a more correct likeness. The truth of this assertion was to be found in their laws. He did not refer to the opinions of any philosopher who might have appeared among the Hindus, but to their sacred books, to their Bible, to their New Testament. These were the sources by which his judgment was guided; and if he found that their ordinances were of a sanguinary nature, he concluded that such an effect took its rise either from the sanguinary character of the people, or from the sanguinary nature of their religion; or, perhaps, was occasioned by the mutual reaction of both these causes. But let the House for one moment contrast the creed which the Missionaries preached, with the doctrines of the religion of Brahma, and then let them say, whether there did not exist the strongest reasons for desiring and attempting to bring about the exchange. What, for instance, were the principles by which they were guided in the treatment of women? The Honourable Gentleman had indeed favoured them with a very amiable picture of the domestic harmony and happiness which prevailed in India. But when the fact was examined, it would be found that the Hindu women were regarded and treated by the men as slaves. Their religion and their laws authorized such treatment; and, its justice not being disputed, it was regularly practised. To prove this he would quote one of their sacred books respecting "the character of women,"-the character not of an individual woman, abandoned to every vice, but of the whole sex, as laid down in The Institutions of Menu. He says, "Women possess six qualities;-first, an inordinate desire of finery-second, immoderate lust-third, violent anger-fourth, deep and dark resentment-fifth, malignant envy-and sixth," (as a most lame and inadequate corollary from these premises) "irregular and vicious conduct." Such was the dictum of Menu; and he would call on the House to compare it with that sweet state of domestic society, the description of which the Honourable Gentleman had given them. Now, he revered Christianity in the first instance, as affording the strongest sanctions to the most correct and beautiful system of morality; and, abstracted from any other idea, these morals (so pure and excellent in themselves, but, when compared with those of the Hindus, appearing still more admirable) imposed it on the House as an imperious duty to disseminate that religion among the natives of Hindostan. If he did not believe one iota of its Divine origin, yet as a philosopher and a philanthropist, convinced as he was of its tendency to make men better and happier, he should feel most anxious to establish it on the shores of India, that it might displace that cruel and bloody superstition which at present reigned there. Surely it would not be contended, that because Christianity had not always produced its proper fruit, (a failure in no degree to be attributed to the religion itself), that therefore no attempt should be made to pro

mulgate it. Would it be argued, that because all Christians, were not better than all Hindus, therefore the moral code of the latter was preferable?

In speaking, however, of the natives of India, it was not to be presumed, that their character was the same from the Ganges to Cape Cormorin. The Hindus of Bengal were, he believed, more unprincipled than those of any other province. The Honourable Gentleman had not resided there any more than Mr. Orme, whom he quoted as to the general character of the people. And if the greatest number of our Indian subjects were to be found in that province with which the Honourable Gentleman was not acquainted; and if they were represented by those who knew them : as an extremely depraved people, he conceived that this weakened the Honourable Gentleman's anthority in a considerable degree, and strengthened the opposite side of the question. The Honourable Gentleman had read an extract from a Hindu book, which evinced just sentiments of the attributes of the Deity; and the House had listend to it with pleasure as a beautiful composition. But how did it bear on the question before them? Did the Honourable Gentleman suppose that the conduct of the mass of the Hindus was guided by their reverence for a Supreme Being? Did he imagine, because some of the Hindu philosophers had formed just notions of a great First Cause, that therefore the people were generally acquainted with the doctrine, and were improved by it? The common people in every heathen country have ever been far more influenced by the characters of their sub-, ordinate gods; and their own have always been formed after those models, and not on that of the Deity whose greatness and power, whose wisdom and benignity, might have been celebrated by some of their poets or philosophers. To exemplify this, let us look to Homer and the other Grecian poets. They would find in them many expressions of as sublime devotion as any in the Hindu books. But then, if we examine their portraits of the inferior deities, and consider the character of the populace, we must perceive that the manners of the mass of the people were formed on the models of Bacchus and Mars, Mercury and Venus, rather than on any abstract idea of an Almighty and all-perfect Creator. Socrates had conceived a most sublime idea of the Deity: and he had promulgated his views with all the beauty of eloquence, and all the force of argument. But it did not appear. that the Athenians in general were even acquainted with his doctrines, or were at all influenced by them. What was said to the Athenians by the Apostle, might be very properly applied to the Hindus, even admitting them all to possess that knowledge which was really confined to a very few. He found at Athens an altar dedicated "to the Unknown God;" and he observed, as we

१

might to the most enlightened Hindus, "Whom ye ignorantly worship, Him declare we unto you."

But to form a just estimate of the Hindu mind and character, Gentlemen must trace them in their actions; and if they found a people, who, in obedience to a blind idolatry, esteemed it an enormous crime to kill a cow, even for food, but scrupled not to treat the living animal with brutal severity; would he from them expect, even towards their fellow-men, a rational and consistent humanity? If they found a people immersed in superstition, who believed that by bathing in the Ganges, or some other holy stream, they would be absolved from all taint of crime; among whom a number of senseless words or ridiculous ceremonies 'should stand in place of all morality; could they expect, under so great a temptation to err, that such a people would abstain from vice, when they could commit what crimes they pleased, and then obtain expiation in so easy a mode? If the Honourable Gentleman discovered that their gods were addicted to falsehood, 'would he wonder at finding perjury pervading even their legal testimony? Or would he consider the effects of such a belief as equally favourable to morals or to happiness, with those which necessarily result from regarding the Deity as pre-eminently the God of Truth? If he found a cast who were permitted, with absolute impunity, to commit the greatest enormities; crimes the basest, the most loathsome, the most abhorrent to human nature; and if they were thus privileged, chiefly for the purpose of sinking and keeping below the level of the brutes those casts which were beneath them, would he not suppose that the possession of such a power, and the abuse of it, would naturally follow each other? And yet such was the character which all travellers through India had, for the last two centures, given of the Brahmins. Nay, 'to such a degree did their tyranny go, that however just the 'notions of the Deity which their Shasters taught to the lower casts, it was of no consequence. They were forbidden to read, even to listen to their books, under pain of death. If this be true, the question was how best to remedy the evil. This was not to be attempted by force; it could only be done by convincing them that such practices were contrary to morality and to human hap'piness; and this lesson could not be inculcated with so much force and effect by any other means as by the dissemination of Christianity. But if Gentlemen in this country, which was called Christian, believed the morals of the Hindu code to be equally pure with those of the Gospel; if they supposed Christianity to have been sent down upon earth for nothing; if they conceived that it was dangerous to propagate it, let them say so distinctly. Those who felt differently would then know how to act; and although such sentiments would sound better on the other side of the Gulph of Persia than in that House, yet those who heard

them would be enabled to judge more accurately of the sincerity, in many other points, of the advocates of such doctrines than they could at present.

The Honourable Gentleman, in the course of his speech, had repeatedly introduced the terms piety and pious, which he appeared extremely fond of applying to the Hindus and their religious rites. But he would appeal to his good sense, to his serious and sober judgment, to say, whether those rites which he said he had often witnessed, deserved the name of piety; and whether those persons who used them could be called pious. It was a gross misapplication of the terms, when they were made use of tó describe a dark and dreadful superstition. What did the Honourable Gentleman think of that Deity who was to be propitiated by one of his votaries thrusting hooks through his back, and suffering himself, in that situation, to be swung round for hours? Perhaps he would say, that this was done to procure money. If so, what became of the piety of the Brahmins? And if, on the other hand, it were done to propitiate their god, what must be thought of that religion, which enjoined such absurd cruelties? If, as had been said, the burning of women with their husbands was greater under the British than under the Mohammedan government, he thought that circumstance afforded a strong argument in favour of attempting to banish the hideous custom, by a more extended effort for the dissemination of Christianity than had hitherto been made. With respect to the custom itself, whether it formed a part of the Hindu religion or was only insisted on by the Brahmins, it made equally against the argument of those gentlemen who advocated the opposite side of the question. If the women burned voluntarily; if such an immolation was one of the religious rites of the Hindus; what became of the mild character of their religion, and what became of the wisdom of the Brahmins, who taught their disciples the necessity of submitting to such a dreadful death? If the women did not aet voluntarily; if they were forced on to destruction; what then became of the system which permitted such horrible practices? In what a detestable light must the Brahmins then appear, if they were the willing ministers of this cruelty, which their religion did not enjoin, but which they encouraged, that they might still retain their ascendancy over the other casts, of whom more than two-thirds were wholly subservient to them? Let Gentlemen take either side of this dilemma; in or out of that House, he thought it was impossible to explain it away.

With respect to that sweet state of domestic affection, of which the Honourable Gentlemen had given them so pleasing an account, he should be glad to know what branch or species of affection it was that could induce a man to marry from one to thirty wives, in the perfect conviction that, if they survived him, they must

either perish by the most cruel death, or lead an ignominious and degraded life? The Honourable Gentleman, as he could not answer this, had recourse to his old system of doubting, which certainly was a very convenient way of evading the force of an argument. But he must contend, that what he had asserted was strictly true. And it was evident, that such a state of things, instead of producing domestic affection, must destroy affection altogether. An instance of this kind of horrible infatuation was then in the hands of many Members. A poor wretch, destined to be burnt on the funeral pile with the dead body of her husband, took occasion to disengage herself from the corpse, and flee to a neighbouring thicket; but it being discovered there was but one body on the pile, she was sought after, and brought back to the barbarous sacrifice from which her agonies had driven her; and, dreadful to relate, her own son was foremost to force her back to this horrible immolation. She entreated to be excused; but so strong was the influence of cast, that the very son forced back his mother to the pile from which she had escaped, exclaiming that he or she should die; and, aided by the ministers of this pure and holy religion, he bound his own mother hand and foot, and threw her on the pile on which she was burnt to death! Now, this was not a mere chimerical speculation: it was a well-attested fact, and one of many that were within the knowledge of living witnesses.

Facts like these convinced him not only of the necessity of some step being taken to ameliorate the conlition of such a people; but when he recollected that these barbarities were probably performed under the eye of the British Government in India, it was indeed a lamentable and most culpable indifference not to put forth a helping hand, and attempt to prevent it. Preferring, as he did, the mild and rational system of Christianity, and strongly deprecating the pernicious system of Hindu superstition, he could not persuade himself but that it was the duty of the British Legislature, of every body of men, and of every individual, in a country professing itself to be Christian, to seek, by every prudent means, to bring about that improvement which must inevitably, though gradually, abolish the exercise of rites so shocking to reason and humanity.

He should now leave off, as he had commenced, by protesting against all force, and by declaring, that those who desired the promotion of Christianity in India were not quite so mad, nor urchristian in their principles, as some persons were disposed to represent them. The spirit of their faith taught them, that to convert the Hindus at the point of the bayonet, or to convince them of the Divinity of Christianity by oppression and cruelty, VOL. XXXVI. DECEMBER, 1813.