himself up for the work of his Master in heaven, and to go forth and preach the gospel to the gentiles, let him do so he will have his reward-but he must first cease to serve Mammon. Fortunately, there can be no mistake upon this point. A man who, for conscience' sake, sacrifices his worldly prospects, and emancipates himself from the thraldom of worldly obligations, cannot, so far, be wrong; but he may be very wrong if, whilst he admits the authority of the temporal government by wearing its livery and receiving its pay, he knowingly disobeys its orders, in accordance with the precepts of what he rightly calls higher authority, but which authority is never more unmistakably declared than in the mandate to submit one's-self to the ordinances of the law and the decrees of the temporal government. Moreover, if the great end sought be the diffusion of the gospel, why, out of pure self-will and presumption, do that which is more likely to retard than to advance its progress? One" missionary" colonel may undo the work of fifty missionaries. This, in itself, ought to settle the question. But, in reality, whatever vagueness there may be about that word interference, every man's conscience, we believe, and every man's intelligence, will enable him to supply the right meaning. That meaning is rather to be felt than described; and something, doubtless, must be left to time and circumstance. But, in the meanwhile, no servant of the State can err by scrupulously abstaining from all active interference in missionary affairs. The missionary will always be ready to receive his money-and, sometimes, his information and advice; but he will not ask for his authority or for his ministry. He would rather do the work by himself.

Practically, indeed, the whole question of the duty of the Christian State towards its un-Christian subjects remains where it was before. All that we have gained is the solemn proclamation of the Christianity of the Queen of England; and from this we derive a distant impression that the British Government designs henceforth, manfully and proudly, to assert the Christianity of the nation. But were we not doing this when

India was suddenly thrown into convulsions? Had we turned our back upon our national Christianity? Were we not, indeed, increasing our Church Establishment and building churches everywhere? The Punjab had been but a little time under British rule, and yet, in 1856, seventeen churches or chapels had been constructed, or were in course of construction, in that province alone. Is the magnificent cathedral erected on the great plain of Calcutta any sign of the practical negation of our Christianity? The fact, indeed, is, that the declaration of our State Christianity was positive and unmistakable. It is equally a fact that the declared policy of the Company's government was adverse in the extreme to any kind of authoritative "interference with the religious belief and worship" of the natives of the country, and that, if there was such interference on the part of any servants of the State, it was in defiance of the orders of Government. The Christianity of the State was, and is (according to the Proclamation), self-asserting and unaggressive; and so we trust that it will ever remain.

This toleration of all creeds is further expressed in the next paragraph of the Proclamation: "And it is our further will," it is said, "that so far as may be, our subjects, of whatever race and creed, be freely and impartially admitted to offices in our service, the duties of which they may be qualified, by their edu cation, ability, and integrity, duly to discharge." In this her Majesty announces only what Parliament decreed a quarter of a century ago. The Act of 1833, under which India was governed during the subsequent twenty years, distinctly declared that no one, by reason of his country, his colour, or his creed, was to be precluded from any office under the Company's government which he was otherwise qualified to hold. That practically this provision has been inoperative, inasmuch as that Hindoos and Mohammedans have been excluded from the covenanted service of the Company, we admit. But we do not hear complaints on this score so much as on that of the exclusion of native Christians from the more

subordinate offices under the British Government. We never heard, however, until very recently, that native Christians had not received, in proportion to their numbers, a fair share of Government patronage; and we now believe that, if they have not a fair numerical share of the loaves and fishes of the State, it is because they are not as well qualified by "education, ability, and integrity" as the Hindoo and Mohammedan candidates for office who have competed with them. We certainly never heard of a competent person being excluded from office on the ground of his being a native Christian. Mr Montgomery's "Circular," in which he declares the fact of the exclusion of native Christians from office in the Punjab, has been considerably discussed. It appears to us, whatever the fact, to have been quite uncalled for. If, practically, the native Christians were excluded from office in the Punjab, whose fault was it? And in whose hands did the remedy lie? In those of Mr Montgomery and his colleagues. There being legally and theoretically no exclusion of any particular class, the high functionaries in the Punjab might have appointed as many Christians to office as they pleased; and if they did not, it may be presumed that the omission resulted from the conviction that the Hindoo and Mohammedan candidates for office would make better public servants than their Christian competitors. As there was no prohibition-no disability-we do not see that such a manifesto as the famous "Punjab Circular" was in any way called for by the exigencies of the case. If practically an injustice had been done to the native Christians, the remedy lay in the hands of those who had committed it, and the more quietly it was applied the better. The next paragraph of the Proclamation relates to the tenure of land. "We know and respect," says the Queen in Council, "the feeling of attachment with which the natives of India regard the lands inherited by them from their ancestors; and we desire to protect them in all their rights connected therewith, subject to the equitable demands of the State; and we will that generally, in framing and administering the

law, due regard be paid to the ancient rights, usages, and customs of India.' On the first part of this clause we need not comment, we have so recently expressed our opinion on the subject of proprietary rights in the soil. The latter half, we confess, errs somewhat on the side of vagueness-serviceable as that vagueness often may be. If the law generally is to be framed with due regard to the ancient usages and customs of India, there is an end to those humanising and civilising effects which are the glory of the British government in India. The words, indeed, would seem to indicate a retrograde policy, for which we were not by any means prepared, and which we do not believe to be the intention of Her Majesty's Government. But for the word "generally," we might believe that the reference was merely to laws relating to the tenure of land. But we apprehend that the passage is intended to have a much wider signification, and, in this sense, we fear that it may be misunderstood. The meaning, doubtless, is, that the ancient usages and customs of India are to be regarded in the framing of the laws so far as they are consistent with humanity and morality, and are not at variance with the declared intentions of Her Majesty, as expressed in other parts of the Proclamation. The ancient usages and customs of the country sanction Suttee and other abominations; they sanction penal provisions against seceders from their ancestral faith. If no one is to be "molested or disquieted by reason of his religious faith," the ancient usages and customs of Hindooism must assuredly be disregarded. A little more specification might have been serviceable here; for there are some, doubtless, who will inveigh against the words of the passage, as prohibitory measures for the advancement of humanity and civilisation.

This clause is the last, with the exception of the concluding one, that is addressed to all time. What follows has especial relation to the present. In the six next paragraphs the existing rebellion is considered, and the terms of the amnesty are declared. We give them seriatim as they stand in the copy before us :

"We deeply lament the evils and misery which have been brought upon India by the acts of ambitious men, who have deceived their countrymen by false reports and led them into open rebellion. Our power has been shown by the suppression of that rebellion in the field; we desire to show our mercy, by pardoning the offences of those who have been thus misled, but who desire to return to the path of duty.

"Already in one province, with a view to stop the further effusion of blood, and to hasten the pacification of our Indian dominions, our viceroy and governorgeneral has held out the expectation of pardon, on certain terms, to the great majority of those who, in the late unhappy disturbances, have been guilty of offences against our Government, and has declared the punishment which will be inflicted on those whose crimes place them beyond the reach of forgiveness. We approve and confirm the said act of our viceroy and governor-general, and do further announce and proclaim as follows:

"Our clemency will be extended to all offenders, save and except those who have been, or shall be, convicted of having directly taken part in the murder of British subjects. With regard to such, the demands of justice forbid the exercise of mercy.

"To those who have willingly given asylum to murderers, knowing them to be such, or who may have acted as leaders or instigators in revolt, their lives alone can be guaranteed; but in apportioning the penalty due to such persons, full consideration will be given to the cir cumstances under which they have been induced to throw off their allegiance, and large indulgence will be shown to those whose crimes may appear to have originated in too credulous acceptance of the false reports circulated by designing

men.

"To all others in arms against the Government, we hereby promise unconditional pardon, amnesty, and oblivion of all offence against ourselves, our crown and dignity, on their return to their homes and peaceful pursuits.

"It is our royal pleasure that these terms of grace and amnesty should be extended to all those who comply with their conditions before the first day of January next."

In all of this we entirely concur. The terms of the amnesty are substantially those which have already been laid down and acted upon, with the exception of the specification at the close. It is not, we presume,

intended that any very literal interpretation should be given to these orders, or that the terms should be very stringently enforced. There are so many different shades of guilt, even when the offences committed may be described by the same words, that considerable discretion must be given to the local officers. Extenuating circumstances will, doubtless, be taken into consideration; and a strong line of demarcation drawn between those who have been betrayed into hostility, or complicity in hostile acts, and those who have been moved to deeds of violence by their own active malignity. The mere harbouring of murderers may in some cases indicate a very minor degree of guilt. Many have, perhaps, had no choice between harbouring murderers and being murdered themselves. Others may have been compelled by ties of kindred to receive the worst offenders into their houses, not knowing, perhaps, the extent to which their guests have committed themselves. You may give shelter and succour to a murderer, not knowing him to be a murderer; and it may be difficult to prove the absence of all guilty knowledge. The degree of guilt, it is true, may, in some cases, be ascertained by judicial investigation. But we do not see how the solemnity of a judicial trial can be accorded to any but the principal offenders. We cannot try culprits by thousands. In practice, therefore, although the spirit of the Proclamation will doubtless animate all the measures of the local government, its terms cannot be acted upon with much precision; and this, doubtless, was expected and desired. A wide discretion, indeed, must be vested in the Executive. We are not afraid that it will be misused. To all but actual murderers, whom it would be a crime to forgive, the utmost clemency will, we doubt not, be extended. All that we have now to pray for is, that the message may be suffered to be in fact, as in spirit, a message of peace and love; and that the misguided men who have so long defied the British Government, may be moved by the appeal to lay down their arms and become peaceful subjects of the Queen.

Peaceful subjects of the Queen-.

and with the promise of a happy future before them. When, by the blessing of Providence," says the Queen, in the concluding passage of the Proclamation, "internal tranquillity shall be restored, it is our earnest desire to stimulate the peaceful industry of India, to promote works of public utility and improvement, and to administer its government for the benefit of all our subjects resident therein. In their prosperity will be our strength; in their contentment our security, and in their gratitude our best reward: And may the God of all power grant to us, and to those in authority under us, strength to carry out these our wishes for the good of our people." Right noble sentiments right nobly uttered. This, then, is the future of India. What that country may be come if strength is given to Christian men to carry out these royal aspirations, the imagination can scarcely conjecture. The strength that is most needed at the outset is "the strength of love." "Happy," it has been said, are they who have not the blood of kindred to avenge." We feel, when we counsel forgiveness-nay, indeed, compassion for our enemies that too many who read these pages will ask us if we have the blood of kindred to avenge. We know that it is very hard to forgive those who have dyed their hands in the blood of our kindred—nay, indeed, of our countrymen and our countrywomen, and the little ones of whom God's kingdom is madevery hard to love the comrades and countrymen of those who have done such things; we know that it needs such strength as can only be derived from above. But there can be no happy future for India if Victoria's noble message of peace does not find an echo in every English heart. There was a time when we were filled with apprehension lest a common feeling of unextinguishable hatred should take possession of the white man's breast, and every dark face be regarded for ever as the face of a foe. We hope we believe indeed-that this animosity (only rightly, perhaps, to be understood and appreciated on

the spot) is now dying out. It may be long before the old feeling of confidence is restored. Confidence, under any circumstances, is "a plant of slow growth." Very slow its revival when it has once been torn up by the roots. But, with God's help, forgiveness may come quickly-and with forgiveness, compassion. We may think profitably whether we have done all that we might have done to dispose the hearts of the natives of India towards us-whether we have in all respects treated them as men and brethren, and fairly entitled ourselves to their gratitude and affection. We must look humbly at the past-hopefully into the future; turning the terrible lessons of the last two years to profitable account. If individual men will not now look, in a spirit of toleration and forbearance, at their responsibilities, Parliament will have legislated in vainthe Queen will have proclaimed in vain-the new Imperial Government will labour in vain. Truly was it said the other day by Lord Stanley at Addiscombe, that our rule in India depends more upon the personal character of the few Europeans who constitute the dominant race there, than on anything in the world beside. If in that personal character, hatred and pride-not love and reverence-are principal ingredients, alas for the reign of Victoria Beatrix! The people of India are not fiends, or wild beasts, or men devoid of noble feelings and generous emotions. Even these recent miserable events, which have filled so many homes with mourning, have prominently elicited the good qualities of the Indian races, and the good deeds of which they are capable. They who have risen against us are but the few; they who have disgraced their manhood by foul deeds are very few. They have been signally chastised-fearfully punished. Already the white man has had his revenge. Let us think no more, then, of that part of the story, but with one great hymn of forgiveness inaugurate the new era "Glory to God in the highest; on earth peace and good-will towards men.

No one of Mr Carlyle's disciples, we should think, ever became a Carlylist at once. The singularity of style at first puzzles or repelsthe persevering reader then finds some suggestive idea which leads him on till finally the obscurity clears up, the images and ideas shine through, and, in the natural revulsion of opinion which ensues, what was at first distasteful grows to be admirable, and the dubious student, no longer perplexed by the cipher of which he flatters himself he has discovered the key, becomes the uncompromising champion.

But a great number of readers turn back on the threshold, repelled by the startling aspect of that singular phraseology. To them he is merely affected and obscure-even if they have gone far enough to disentangle a leading idea, they perhaps recognise it as a truism in masquerade, and set him down as a charlatan. His writing appears to them to be as Sir Hugh Evans says, "pribbles and prabbles-it is affectations." Between these two classes, the knights who see only the golden side of the shield, and the knights opposite who are blind to all but the brass, we should like to strike some sort of balance of opinion, and find between

VOL. LXXXV.—NO. DXX.

the oscillations a firm stand-point, from whence to survey the History of Frederick-a History marked in its outward aspect by all the strongest peculiarities of the writer.

At the root of all Carlyle's works lies a main idea in a particular aspect. The idea, he tells us, he derived from the transcendental philosophy, as expounded by Fichte: it is this

"That all things which we see or work with in this earth, especially we ourselves and all persons, are as a kind of vesture or sensuous Appearance: that under all these lies, as the essence of them, what he calls the Divine Idea of the World;' this is the Reality which lies at the bottom of all Appearance. To the mass of men no such Divine Idea is recognisable in the world; they live merely, says Fichte, among the superficialities, practicalities, and shows of the world, not dreaming that there is anything divine under them."-Hero Worship.

As the idea of music may exist independent of sound, yet, to be communicable, demands some voice or instrument, so all earthly things are as the tones of music, or under another figure, Vestures, making manifest to our faculties the underlying idea. So what we call rationally Society, is to the transcendentalist the embodied idea of a communion

I