Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The Bengal Sati Regulation, [nb 1] or Regulation XVII, A. D. 1829 of the Bengal Code was a legal act promulgated in British India under East India Company rule, by the then Governor-General Lord William Bentinck.
Lieutenant General Lord William Henry Cavendish-Bentinck GCB GCH PC (14 September 1774 – 17 June 1839), known as Lord William Bentinck, was a British military commander and politician who served as the governor of Fort William (Bengal) from 1828 to 1834 and the first governor-general of India from 1834 to 1835.
Vice-Admiral William Bentinck FRS (17 June 1764 – 21 February 1813) was a Royal Navy officer and colonial administrator who served as the governor of Saint Vincent from 1798 to 1802. During his long career in the navy, he eventually rose to the rank of Vice-Admiral of the Blue .
Opposition to the practice of sati by evangelists like Carey, and by Hindu reformers such as Raja Ram Mohan Roy ultimately led the British Governor-General of India Lord William Bentinck to enact the Bengal Sati Regulation, 1829, declaring the practice of burning or burying alive of Hindu widows to be punishable by the criminal courts.
William Butterworth Bayley (acting) (1782–1860) 13 March 1828: 4 July 1828 Governors-General of India, 1833–1858 Lord William Bentinck (1774–1839) 4 July 1828 20 March 1835 First Governor General of India; Bengal Sati Regulation, 1829; Suppression of Thuggee (1829–1835) Kol Rebellion (1831) Barasat Uprising (1831), led by Titumir
William Bentinck and his extensive entourage descended from Shimla in the Himalayas to Ropar on the plains of Punjab. Ropar, a small town situated on the banks of the river Satluj, was under the control of Bhup Singh, a Sikh chieftain loyal to the East India Company. The parties had determined to encamp on ‘their side’ of the river Satluj.
Get AOL Mail for FREE! Manage your email like never before with travel, photo & document views. Personalize your inbox with themes & tabs. You've Got Mail!
The Dharma Sabha filed an appeal in the Privy Council against the ban on Sati by Lord William Bentinck as, according to them, it went against the assurance given by George III of non-interference in Hindu religious affairs; however, their appeal was rejected and the ban on Sati was upheld in 1832.