private superintendence. The latter merits attention, not on account of the amount of these grants, which in many cases will be insignificant, but on account of the principle they involve of non-interference with the religious instruction conveyed in these schools. Here is a neutral stutus to which Government never attained before. It is a step towards free religious instruction. Another step similar to this is the new regulation of the Court of Directors, granting permission to place Bibles in school-libraries. In such cases, though restriction from reading them in the school still exists, pupils may go to the library and read for themselves.

But is the old neutrality, so called, a fact or an assumption? Though we think the answer clear from what we have said, we repeat the question, to place it in the light of some additional facts. Indubitably it is only an assumption, and in more respects than

Among the school-books sanctioned by Government, and used in the English department, are McCulloch's Reading-books; and English readers, by looking into them, will see that they contain some useful Christian lessons. It was the contents of these that led to the trumpery charge against the teacher alluded to above. Nor would it be difficult to find departures from neutrality in the opposite direction,-such as the publication at one time of the "Punchopákyan," and at another, of the "Moral Class Book," expurgated of the moral precepts quoted from the Scriptures, and of the statement that it is proper to kill animals for food. But apart from matters religious and moral, as we understood these terms, is there neutrality in teaching a system of geography which ignores the existence of Mount Meru, and asserts that of Ceylon, and an astronomy which represents the moon's nodes as being merely two mathematical points, and not giant demons capable of swallowing the sun and moon, and which describes the earth as spinning on its axis instead of resting on the back of an elephant or the head of the great serpent Sheshnág? Be it always remembered that these tenets, childish as they are, are held religiously, as taught in the Shastras, just as we hold the ten degrees retrogression of

"the shadow on the dial of Ahaz.”

In fine-to expect universal satisfaction were a chimera; and so were it to expect that young men could receive any extended education and be in heart orthodox to the old heathen creeds; and especially so to suppose that in their unfavourable circumstances they could generally give a fair hearing to Christianity. It should be also calculated on, that superficial education will inflate, and that very often no apparent good will result. But none of these circumstances is a valid objection to the cause of education. Let

it be extended, and directed, and improved; but let it go on and prosper. Light is good, though it may dazzle tender eyes. Truth is mighty, though for a time it may be sophisticated.

We do not wonder that an American should-perhaps unintentionally-appear to adduce the public works of Hindu and Mohamedan sovereigns in disparagement of those executed by the British; for we have repeatedly heard the same done by Englishmen in this country. He says:-"The ancient Hindu sovereigns, with such views of their own interests and of the circumstances and expectations of their subjects, constructed roads and bridges to facilitate travel and traffic." (P. 327.) It is a pity he has not told us what description of roads and bridges. We know not whether the knowledge of the construction of a true arch belonged to the Indians any more than to the Egyptians, except as derived from the West. The only bridge we have seen, erected without British influence, is on a road leading through a vast ravine to a cluster of mountain temples. The bridges of ancient Hindu sovereigns may all have yielded to the stream of time, if not to the monsoon torrents. But why do not the roads remain? The roads of the ancient Romans in Italy, Naples, &c. remain to this day, as noble monuments of their public works. Public buildings in Rome, Roman walls in Britain, Egyptian monuments, the Chinese wall, Palmyra, Persepolis remain. But excepting mountain-temples and cave-temples, what have we in India? We are told that "the Mohammedans, who have often been described as semi-barbarians and oppressors"it would appear from this that in the author's opinion they were neither," constructed many noble public works. Feroze Toghluk, who was emperor of Delhi from 1351 to 1388, though engaged in frequent wars, yet found time and means to devise and execute numerous public works for the benefit of his subjects. The following is a list for the maintenance of which lands were assignednamely, 50 dams across rivers to promote irrigation, 40 mosques, 30 colleges, 100 caravanserais, 30 reservoirs for irrigation, 100 hospitals, 100 public baths, and 150 bridges." And farther he adds: "It does appear strange that the English should possess these territories for more than half a century, and have done so little in the way of public works." From the inference we totally dissent,-that the English, in the matter of public works, are behind. What is half a century, the greater portion of which has been spent in desperate struggles, the alternatives being annihilation or paramount power? Give them half a

century of peaceful reign, from the conquest of the Punjab; then institute a comparison with any half century in the reigns of Delhi Moghuls, and we shall abide the verdict. Even now let the forty mosques (which of course were for Mohamedans alone) be compared with Christian churches, their thirty colleges (how abased the name !) with the Government and Missionary educational institutions, the hundred caravanserais (choras or empty sheds) with travellers' bungalows, their hundred hospitals with the British hospitals, civil and military, medical staff, medical schools, dispensaries, vaccination, and it will be easy to tell on which side the advantage lies. Of the hundred public baths we shall give them the full advantage, remembering that these could only have been for Mohamedans, and can only be compared with the private baths attached to all European dwellings. In this, we seek not to avail ourselves of Mr. Elphinstone's very natural doubts about the accuracy of the lists drawn from the round numbers, and other suspicious circumstances.

Here the author acknowledges extensive canals and other works of the English in the great watershed of the Ganges, and these may stand in competition with his Mohamedan works of irrigation, &c. Why did he not include roads to Poona, Mahableshwur, the Neilgherris, with the extensive road systems at those stations, and similar works in the other Presidencies? Why did he take no account of travellers' bungalows, improved shipping, piers (though too few in number), town halls, adawlats, jails, Government houses, public libraries, museums, factories, &c. &c.? Of railways, the telegraph, and steam navigation he writes as only prospective; and we observe no account of the postal system. Of the geological resources, he specifies principally iron and coal. India's dust contains abundance of the former, rich enough to make its working profitable in favourable circumstances, though far short of the rich per-centage of iron in some of the English ores; of the latter there is every reason to believe abundance may exist in some fields. In some districts ironstone, millstone grit, and other accompaniments of coal exist, though from want of faults in the strata the actual presence of coal may remain undecided. In other places coal is found. But it must be remembered that ideas forined from the rich geology of England, and of some districts in the United States, must end in considerable disappointment. Lime for ordinary purposes seems everywhere abundant. Marble is deficient. Oolite, as a beautiful building material, abounds in some places. But statistics of Indian resources, mineral or vegetable, we propose not to discuss.

VOL. V.-NO. I.

5

That they are vast sources of national wealth is true; and all enlightened attempts to open them up must tend to the public good.

Dr. Allen states fairly the much-vexed question of the pecuniary endowments, or lands given to Brahmans and temples :

"In the progress of their conquests the English acquired possession of the provinces containing these temples and sacred places. They did not impose any new taxes on the pilgrims at these temples and sacred places. They only collected such as the previous Governments had established and long collected. These taxes, usages, and ceremonies were adjusted by the artful Brahmans, who shared in the revenues and collections of the temples, so as to exact as much as possible from the deluded pilgrims.......... Thus the English magistrates became apparently the superintendents and managers of these temples and mosques, repairing them, appointing priests to officiate in them, fixing and paying their salaries, paying for illuminations, festivities, ceremonies, &c. But it was said, and probably with some truth, that the expenses sometimes exceeded the income of the endowments, and that the deficiency was supplied from the Government treasury; while, in other cases, the expenses for the temples were less than the income of the endowments, and that the surplus was then paid into the Government treasury." (Pp. 334, 335.)

Into this question we need not now enter formally. Happily there are few out-and-out defenders of these endowments, though some truly good men consider themselves bound by treaties to keep them up. A large amount of unsound argument may be detected on both sides of the question. Thus Dr. Allen also says:-" If any foreign nation should conquer the United States, such conquest and possession of the country would not deprive any person or party of their property, nor any church or college of its endowments, or its chartered rights and privileges. So the conquest of India by the English did not deprive the temples and mosques of their endowments." (P. 334.) Supposing the soundness of this, we do not think the language like an American's. The writer either puts the question as one of fact or one of right. If of fact, everything is at the will and mercy of the conquerors, who may say "we have taken the country, and we shall dispose of its exchequer, its revenues, and its endowments, yea, and its princedoms and nobility with their estates, as we shall think best. We should like to know by what right Lord Clive could seize the treasury and the villages of Suraja Dowla, and yet not touch the villages held by a Brahman. If the Brahman have

a tenure, it is a tenure the prince gave, and if the prince's own title is made a nullity, that which he conferred can fare no better. Why should he disband the conquered armies, yet be bound to continue the support of fakirs and tapsis? If, again, the question is made one of right, we require to know whether Dr. Allen means by "the endowment of a church" its endowment by the State, or only its being the holder of some property as a bequest or donation. If he mean a State endowment, no advocate of established churches could soar higher. But if, as conscientious advocates for the principle of such establishments, we were placed on this pinnacle, we should tremble for our footing. All Governments do at least claim, and have often exercised, the right of changing, disposing, or rescinding public endowments. No endowment in India can be an exception to this. If bequests or private charities were given, and Government became trustees, the representatives of Government as upright men would fulfil their engagements. But the very idea of conquest annuls, de facto, all the engagements of the Government that is annihilated, except in so far as the new Government bind themselves to the old arrangements. Beyond this the question can be discussed on moral grounds alone; and on moral grounds the conclusion of every legitimate logical process will be,-Let not endowments poison the morals of the community. Let that which goes to the support of idolatry go to support a school, or an hospital, or a library, or an industrial institute. We have equal right with Dr. Allen to put a case; and let us put the case that the first Buonaparte had conquered England, and established a permanent French government one of his first measures, as he himself stated, would then have been the abolition of the British House of Lords. Another might have been the disendowment of the Universities and the Churches, and the resumption of all their revenues. Similar measures were adopted in revolutionary France; the estates of the nobility were confiscated, and we believe no idea of their restoration will ever be entertained, nor would their restoration now be possible. The English monasteries in the reign of Henry the Eighth, and the secularisation of a large portion of the ecclesiastical endowments in Scotland after the Reformation, are also examples. The annihilation of twenty-five per cent. of the tithes in Ireland, in the reign of William the Fourth, is of the same nature. The right or wrong of these measures is a separate question, which would generally be decided according to the merits of each case, and the prevailing views of men, as swayed by public feeling. But the fact is plain;