desired effect but rebounded in unexpected ways. This article argues that the study of mundane everyday judicial practice is needed to gain deeper insights into the functioning of pluralistic and colonial law.
Notes
1 Sri Lanka National Archives (hereafter: SLNA) 1/6534, ‘Galle Landraad Interrogations’ (1778 to 1784) ff 143v-144r, May and June 1782. Other reported answers were: ‘that he knows the Ten Commandments, and that the ninth commandment says not to give false testimony’ and ‘that it has gone out of his memory.’
2 The recent North Carolina example of a dispute over the Muslim form of the oath shows the continuing importance of the meaning attached to the oath as a legal practice for at least some cultural groups. See Frederick B Jonassen, ‘So Help Me: Religious Expression and Artifacts in the Oath of Office and the Courtroom Oath’ (2014) 12(2) Cardozo Public Law, Policy and Ethics Journal 350.
3 Classic studies on legal pluralism are John Griffiths, ‘What Is Legal Pluralism?’ (1986) 24 Journal of Legal Pluralism and Unofficial Law 1; Sally Engle Merry, ‘Legal Pluralism’ [1988] Law and Society Review 869; Brian Z Tamanaha, ‘The Folly of the Social Scientific Concept of Legal Pluralism’ (1993) 20 Journal of Law and Society 192; Brian Z Tamanaha, ‘Understanding Legal Pluralism: Past to Present, Local to Global’ (2008) 30 Sydney Law Review 375.
4 Thomas Duve, ‘Global Legal History – A Methodological Approach’ (Social Science Research Network 2016) SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 2781104 <http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2781104> accessed 28 August 2016.
5 Lauren Benton and Richard J Ross, ‘Empires and Legal Pluralism: Jurisdiction, Sovereignty, and Political Imagination in the Early Modern World’, Legal Pluralism and Empires, 1500–1850 (NYU Press, Kindle Edition 2013) 5–6. See also Lauren Benton, Law and Colonial Cultures: Legal Regimes in World History, 1400–1900 (Cambridge University Press 2001).
6 Martha-Marie Kleinhans and Roderick A Macdonald, ‘What Is a Critical Legal Pluralism?’ (1997) 12(2) Canadian Journal of Law and Society 25.
7 For an experiment in connecting Sri Lanka to Victor Lieberman’s theory of ‘protected rimlands’ of Southeast Asia, which he said shared ‘the same historical path from a milieu of warring little kingdoms to increasingly large, solid states’, see Alan Strathern, ‘Sri Lanka in the Long Early Modern Period: Its Place in a Comparative Theory of Second Millennium Eurasian History’ (2009) 43 Modern Asian Studies 815. See also Alicia Schrikker, Dutch and British Colonial Intervention in Sri Lanka, 1780-1815: Expansion and Reform (Brill 2007) 15, 20. For other recent and older scholarship of Portuguese and Dutch rule on the island, see Sinnappah Arasaratnam, Dutch Power in Ceylon, 1658–1687 (Djambatan 1958); Karunadasa W Goonewardena, The Foundation of Dutch Power in Ceylon, 1638–1658 (Djambatan 1958); Tikiri Abeyasinghe, Portuguese Rule in Ceylon, 1594–1612 (Lake House 1966); Vamadeva Kanapathipillai, ‘Dutch Rule in Maritime Ceylon 1766-1796’ (PhD dissertation, University of London 1969); Chandra R De Silva, The Portuguese in Ceylon 1617–1638 (HW Cave 1972); Jorge Flores (ed), Re-Exploring the Links: History and Constructed Histories Between Portugal and Sri Lanka (Harrassowitz Verlag 2007); Nirmal Ranjith Dewasiri, The Adaptable Peasant: Agrarian Society in Western Sri Lanka under Dutch Rule, 1740–1800 (Brill 2008); Alan Strathern, Kingship and Conversion in Sixteenth-Century Sri Lanka: Portuguese Imperialism in a Buddhist Land (Cambridge University Press & Vijitha Yapa 2010); Zoltán Biedermann, The Portuguese in Sri Lanka and South India: Studies in the History of Diplomacy, Empire and Trade, 1500–1650 (Harrassowitz Verlag 2014). For an overview, see Kingsley M de Silva (ed), University of Peradeniya, History of Sri Lanka (From C1500 to C1800), vol 2 (University of Peradeniya 1995).
8 Schrikker (n 7); Sujit Sivasundaram, ‘Buddhist Kingship, British Archaeology and Historical Narratives in Sri Lanka c.1750–1850’ (2007) 197 Past & Present 111; Dewasiri (n 7).
9 See Tambyah Nadaraja, The Legal System of Ceylon in Its Historical Setting (Brill 1972).
10 Frederic A Hayley, A Treatise on the Laws and Customs of the Sinhalese (first published 1923, Navrang 1993) 85–90; Ivor Jennings, ‘Notes on Kandyan Law Collected by Sir Archibald C. Lawrie LL.D’ (1952) 10(3) University of Ceylon Review 185, 201-203; Ralph Pieris, Sinhalese Social Organization: The Kandyan Period (Ceylon University Press Board 1956) 160–163. Caryota urens is known as kitul in Sri Lanka.
11 It appears that social hierarchies were preserved in this process: Pieris (n 10) 159, n 62 quotes two cases where the oath was not admitted as it was not customary for the nobility to swear with low-caste men See also Jennings (n 10) 200.
12 Robert Knox, An Historical Relation of Ceylon (first published 1681, Tisara Prakasakayo 1966) 194–195.
13 Pieris (n 10) 160. As an example of local accommodation of other forms of the oath, the mosque could take the place of the dēvāla. Jennings (n 10) 201.
14 Vijaya Samaraweera, ‘An “Act of Truth” in a Sinhala Court of Law: On Truth, Lies and Judicial Proof Among the Sinhala Buddhists’ (1997) 5 Cardoza Journal of International and Comparative Law 133. Such acts of truth were in their most distinctive form plain statements of fact. Kenneth de Burgh Codrington, ‘An Act of Truth in a Cingalese Court of Law’ (1933) 33 Man 94, 95.
15 João Ribeiro, The Historic Tragedy of the Island of Ceilao (PE Pieris tr, The Ceylon Daily News 1948) 58–60.
16 SLNA 1/93, ‘Governor in Council Minutes’ (1744) 24 December 1744; Pieter Sluijsken, Eene beschryving van de landdienst op Ceylon: Zo uyt ondervinding als uyt oude papieren tezaemen gebragt (A Description of the Land Services of Ceylon: Compiled from both investigations and old papers) (1784) vols 1: 160-191. See, for translations (I have used Kotelawele’s free translation), ‘Alexander Johnston Papers’ (MssCol 1578, Manuscripts and Archives Division, The New York Public Library, 1643 to 1817); Don Ariyapala Kotelawele, ‘Realms of Law: Judicial Procedures of the Low Country Sinhalese during Dutch Rule in Sri Lanka’ (1990) 2(1) Modern Sri Lanka Studies 112, 117–120. These reports are possibly the only such record for southern and western local society on the subject from that time. Among other oaths, they describe the settling of boundary disputes in a ritual manner in detail. Kotelawele briefly studies the incorporation of the native oath by the Dutch.
17 Incidentally, the Matara report says that the oaths described were prevalent in the interior Kandyan Kingdom as well.
18 Hayley (n 10) 85; John D’Oyly, A Sketch of the Constitution of the Kandyan Kingdom, vol 24 (Lewis James Barnetson Turner ed, Tisara Prakasakayo 1975) 57.
19 Pieris (n 10) 160.
20 Hayley (n 10) 90; Pieris (n 10) 160.
21 Ribeiro (n 15) 60.
22 See Pieris (n 10) 159–160.
23 Samaraweera (n 14) 145.
24 See for example Simon van Leeuwen, Simon van Leeuwen’s Commentaries on Roman-Dutch Law, vol 2 (Cornelis W Decker and John G Kotzé eds, Sweet and Maxwell 1923) 477–485, 489–496.
25 Institutes of the Laws of Holland (Jabez Henry tr, J & WT Clerk 1828) 262.
26 Simon van Leeuwen (n 24) vol 2, 494.
27 The volumes SLNA 1/6511, 1/6512, 1/6513, 1/6514 contain the minutes of the Galle Landraad from 16 May 1778–28 August 1781.
28 SLNA 1/6504, ‘Galle Landraad Minutes’ (1769) ff 18r, 18 February 1769; 29r, 18 March 1769.
29 SLNA 1/6509, ‘Galle Landraad Minutes’ (1775) ff 53r-55v, 27 May 1775.
30 SAW Mottau mistakenly uses the word affidavit in his inventory, but they were not sworn statements as that term implies. The word deposition has also been used in the South African context. Inventory of the Archives of the Dutch Government in the Divisions of Galle (Matara) and Jaffnapatnam 1640–1796 (General State Archives 1975); Nigel Worden and Gerald Groenewald, Trials of Slavery: Selected Documents Concerning Slaves from the Criminal Records of the Council of Justice at the Cape of Good Hope, 1705–1794 (Van Riebeeck Society 2005) xxiii. The word depositie was also used in the Landraad records in SLNA 1/6511, ‘Galle Landraad Minutes’ (1778) ff 30r, 31r, 9 July 1778; 63r, 5 October 1778.
31 SLNA 1/6494, ‘Galle Landraad Depositions’ (1778 to 1781) ff 8r, 22 July 1778.
32 James De Alwis, Sidath Sangarawa: A Grammar of the Sinhalese Language (W Skeen 1852) v, ccli; Samaraweera (n 14) 160.
33 See SLNA 1/6494 (n 31).
34 Worden and Groenewald (n 30).
35 SLNA 1/6514, ‘Galle Landraad Minutes’ (1781) ff 115r, 28 August 1781.
36 See Van den Linden (n 25) 473–474.
37 SAW Mottau (tr), ‘Instructions for the Respective “Landraden” of This Government (Extract from the Dutch Political Council Minutes of 25 June 1789)’ (1965) 55 (1-4) Journal of the Dutch Burger Union of Ceylon 1, 8.
38 I suspect that many if not all interrogations found in the two volumes of interrogations in the Galle records of the Landraad concern the stalling of the oath. SLNA 1/6534 (n 1); SLNA 1/6535, ‘Galle Landraad Interrogations’ (1785 to 1793).
39 In October 1778, Matere Happuhannedige Johan twice pleaded for his party that their procureur (Albertus Hissink) had fallen sick and therefore could not prepare a counter-interrogation. He was given three days initially and then eight days. But Johan failed to produce yet again, and at the next meeting of the commissioners, he asked for another 14 days. The opposing party, led by Kahingellege Matthees, requested that Johan not be allowed to present a counter-interrogation and that their witnesses be admitted to the oath as three deadlines had already passed. The council delegates deferred the matter to the full council, which decided that Johan and his party must bring their deposition in forma probanti, seeming to ignore the opposing party’s own deposition and oath and Johan’s failure to produce a counter-interrogation for it. SLNA 1/6511 (n 30) ff 63r, 5 October 1778; 71v, 10 October 1778; 76r, 21 October 1778; 89r, 28 November 1778. Unlike Johan and his party, the opposing party is prompt in producing a counter-interrogation and their offer of the oath was deferred to the full council. SLNA 1/6520, ‘Drafts of Galle Landraad Minutes’ (1779) ff 53r, 18 December 1778; SLNA 1/6534 (n 1) ff 32r-38v, 18 December 1778. Some six months later, Matthees’s party handed over a counter-interrogation with answers, a deed of recollement and a written request (dictum). SLNA 1/6512, ‘Galle Landraad Minutes’ (1779) f 38r, 5 June 1779. No mention of the oath or the depositions was made thereafter in the records, let alone of Johan’s failure to produce a counter-interrogation. The Landraad pronounces a sentence in 1783 in Johan’s favour, but a matter concerning the costs of the case drags on till 1794. SLNA 1/6524, ‘Drafts of Galle Landraad Minutes’ (1783) f 79v, 15 November 1783; SLNA 1/6517, ‘Galle Landraad Minutes’ (1794) f 118r, 22 November 1794.
40 SLNA 1/6514 (n 35) f 9r, 6 January 1781.
41 At times, the opposing party presented a dictum (written request). SLNA 1/6512 (n 39) f 94r, 1 December 1779; SLNA 1/6513, ‘Galle Landraad Minutes’ (1780) f 68r, 1 July 1780.
42 SLNA 1/6511 (n 30) ff 30r-31r, 9 July 1778. See for this process in Roman-Dutch law Leeuwen (n 24) vol 2, 482.
43 SLNA 1/6511 (n 30) ff 30r-31r, 9 July 1778.
44 ibid ff 49r, 15 August 1778; 65r, 10 October 1778. Recollement of the deposition was documented in a deed.
45 SLNA 1/6525, ‘Drafts of Galle Landraad Minutes’ (1784 to 1786) ff 57v, 11 September 1784; 58v-59r, 23 September 1784.
46 ‘The Hon. commissioned members decide to leave the declaration under recollement’ SLNA 1/6520 (n 39) f 51v (9 December 1778). See also SLNA 1/6513 (n 41) f 18v, 14 March 1780. Other examples of the Landraad not allowing the oath: ‘The Hon. members decided to leave the declaration under recollement without admitting the oath’ SLNA 1/6515, ‘Galle Landraad Minutes’ (1787 to 1793) f 145r, 29 April 1788. See also ibid ff 179v, 4 August 1788; 182r, 25 August 1788; 249r, 27 August 1789.
47 In one case where they had deferred the decision, the commissioners presented documentation of the recolleeren and examination of the witnesses to the full council. The oath, however, was not permitted: ‘It was thus decided to leave the said evidence under recollement and the said Moor to be ordered to continue in principle.’ SLNA 1/6513 (n 41) f 84r, 12 August 1780. In another example as well the witnesses were only allowed recollement: ‘so it was decided to keep the said witnesses under recollement.’ SLNA 1/6514 (n 35) f 28r, 10 February 1781. After a counter-interrogation, the party in question may handover the counter-interrogation with answers, the verified deposition with a deed of recollement, and a statement or request. See for example SLNA 1/6512 (n 39) f 42r, 19 June 1779. See for another example of the commissioners deferring the decision to the council SLNA 1/6515 (n 46) ff 115r-v, 10 December 1787.
48 SLNA 1/6514 (n 35) ff 48r, 21 April 1781; 73r, 2 June 1781.
49 SLNA 1/6225, ‘Scholarchale Vergadering Minutes’ f 8v, 3 May 1786.
50 Oaths of office were recorded in writing as well, and the examples given above of Ponnamperuma and Christobu who took decisory oaths were recorded in the minutes with the words that they said out aloud. I have not found such a verbatim record of the individual oaths of witnesses.
51 Kotelawele (n 16) 112; see Paul Bohannan (ed), Law and Warfare: Studies in the Anthropology of Conflict (Natural History Press 1967).
52 Sluijsken (n 16) vol 1, 160.
53 Samaraweera (n 14) 143.
54 The issue of the oath form came up in the seventeenth century as well in Jaffna. As far back as 1679, Laurens Pijl wrote: ‘Great care must be exercised in the administration of justice, because the people are a troublesome and dishonest race. They do not scruple to take a false oath to gain any profit, and the rich are able to get as many of the common people as they desire to give evidence in their behalf for their profit.’ This section written by Pijl to Ruthgaart de Heyde, his succeeding commander in Jaffna, appears with Governor Rijclof van Goens’s memoir to Pijl who was taking over as governor. Rijclof van Goens, Memoir Left by Ryclof van Goens to Laurens Pijl (Sophia Pieters tr, HC Cottle, Govt Printer 1910) 27–28. Knox’s ideas of local mendacity perhaps prejudiced many Europeans as his work was available in print in Europe in different languages. Samaraweera points out that this was because locals were not allowed to communicate to Knox on how to leave the Kandyan Kingdom where he was imprisoned for many years. See Knox (n 12) 120–121; Samaraweera (n 14) 137–138. In 1696, Colombo ordered two mudaliyārs of Jaffna to take their oath (requested by a litigant in the Raad van Justitie of Jaffna) in the heathen way. Commander of Jaffna Hendrick Zwaardecroon cites Pijl’s statement as an explanation for why it was allowed ‘only in the heathen fashion, although this seemed out of keeping with the principles of the Christian religion (Salva Reverentia), as these people are recognised as baptised Christians, and therefore the taking of this oath is not practised here.’ Memoir of Hendrick Zwaardecroon, Commandeur of Jaffnapatam, 1697 (Sophia Pieters tr, HC Cottle, Govt Printer 1911) 50. The local oath form was not officially accepted in Jaffna at the time, but Colombo was aware of the need for its use. Fifty years later, in 1746, Colombo banned the taking of the ‘heathen’ oath form in Jaffna from baptized Christians who professed to be Christians in public. SLNA 1/98, ‘Governor in Council Minutes’ (1746) ff 270r, 11 July 1746. This is different to the developments in Colombo explained in this article.
55 Omychund v Barker (1744) 1 Atkyns Rep 22 (English Chancery) 46. This case had its origins in British Calcutta, showing how imperial encounters prompted changes in the practice of the oath in the metropole. The case concerned a debt owed to an Indian, Omychund, by Barker, who was an East India Company official. Omychund filed a case in the Calcutta Mayor’s Court. Barker fled India, and the case was eventually heard in the High Court of Chancery in England. Barker’s defence moved to have the depositions of two Hindu witnesses taken in Calcutta dismissed because the witnesses had been sworn in by a Brahmin priest. The court in England held in favour of the plaintiff, Omychund, and thereafter the testimony of witnesses sworn according to their own customs could be received as evidence in English courts. See Elizabeth Kolsky, Colonial Justice in British India (Cambridge University Press 2010) 111–112. In arguing the case, Attorney-General Sir Dudley Rider for the plaintiff quoted the Dutch jurists Hugo Grotius and Johannes Voet to say that ‘the best writers of Christian morality have gone so far as to admit the oath to false gods.’ Omychund v Barker 28–29. Omychund v Barker led to the rationalization of the oath into a legal practice, allowing the expansion of the admissibility of witnesses in court.
56 SLNA 1/93 (n 16) f 147r, 21 November 1744.
57 Kotelawele 117–120.
58 When a Mennonite refused to take the oath in the way of the Dutch Reformed Church before the Raad van Justitie in Colombo, the company adopted oaths that were acceptable to Roman Catholics, Mennonites and Jews in 1758. SLNA 1/125, ‘Governor in Council Minutes’ (1758) 19 May 1758. An undated list of the oaths used in the Landraad for officials, litigants and witnesses includes the oath for Mennonites, Roman Catholics, Jews, Moors and ‘heathens.’ The oath of the Dutch Reformed Church was also the oath for Lutherans. SLNA 1/5666, ‘Miscellaneous Documents of the Galle Landraad Including Instructions’ (1761 to 1789) ff 20v-23v. A reference to a Tamil form of the oath was found in the council minutes but not traced. SLNA 1/211, ‘Governor in Council Minutes’ (1790) 27 November 1790. An oath was not a part of Indian Islamic Law (Kolsky [n 55] 112–113) but the Dutch allowed it for the Moors of Sri Lanka. A Mohammedan had to swear with his ‘right hand lying on the Koran, in the presence of a Mohammedan priest, without saying anything.’ SLNA 1/5666 f 23v, no date.
59 Personal communication from Lodewijk Wagenaar, based on petition reports from Galle in 1758.
60 The words in Dutch of the accepted oath were:
Ik zweere bij den waren God van hemel en aarde dat zo waarlijk als ik tegenwoordig mijne hand legge op het hoofd van mijn kind (vader, moeder of ander bloed verwant) zo waragtig is, het geene ik hebbe verklaart ende getuijgt, en zo ik liege, moet die zelve God mij (in zo of zo veel teijds) zwaarlijk straffen. SLNA 1/93 (n 16) 24 December 1744; SLNA 1/94, ‘Governor in Council Minutes’ (1745) 22 March 1745.
The undated list of the oaths mentioned in note 58 gives a slightly varied version, where punishment is invited on both the swearer and the relative: ‘Ik sweere bij den waeren God van Hemel en aarde, dat zoo waeragtig als ik mijn hand legge op ’t hoofd van mijn zoon (of wie hij ook zijn mag) zoo waaragtig is ’t geen ik heb verklaard, en indien ik in eenige deelen liege, moet die zelve God mij en deezen mijnen zoon (of wie hij anders zij) binnen korten swaarlijk straffen.’ SLNA 1/5666 (n 58) f 23v. An extract of the 24 December 1744 minutes on the oath is also given in SLNA 1/5658, ‘Extracts of Resolutions, Orders, Etc. Regarding the Landraad and the Thombo Compilation’ (1740 to 1745) ff 17v-18r.
61 It was said: ‘But in places where the heathens are in the habit of swearing in a different way, the country’s custom must be followed’. SLNA 1/5666 (n 58) f 23v. It appears that the headmen’s reports given in the December 1744 minutes were also approved, as for instance Sluijsken copies them out verbatim in his account of the land services. Sluijsken, vols 1: 160-191.
62 SLNA 1/6514 (n 35) ff 105r-v, 7 August 1781.
63 As Samaraweera (n 14) 145 writes of the local oaths: ‘The god or goddess was chosen by the swearer, who then became the witness to the deed and acted as the arbiter of justice by determining whether the oath was false or not.’
64 See documents in this connection in SLNA 1/211 (n 58) 27 November 1790; SLNA 1/213, ‘Governor in Council Minutes’ (1791) 9 February 1791; Klaus Koschorke (ed), The Dutch Reformed Church in Colonial Ceylon (18th Century): Minutes of the Consistory of the Dutch Reformed Church in Colombo (SAW Mottau tr, Harrassowitz Verlag 2011) 648–649, Extraordinary Meeting held on 14 January 1791 <www.aecg.evtheol.lmu.de/cms/index.php?id=10>.
65 The Landraad instructions of 1789 also reflect this continuing concern when it states ‘it is not so much the form of the oath or the manner in which it is taken, as in the act itself, and the terrible fate that awaits the person who dares to summon the Almighty God to witness any matter which they do not fully know, or, which is still worse, which they know to be untrue.’ Mottau (n 37) 8.
66 The necessity for endorsement by the church council could have also been due to that council discouraging converts from taking the non-Christian oath, but this must be supported by evidence.
67 SLNA 1/6494 (n 31) 13 July 1778–14 August 1781. The religion of five witnesses with European names was not mentioned. See for further details of the Kataragama cult Gananath Obeyesekere, ‘Social Change and the Deities: Rise of the Kataragama Cult in Modern Sri Lanka’ (1977) 12(3) Man 377; Elizabeth Nissan, ‘Polity and Pilgrimage Centres in Sri Lanka’ (1988) 23(2) Man 253.
68 Sir James Emerson Tennent, Christianity in Ceylon (John Murray 1850) 89.
69 Gerrit J Schutte, ‘Een Hutje in Den Wijngaard: Gereformeerd Ceylon’ in Gerrit J Schutte (ed), Het Indische Sion: De Gereformeerde kerk onder de Verenigde Oost-Indische Compagnie (Verloren 2002) 179–180. The Moors alone, it appears, did not convert. Tennent (n 68) 64.
70 Rob van Diessen, Grote Atlas van de Verenigde Oost-Indische Compagnie: Deel IV: Ceylon (Asia Maior 2008) 200–201. This is the present St Mary’s Cathedral. Roman Catholicism remained a tangible force, as it does today. See also Jurrien van Goor, Jan Kompenie as Schoolmaster: Dutch Education in Ceylon 1690–1795 (Wolters-Noordhoff 1978) 145–146.
71 Schutte (n 69) 179, 186.
72 Pim de Zwart, ‘Population, Labour and Living Standards in Early Modern Ceylon: An Empirical Contribution to the Divergence Debate’ (2012) 49(3) Indian Economic and Social History Review 365, 378.
73 Goor (n 70) 160–161.
74 Albert van den Belt, Jan Kok and Kees Mandemakers, ‘Digital Thombos: A New Source for 18th Century Sri Lankan Family History’ (2011) 16(4) The History of the Family 481, 484.
75 Tennent (n 68) 89.
76 ibid 45–46.
77 ibid 46–49.
78 ibid 55–56.
79 Julius Stein van Gollenesse, Memoir of Julius Stein van Gollenesse (Sinnappah Arasaratnam tr, Department of National Archives 1974) 38.
80 Gananath Obeyesekere, ‘Buddhism and Conscience: An Exploratory Essay’ (1991) 120(3) Daedalus 219, 236.
81 Richard F Gombrich, Buddhist Precept and Practice: Traditional Buddhism in the Rural Highlands of Ceylon (first published 1971, Motilal Banarsidass Publishers 1991) 263–4.
82 John D Rogers, Crime, Justice, and Society in Colonial Sri Lanka (Curzon Press 1987) 74–75.
83 Samaraweera (n 14) 162–163; see Clifford Geertz, Local Knowledge: Further Essays in Interpretive Anthropology (Basic Books 1983).
84 SLNA 1/6226, ‘Scholarchale Vergadering Minutes’ (1789 to 1791) f 6v, 7 October 1789.
85 SLNA 1/6220, ‘Scholarchale Vergadering Minutes’ (1768 to 1770) f 24r, 4 July 1770.
86 Ganegame Radāge Puncha.
87 SLNA 1/6534 (n 1) ff 11r-12v, 9 July 1778.
88 SLNA 1/6514 (n 35) f 41r, 18 April 1781.
89 ibid f 100v, 31 July 1781.
90 SLNA 1/6534 (n 1) f 133v, 14 January 1782.
91 SLNA 1/5658 (n 60) f 9r, Extract resolution of 7 March 1744; 16r, Resolution of 14 September 1744.
92 Pussewellege Johan.
93 SLNA 1/6534 (n 1) ff 3r-6r, 9 July 1778.
94 SLNA 1/6535 (n 38) ff 38r-39v, 27 August 1789.
95 SLNA 1/6534 (n 1) ff 12r-v, 9 July 1778.
96 ibid f 105v, 18 August 1781.
97 SLNA 1/6535 (n 38) f 26v, 29 April 1788.
98 SLNA 1/6534 (n 1) ff 89r-91r, March and July 1780.
99 SLNA 1/6534 (n 1) ff 90v-91r, March and July 1780.
100 SLNA 1/6535 (n 38) f 24v, 29 April 1788.
101 SLNA 1/211 (n 58) 27 November 1790.
102 Lodewijk Hovy, Ceylonees Plakkaatboek: Plakkaten en andere wetten uitgevaardigd door het Nederlands Bestuur op Ceylon, 1638–1796 (Verloren 1991) vol 1; no 145, 1 July/12 August 1682, Placard against heathen idolatry; 21 June 1692; 229, 6 June/11 July 1711, Plakkaat forbidding idolatry.
103 SLNA 1/6534 (n 1) ff 26v, 31r-v, 9 December 1778.
104 ibid ff 32r-38r, 18 December 1778.
105 ibid f 141r, 7 February 1782. It is not clear if he had been a Hindu or Buddhist priest.
106 Alan Watson, Legal Transplants (2nd edn, University of Georgia Press 1993) 6. Quoted in Pierre Legrand, ‘What “Legal Transplants”?’ in David Nelken and Johannes Feest (eds), Adapting Legal Cultures (Hart Publishing 2001) 56.
107 Legrand (n 106) 63.
108 The question of whether to call a transfer of rules from foreign law a legal transplant or legal borrowing is mostly about terminology. Jacques du Plessis, ‘Comparative Law and the Study of Mixed Legal Systems’ in Mathias Reimann and Reinhard Zimmermann (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Law (Oxford University Press 2006) 488.