actually devolved a large portion of them on the archdeacon. We would make the episcopal relief' thorough.'

Our next desire would be to abolish all military honours, attendance of heathen officials, and whatever else tends to invest the bishop with the character of a great officer of state. The plea upon which these ceremonial observances are defended is that they are the usual forms of public respect in the country, not confined to military men, but extended to judges, envoys, and other civilians. True, but all these are in the service either of the Queen or the Honourable Company, whose authority properly demands a recognition from all classes of their subjects. It is precisely because we would not have the bishop considered in any earthly 'service' that we wish to do away with these badges of earthly honour. If his position should then appear unusual, it will be because his order has nothing equal or like it among the establishments of Government. Let Christians receive their chief pastor with all the honours that can be suggested. Christian officers and soldiers may salute in military fashion if they will; but natives who have never learnt to bow the knee to the Master, ought not to be called upon to pay obeisance to the disciple. We wonder this inconsistency has so long escaped the Directors, in their scrupulous regard for neutrality.

In seeking thus far to weaken the official character of the episcopate, our object is to give greater prominence to its Christian and ecclesiastical aspect. We will now mention the provisions which strike us as further requisite to this end.

In order to abolish the humiliating dependence of the Indian Church on the Governments of the day, we desire to see the salaries allotted to the bishops and archdeacons, as well as their allowances for visitation charges, converted into permanent endowments. These may remain if necessary, for a time, an annual charge on the revenue; but our ultimate object is to have the capital sum laid out in land; or, what may perhaps suit the circumstances of India better, the land revenue of certain districts transferred to the Church as Jaghires for the support of the episcopate. If this conversion were properly managed, a fund for the future increase of the episcopate would be supplied,' and the Government be entirely separated from payments which certainly do not harmonise with their professions of neutrality in religious matters.

Next, we are of opinion that the charter so long solicited by the Metropolitan for the incorporation of a Chapter at Calcutta

1 That an increase is needed, is, of course, not to be doubted for a moment: we only wish it to be the growth of the country; not an external mechanism obtruded by Act of Parliament.

should be immediately granted; and further, that the same privilege should be extended to the cathedrals of Madras and Bombay. The East India Directors, after subscribing 15,000l. to the Calcutta cathedral, and adding another chaplain to their establishment for its service, are now objecting to the Bishop's application for letters patent to incorporate his Chapter, on the pretence that to erect any other corporation in India would be prejudicial to the Company's authority. Nothing could be more futile. The Supreme Court of Judicature has a charter from the Crown, by which it is established as an independent authority. The Queen's Commander-in-Chief is independent; and the bishops themselves are ecclesiastical corporations sole, established by letters patent from the Crown, and legally unconnected with the Company's government. There could be no possible inconvenience in incorporating, by the same authority, a capitular body to advise and assist in the execution of the episcopal office. Such a body is precisely what is most needed to remedy the anomalies now existing in India, and give extension and permanence to the Church, without involving 'Government agency.'

We do not stop to inquire whether the patent as proposed by the Bishop of Calcutta, and settled by the law officers of Sir R. Peel's administration, contains in all respects the most eligible provisions. It is a noble design, conceived in an ardent spirit, and carried forward with splendid liberality; it would be ungenerous to criticise, unwise to mutilate it. The Bishop has given upwards of 22,000l. from his own purse, bringing the endowment fund up to 30,000l., besides 80,000l. spent on the edifice; 15,000l. more is ready to be added from the Begum Sumroo's Fund, which is at the Bishop's disposal; and he would have collected another 15,000l. before now, but for the unreasonable jealousy displayed against the regular constitution of his Church. We should esteem it a heavy blow and a great discouragement,' if the vault under the altar of S. Paul's, Calcutta, should be opened to receive the bones of its founder before his eyes had seen his devout aspirations realized, and these munificent offerings to God's service resting in the guardianship of a lawful Chapter.

We say, then, that not only should the Calcutta patent be perfected without delay, but that the time is arrived for the esta-` blishment of similar institutions at the other presidencies; and

further: we confidently affirm that the Indian revenues may and ought to be charged with their endowment. This assertion brings us into collision with sundry propositions which pass for maxims at the India House; and as these will meet us at every branch of the inquiry, both as to Church efficiency

and native education, we may as well proceed at once to examine them.

Foremost is the statement of Sir James Melvill, that

'The Directors have laid it down as a principle, that the religious benefit of the servants of Government is the only ground upon which an ecclesiastical establishment can be maintained at the charge of the Indian revenue.'

This principle we must beg leave to examine. And, first, we would ask how long it has entered into the system of the Indian governments? It was clearly not the principle of the Brahminical princes, who endowed the pagodas with the vast revenues which our own Government only lately ceased to administer. It was not the principle of the Mahometan invaders, who carried on the conversion of their subjects through the government agency' of the sword. It was not the principle of the Portuguese, when they endowed bishoprics and vicarages for the permanent establishment of the Roman Catholic religion. It was not the principle of the authors of the East India Company's Charter, when they imposed a provision for the instruction of their Gentoo slaves in the Protestant faith; nor of the Imperial legislature in later times when it charged the Indian revenues with the support of three episcopal sees. Finally, the Company's governments knew nothing of such a principle all the time of their connexion with idolatry, when they paid for idols, sacrifices, and priests out of revenues administered by their officers, and the balance of which was carried to the public account.

However plausible, then, this principle may sound, it has never been practically recognised, nor can the authorities who assert it make it square with their own proceedings. At the foot of an account prepared at the East India House, we find the following remark:

There are also about thirty priests of the Portuguese Church drawing allowances at rates varying from 10 rupees to 15 rupees per mensem, for ministering to the wants of the native members of their Church. THESE STIPENDS HAVE BEEN PAID FROM TIME IMMEMORIAL, and are quite exceptional, no provision being made in any other place for the spiritual wants of either Protestants or Roman Catholics not being servants of Government.'— Commons' Sixth Report, App. No. 6.

No doubt these payments are 'exceptional,' from the rule now laid down at the India House; but that this rule is itself the exception from the practical system of the Indian Governments, is shown from these stipends having been paid from time immemorial. They were probably inherited from the Portuguese government. We could point also to Government allowances made to Swartz, Gericke, and other Protestant Missionaries for the support of their Missions and schools. But

it is only necessary to refer to the present state of the Company's ecclesiastical establishments in the presidency towns to see that, in respect both to chaplains and churches, others than the servants of Government are provided.

6

How indeed, upon their principle,' will the Directors justify the assistance already given to the new cathedral at Calcutta? The English congregation worshipping therein may be chiefly, though not entirely, composed of Government servants (for whom, however, other churches had before been provided), but this will hardly save the principle.' In laying the foundation-stone, the Bishop publicly proclaimed his design in these words ::

In the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, one God blessed for ever, I lay this foundation-stone of the Cathedral Church of S. Paul, Calcutta, designed for a body of devout and learned clergy to conduct the worship of Almighty God therein, according to the doctrine and discipline of the Apostolic Protestant Church of England and Ireland, and to unite with these duties the functions of lecturers on the evidences of the truth of Christianity, and pastors and teachers amongst the heathen and Mahomedan population.'—Ibid. Qu. 7958.

So that here not only other than Government servants' are provided for, but conversion' itself is a principal object of an institution to which the Company could still subscribe £15,000. There is no ground whatever, then, for supposing that the alleged principle was ever a recognised rule of action to the Indian Government. It is important to note this, or we may be told by-and-by that the faith of Government is pledged to the natives for its observance.

Is the principle, then, sound in itself? We say, no: the duty of a Government in this respect is not different towards subjects and servants. If it be their duty to supply the one with the means of religious worship and teaching, it is equally their duty to supply the other. If it be wrong (as the insinuation runs) to take the money of the heathen tax-payer to provide for the worship of his Christian fellow-subject, it must be no less wrong to take it for the spiritual benefit of his European masters, who are far better able to provide for themselves. If you justify the latter on the plea that it is for the benefit of the tax-payer, that having Christian masters they should be preserved under the influence of their religion instead of lapsing into atheism, the answer is obvious, that the interests of society no less require the same care of the Christian community. In point of principle there is no distinction, and the attempt to draw it appears to rest upon a mistaken analogy.

In England, where there is an Established Church-established mainly through royal encouragement and endowments— the Government has no occasion to provide the means of reli

gion, except for those whom the public service, or the sentence of the law, withdraws from the ordinary opportunities. It provides for soldiers and sailors, but not for civil and political servants; it has chaplains in workhouses and prisons, but not in Downing-street or Whitehall. This precedent does not justify the Indian Government in providing clergymen for all classes receiving its pay, and leaving all the rest of their fellowChristians without provision, in a land where the public endowments are wholly in the possession of the heathen.

In England, again, the Government has no revenue but what is drawn from the taxes, which by our constitution are expended under the control of the people. But in India, the natives have no voice either in assessing or expending the revenue, which in fact partakes more of the nature of rents and royalties, than of taxes. As a wider latitude is allowed, so greater responsibilities appertain to proprietors than to mere administrations. Nothing wrong or unjust should be attempted by either; but it is the conscience of the owner that decides in the one case, and of the people in the other. Would it be unjust to the other tenants to provide for the spiritual wants of those who profess the religion of Government? that is the question.

After a long protection of idolatry, the Directors have been suddenly seized with the conviction that neutrality to every form of religion is the only consistent policy. But where in all the world-save perhaps in some of the United States of America— is such a principle' to be discovered? And is a young and vigorous republic, where Government is of small account in any thing, to furnish precedents for oriental monarchies, where the sovereign owns every foot of the soil, and centuries of despotism have taught the abject millions to regard the State as the impersonation of power? If the practice of European monarchies be any rule, it would be nearer the truth to say that Government is bound to provide for all the religions of their Indian subjects, rather than to disregard them all. In fact, Mahomedanism and idolatry are cared for. The means of worship have been provided by former Governments in sufficient abundance for all their votaries, and no one proposes to disturb these endowments. Christianity alone is destitute; it would be but even-handed justice to admit her to similar advantages.

There remains one objection to be encountered, but that has been disposed of years ago.

Apprehensions as to the consequences of Government interfering to afford facilities for the instruction of natives in the Christian religion appear to be felt by distinguished persons in India, better acquainted with the feelings of the people here than residents in England can be.'—Analysis, p: 122.