may it, on the other hand, be quite adequate to the utterance of the sounds of any given language and yet not so well fitted to the purpose ; e. g. to supersede even a much less adequate character that may have once got into use, the dis usage of which might be attended with far more serious mischiefs than any benefit from the introduction of a more philosophical alphabet should counterbalance. Who can point out a more inadequate character than the Roman to express the current sounds of our native English? yet who would venture gravely to propose the invention or mutuation of a substitute, how. ever excellently well-fitted, avowing any the smallest persuasion that would be listened to?

I have proved the inadequacy of the Roman alphabet to be applied to the written languages of Asia: in doing so I have, by inference also and incidentally, shewn its unfitness in some respects; but I by no means rest the decision of that uafitness upon the few arguments so inci dentally alleged, and must not be so understood. To this effect I clearly expressed myself in my former remarks: stating that "I had, abstractedly considered, no objection to make to the adoption of the Roman alphabet for written communication among a people yet without one of their own. In such a case the only question with me would be one of expediency, to be determined by aptitude, facility, and many other considerations "besides mere adequacy; or, in other words, by its fitness in other respects ;" which I did not there, and cannot here, enlarge upon.

I am glad, in conclusion, to have it from B. himself, that “it is a mere waste of labour to prove that any existing alphabet or any newly invented symbols whatever," might, by the process of omission and of diacritical distinction, become adequate to express any sound of the human voice ;'" and that in his opinion, that is "a proposition which could not possibly be dis puted." Because, however clear to him the distinction I have drawn between that as a previous question and the subsequent one of selection, it is not equally so to all,-and by many the mere proof, that the Roman alphabet, as modified by Sir W. Jones and now vigorously pressed into a service that great scholar never certainly comtemplated, might be rendered adequate, was taken to mean that none other could! not that this was reasoned out, but assumed: i. e. there was a mystification upon the subject which it was my business to expose. Of that mystification many minds, it is to be feared, are not however even yet disabused; not all have even now learned to see, that were the Roman alphabet incomparably more adequate even than it is, (and I have shewn it, in my former paper, to be strikingly inadequate,) still its fitness to be employed to supersede the indigenous alphabets of India is altogether another question, to be decided on other and wider grounds than mere typographical compressibility, or any other near and palpable circumstance whatever, while leav ing out of view larger and greatly more important considerations, such as those some few of which I only glanced at in my former remarks. I may return to this question hereafter; thus much I have stated only to meet the remarks of B., of whom I now take leave with equal esteem and cordiality.

V.-The Connexion of the British Government with the

Idolatry of India.

The Government of British India appears determined to continue its disgraceful connexion with the idolatry of the country, while the religious and humane portion of the community at home and abroad appear to be equally resolved on its dissolution.

The parties have fully and fairly entered the arena, and those who feel an interest in the elevation and happiness of the human race must watch the progress and issue of the contest with the most inteuse anxiety. The inequality of the combatants might at once decide that the palm must be ceded to the ruling powers, but the battle is not always to the apparently strong, nor the race to the swift. The posses. sion of power does not always ensure success-not even in ordinary concerns, much more when the object contended for is inseparably connected with the morality and salvation of mankind. There is a God that ruleth in the earth; he is a jealous God, he will neither give his glory to another, nor will he allow his servants to transfer it to the gods of the heathen. We do, without laying any peculiar claim to foresight, safely predict what the termination of this conflict will be. The Government must be defeated if it will not yield. The data on which our assurance rests is the page of history, confirmed by the experience of every day. It is true of nations, as of individuals that though a sinner do evil an hundred times and escape with impunity, yet shall punishment eventually overtake him. Our own convictions are, and we state them without hesitation or reserve, that if the Government of India or any other government will deliberately and perseveringly maintain such a connexion as that which now subsists, with the warning and entreaties of the servants of God sounding in their ears, sooner or later the same fate will overtake them which overtook the Egyptians for their oppression of the church, and which fell upon the Israelites for their abandonment of God and admixture of truth with the errors of the surrounding idolaters. Entertaining such views, and having in former papers brought forward painfully satisfactory evidence of the union which subsists between the British Government of India and the idolatry of the country, it now devolves upon us in defence of our conduct to show that the union involves the sacrifice of moral principle; is an act of cruelty to the natives; infringes the rights of conscience of some of the best servants of the Government, and is one of the foulest blots on our divine and blessed faith. It is THE spot in our feasts of charity. We have assumed, and we think rightly, in this series of papers, that the Government of India is bonâ fide a Christian Government, and that it should be influenced alone by Christian motives. Nothing advanced by our contemporaries has for a moment induced a different estimate either of its character or its duty-not but that we are quite open to conviction, for we would much rather it were clearly demonstrated that the Government was any thing but Christian, so long as it adopts line of policy so questionable. But if it is not Christian, what is it? Musalmáu ? No.-HinVII. 3 A

du? No. It is like the image of prophecy-a union of clay, iron, wood, gold, and every naturally unadhesive substance, awaiting a similar fate. The present Government of India is, we reiterate, a Christian Government: it is composed of Christian men-men who in all the relations of life are professedly governed by Christian principles, and who would consider it the greatest insult you could offer them to suppose they would by a public act, adopt a line of conduct which would be a positive suicide of every thing virtuous and upright in moral character. Men who as fathers, husbands, brothers, and private Christians are governed by the principles of the gospel, but who as rulers legislate for the continuance of that which imprints a lie on their own faith, and degrades the character of God. Strange anomaly! The legislator puts off the Christian at the door of the council chamber and puts on the-we have no expression capable of conveying the idea of the character he assumes. Those who compose the council of Government are Christian men, held under Christian principles in every place but that council. All the subordinates are Christian men. Every day and hour are they such save when they ascend the judgment-seat or enter the council chamber; except when they think or legislate for the millions committed to their charge. This position has been denied, but not disproved: there is one position however undeniable-the Government of India is composed of Christian men. This is the character of the parent Government, the character which this one assumes at home, and it is the character which it assumes to the natives whatever we may think to the contrary. What would be thought in Britain if it should be fairly stated that the end for which the British Government in India existed was to uphold and perpetuate the religions of Muhammad and Brahma? what a burst of righteous indignation would fall on the rulers of India. Yet this is the professed principle and practice of this Government, nor will all the caution which they can manifest, in theory, while they have such a practice, prove to the natives that the Government has but two principal objects in view-the amassing of money and the ultimate propagation of Christianity-two objects than which none can be more dissimilar; but which are still inseparably connected in the native mind. If it is not, why are natives so sensitive as it respects all the religious movements of Government? And if they have formed this estimate, in what a contemptible light must the subjects view their rulers, who are ashamed to avow their desire that the religion on which their own hopes rest for salvation, and which they believe to be the only true religion on earth, ashamed even to avow their desire that the light of this religion should enter the heart or cheer the path of their poor Hindu or Musalman subjects. One of the best illustrations of Native feeling in reference to religious matters with which we have become acquainted is, that of a father who was solicited to send his boy to a Government School, and who in substance answered "No, I will not entrust the education of my son to the hands of men who profess a religion they are ashamed to teach, and teach only those religions they declare to be a lie; either they are designing men or they have a bad faith. I would not do so."

Should either the former or the latter position be denied, we have still this stronghold to which we can continually resort; the Government of India are a body of men representing a Christian people, a people before whom they would tremble to acknowledge that they had acted in other than a Christian manner and for Christian purposes in this heathen land. We should rather like to see that servant of Government who would like to meet an assembly of Englishmen (not the scandalized meetings of Exeter Hall), and unblushingly and in his undisguised mother tongue avow that he had acted upon the principle of this Government. Such a declaration would not meet with a response from the most latitudinarian whig mob. Every man would be ashamed of a Government which had so far forgotten its character and that of the people it represented, that with the expression of liberality on its lips, it excluded but one religion from its schools and connexion and that religion its own!!! Their cry would be, Be Hindu-Be Musalmán. But be decided, and do not by a vacillating course of conduct rob your country of that which is its chief prideits decision; or of that which is the chief source of its elevation and happiness-its religion. But the Government of India represents a much higher class, or rather we should say, it misrepresents them. The religious and humane of our country, What would they say to hear from the lips of a civil or military servant, that he had by express command sanctioned the horrors of heathenism, and the blasphemies of the Musalmán faith; that he had stood and commanded his companions in arms to fire salutes at the festival of any god which the locality might choose to reverence. Would not the upright exclaim, "Oh Lord, how long, how long shall those that are called by thy name sanction these blasphemies?" The Christians in Britain do not understand this subject; but when they do, we shall hear that calm but overwhelming expression of indignation rising against its abettors which rose against and overwhelmed the oppressors of Africa's injured race.

The Government of India as the representatives of the British people are in one sense the representatives of the one true God; and how have they represented Him? or rather, what indignity do they not offer him by the support they afford to perpetuate a system which strikes at the very basis of his throne and robs him of his glory? We are aware that this will be set down as madness and fanaticism, as uncharitable raving and assuming that judgment which belongs to God alone. To this we have but one reply-we write the words of soberness and truth-words which derive all their force from the results of daily experience and the testimony of history. The God we serve, and whom this Government dishonors and insults, is the same that broke the power of the Babylonish sovereign, and who has driven into scattered exile his own people, because the one and the other forgot his claims and despised his authority. Not only does the Government of India represent a free and enlightened people but it contains in its own body many who feel the burden of their office, many who feel they have engaged in a profession which they too late discover demands a sacrifice of every feeling valued by a man and a

Christian. What a position is it for a Christian Government to place its upright servants in, that they shall not dare to open their lips to instruct an erring mortal in the way of life, and that they must not dare, except under the fear of the displeasure of their honorable masters, to publicly sanction the missionary teachers of their own faith. What shall we think of a Government that will exact as a pledge from one of its chief ecclesiastical functionaries that he shall not move in this or any similar subject? and make it the sine qua non of his appointment? What shall we say of a Government who could censure one of the holiest and best men that ever trod the shores of India for calmly representing for himself and colleagues the conscientious scruples which they entertained on this subject? and who could designate such calm and respectful remonstrances as attempts to goad the Government into acquiescence, and who will further attempt to silence the voice even of petition by a threat that the evils we deplore shall just be perpetuated in proportion to the vigour of our efforts to suppress or modify them? What shall we think of the neutrality of a Government who will designate its public servants, who in their private movements would teach the Natives the fear and love of God, "Missionary collectors" and "proselyting zealots," and represent them in the discharge of a conscientious duty to God, as attempting to sow the seeds of disBension and disaffection towards the British Government? What shall we say of such conduct, by such a Government, to such servants? What! but that it is subversive of every principle of civil and religious liberty, and that it is as arbitrary as the most conclusive ukase that ever issued from the most absolute despot! It is the most direct infringment of that which is the unalienable birthright of every man, liberty of conscience and speech; yet such is the course of conduct pursued by the British Government towards its upright and religious servants. The injustice and anti-neutrality of the conduct is increased by the course of conduct pursued towards other religionists. A Musalmán may attempt the conversion of a Hindu or vice versâ, nothing is opposed; or an infidel may unsettle the faith of both, and be unmolested; and should these transfers take place, every civil protection is afforded the subject-but how different should the Christian open bis lips and succeed, he is silenced and his converts left to be the victims of both religious and civil injustice. Where every thing evil is to be apprehended from the transition, nothing is provided; but where nothing but good is anticipated, the whole influence of a despotic Government is called in to aid the many in oppressing the few, and that not because they the Government esteem the oppressors right, but because they are the many. The majority of the human race roam in a state of nudity-will the councillors of India recommand that? Why not, they are the many. A Musalmán or a Hindu has only to complain how obnoxous it is for him to assist at the religious festival of the opposing sect and he is relieved, but let the oppression of the Christian be ever so heavy or let his objections spring from ever so enlightened a conscience, he may complain but in vain for relief and have insult added to this refusal. We are not in the habit of invoking any save the good spirit of our God, yet we cannot but help exclaim