tory it was necessary for the Mussulman minority to employ non-Mussulmans in the service of the State; but both in the civil and military services they gave them nothing but inferior posts. For some time after the country passed under our care the Mussulmans retained all the functions of government in their own hands. Mussulman collectors gathered the Land-Tax ; Mussulman Fanjdárs and Gháteváls officered the police. A great Mussulman department, with its headquarters in the Nizam's palace at Murshidabád, and a network of officials spreading over every district in the province, administered the Criminal Law. Mussulman jailors took bribes from, or starved at their discretion, the whole prison population of Bengal. Kázis or Muhammadan Doctors of Law sat in the Civil and Domestic Courts. Even when we attempted to do justice by means of trained English officers, the Muhammadan Law Doctors sat with them as their authorised advisers on points of law. The code of Islam remained the law of the land, and the whole ministerial and subordinate offices of Government continued the property of the Mussulmans.'

On the inveterate and unspeakable immorality which is invariably engendered by Islam Mr. Hunter is equally explicit. Fanaticism and impurity are invariable characteristics of Mahometanism when not under the control of a superior Power. When thus curbed the Mussulman submits to fate, and his fanaticism is only sporadical and occasional. But the impurity remains, though it be not flaunted so openly and defiantly. Colleges for Mussulman students are found to be dens of profligacy.' 'Not content with harbouring what Carlyle calls "the unmentionable women," says Mr. Hunter of the students in one of these colleges, they

6

sank into those more horrible crimes against nature which Christianity has extirpated from Europe, but which lurk in every great city of India."1

The Mussulmans of India, by W. W. Hunter, B.A. LL.D., of Her Majesty's Bengal Civil Service. Pp. 160-1, 163-4, 166, 204.

CHAPTER IV.

DR. BADGER ON ISLAM AND CHRISTIANITY.

I MUST now notice an argument on the other side, advanced by a gentleman who undoubtedly has a right to speak. In the Pall Mall Gazette of the 18th of last December there appeared a long letter headed 'Islam and Christianity in the East,' and bearing the signature of George Percy Badger.' The writer began by explaining that he had no predilection whatever for the Turk as the representative of the existing Ottoman Empire,' and that he 'entertained no sympathy whatever for the political system of Islam, even apart from its peculiar religious dogmas.' Having made these 'personal statements,' the author proceeds to develop his thesis. He finds the minds of a large section of the English people' possessed by an entirely erroneous idea, namely, that Islam teaches intolerance towards all those who are without its fold; hence the Turks, being followers of Islam, persecute their Christian subjects.' He assumes a very wide concession indeed that those sympathizers are well acquainted with the doctrines of Islam;' and he asks them how it comes to pass that this religion even at the outset made such rapid progress in the East, and has continued to prevail and to advance with such steady strides.' Let me say, in passing, that I see nothing extraordinary in the

6

rapid spread of Islam in the beginning of its career, considering the circumstances of the time and the means employed; and that I dispute the correctness of the assertion implied in the second part of the question. I find no evidence that Islam continues to prevail and to advance with such steady strides' as Dr. Badger But this by the way. Dr. Badger

assures us.

answers his own question, and his explanation is that the Christianity which Mahomet found existing in the world was so corrupt and idolatrous that mankind, including large portions of Christendom, welcomed the religion of Mahomet in preference to that of Christ. Dr. Badger founds this theory on the portrait given of' Christianity by Dr. White in his famous Bampton

6

1 The author of the 'famous Bampton Lecture in 1788' was not Dr. White, though he delivered it and published it afterwards under his name. The lectures were chiefly written by a Mr. Badcock, then a Dissenting minister, and afterwards a clergyman of the Church of England. Dr. White, who was Professor of Arabic at Oxford, agreed to pay Mr. Badcock 5001. for the MS. Mr. Badcock died soon afterwards, and on his sister presenting Mr. White's bond for payment, the latter, with equal folly and immorality, refused to redeem his promise. This led to the affair being published, when the celebrated Dr. Parr immediately laid claim to the most brilliant parts of the volume. The matter was then referred to arbitration; but that also came to a ludicrous termination on the discovery by one of the arbitrators, Dr. Parsons, of Balliol, that he too had a very considerable right of property' in the lectures. A similar claim was made by a Dr. Gabriel, of Bath. The upshot of the whole imbroglio was of course the utter collapse of Dr. White's short-lived reputation. Gibbon, naturally enough, went out of his way to praise the 'elegant and ingenious' fraud of the Arabic Professor (vol. iv. p. 187, Milman's edition). The fraud had not then been discovered, and the chief recommendation of the work in Gibbon's mind was doubtless its apology for Mahomet at the expense of the Christianity of the day. After all, it was perhaps not very unnatural that one Arabic impostor should have felt himself drawn to become the apologist of another.

Lecture in 1788,' entitled 'A Comparison of Mahometanism and Christianity.' And then he goes on to fortify his theory by additional arguments out of the storehouse of his own historical lore and personal knowledge. He relates, apparently with much enjoyment, the rapid progress of Mussulman conquest in 'Syria, including Palestine and Jerusalem, Egypt, Northern Africa, Spain.' 'Numerous were the proselytes from Christianity during this period;' 'but we do not read of any converts from Islam. The reason is obvious; wherever the Muslims went they witnessed in the then prevailing worship of the Christians a confirmation of its tenets and features as set forth in the Koran.' 'As with the Arab invasions, so with those of the Tartars and Ottomans during the long interval of eight centuries; large numbers of the Christians embraced the religion of the conquerors, whereas we have no record of any such defection from the ranks of Islam to Christianity. And the reason was doubtless the same; Christianity with the subjected peoples had lost its vital energy, and had been replaced by an ostentatious sensuous worship, and a ceremonial system which the Muslims could only regard as idolatrous and degrading to the most High God.'

Such is the remarkable theory of a writer who sneeringly grants to those against whom he writes a very wide concession indeed,' namely, that they are well acquainted with the doctrines of Islam.' It seems to me that a concession at least as wide must be made on behalf of Dr. Badger, if this letter is to be taken as an index of his acquaintance with the doctrines of Islam.' Here is a writer who volunteers to instruct the British public on the causes which conduced to the spread of Islam, and he can offer no other explanation