knowledge of the sciences, either in degree or kind, (although many useful and practical rules were taught; and we question whether many bankers, even in the city of London, know so much of astronomy as our old friend the silent professor of the Arabian Nights ;) but upon their literature opinions must necessarily vary. One point is at all events plain, that such learning more resembled that of our colleges and grammar schools, than the elementary teaching of our parochial seminaries. Be it remembered also, that in many extensive portions of India (doubtless at no remote period almost universally) education of an elementary kind forms part of the social system: the schoolmaster of the village is one of the municipal corporation; holding his land and his cottage by the service of his humble but useful occupation; entitled to fixed fees; and teaching the children, (who are all, of whatever caste, specially dedicated to the goddess of learning,) in various degrees, according to their several castes, reading, writing, arithmetic, and certain Sanscrit hymns on moral duties, which they of course do not understand. Surely, therefore, "special encouragement afforded to learning," must be taken to mean the encouragement of the higher parts of literature, the maintenance of professors, the reward of students, who in the East must generally be sustained by the allowances of the princes, and the endowments which are founded by the munificence of former ages.

An Education Committee being appointed to carry into effect the intentions of government, acted upon the principle of encouraging the ancient learning, and of introducing the study of the English language, not as superseding but as accompanying the study of Arabic and Sanscrit. But a new party sprang up, who vehemently advocated the expediency of appropriating the major portion of the funds administered by this committee, to the purpose of teaching English alone. This party ultimately prevailed, and obtained the sanction of the governor-general to their wishes. English schools were established; and men fifty years old are now making such progress, that it is hoped they will, before many years, be able to read "a Book of Selections from the English poets, from Chaucer downwards."

This change appears to be unjust, and inexpedient. It is unjust; for who can fairly assert that the words of the charter, "the revival and promotion of literature, and the encouragement of the learned natives of India," can sanction the diversion of the assigned fund to the establishment of popular English schools? Mr. Trevelyan is of opinion that they can; and supports his sentiments by the following argument, or rather illustration :

It is argued, or rather taken for granted, that by "literature" the Parliament can have meant only Arabic and Sanskrit literature; that they never would have given the honourable appellation of a "learned native to a native who was

familiar with the poetry of Milton, the metaphysics of Locke, and the physics of Newton; but that they meant to designate by that name, only such persons as might have studied in the sacred books of the Hindoos all the uses of Cusagrass, and all the mysteries of absorption into the deity. This does not appear to be a very satisfactory interpretation. To take a parallel case: suppose that the Pacha of Egypt, a country once superior in knowledge to the nations of Europe, but now sunk far below them, were to appropriate a sum for the purpose of "reviving and promoting literature, and encouraging learned natives of Egypt," would any body infer that he meant the youth of his Pachalic to give years to the study of hieroglyphics, to search into all the doctrines disguised under the fable of Osiris, and to ascertain with all possible accuracy the ritual with which cats and onions were anciently adored? Would he be justly charged with inconsistency, if, instead of employing his young subjects in deciphering obelisks, he were to order them to be instructed in the English and French languages, and in all the sciences to which those languages are the chief keys? -Pp. 97, 98.

We utterly deny the justness or candour of this comparison, and the aptness of this illustration. A native could not be termed learned, who should be familiar with the poetry of Milton, unless he understood it; which to do, would involve much greater and more extensive critical knowledge (not only of English, but of other languages) than the popular English-Indian schools propose to give. Familiar readers of Milton do not, we suspect, abound even in our own English schools. And as to Locke and Newton, the latter is not an English author; and the sciences taught by both can be made known far more readily to natives in their own language. Greek is not taught among ourselves for the purpose of reading Euclid. With regard to the "mysteries of Cusa-grass and absorption into the deity," such loose sneers are unworthy of a sober inquirer after truth. Our reply shall be in Mr. Trevelyan's favourite form-by way, that is, of illustration. Suppose that Napoleon had conquered England, and seized upon the revenues of our learned foundations. Let us suppose that, after a time, he, in some relenting moments of clemency, granted a fund, and appointed a French committee, "for the revival and encouragement of literature, and of learned natives." This committee would no doubt discover that the study of the French language would fully satisfy the intention of the Emperor; and that to support innumerable petty French schools was far more likely to manufacture learned natives, than the re-establishment of Oxford, or Cambridge, or Eton. For surely, (their Report would say,) the honourable appellation of "learned natives" is far more deservedly given to one who is familiar with the Henriade of Voltaire, or the philosophy of Diderot, or the physics of Laplace, than to one who can merely tell us the difference between ov μn and μn ov, or inform us what was the precise nature of the sacred herb moly, or laboriously investigate whether Ulysses went down to see the ghosts, or made the ghosts come up to see him. Such a report, no doubt, would be highly approved by the friends of reform at Paris, and controverted only by some bigoted Tories of the English party, friends of abuses. We leave our readers to draw their own

conclusion from this illustration, which is quite as fair and as candid as Mr. Trevelyan's. His second illustration, that relating to the Pacha of Egypt, is yet more infelicitous. His Highness is said to be a man of acute understanding, well able to attach a meaning to the word "revival" as distinct from the word " commencement" or "introduction," and speaking a language which can express the distinction between "antiquity," and "literature." We feel assured that he would not think the introduction of English and French to be the revival of the ancient literature of Egypt. The language of the hieroglyphics possesses no literature: the study of that language, and "of the ritual with which cats and onions were worshipped," belongs to the department of antiquities, (and we should be well pleased to find some papers upon the latter topic.) But the Pacha, doubtless, in reviving ancient learning, would look to the learning which possessed a literature, properly speaking. He would republish the Muhammedan histories of Egypt and of Syria, as well as the poetry of the most flourishing periods of the various dynasties; and he would appoint professors to explain these. Nor, surely, can a better way be devised of civilizing a land, than the study of its true history, and of its own favourite poetry. There is something extremely winning in historical investigation, which gives the mind a taste for literary improvement, and examination, and labour. That Egyptian would be, we think, somewhat more deserving the title of "a learned native," who should be well acquainted with the history of his own wonderful land, than he who could construe fifty lines of Milton with no more than half a dozen blunders, and write off pages of Tyrwhitt's Notes upon Chaucer. We cannot pursue our strictures upon Mr. Trevelyan's arguments in any detail. But before we notice one assertion, which we think remarkably uncandid, we must, in justice to the cause we advocate, remark, that the dispute on Indian education does not turn upon the expediency of introducing the English language and literature into Hindostan. Upon such expediency all parties are agreed. Moreover, let it be borne in mind, that Mr. Trevelyan and those who agree with him, do not propose to substitute the English language upon the ruins of the native. There is an indeterminateness about Mr. Trevelyan's method of reasoning, which may lead many to imagine that such is his design; and no doubt such was the design of his party, and such was evidently the meaning of the Governor-general's ordinance of 1835, by which the system of education was changed. But so speedily was the utter absurdity of this design discovered, so immediately did its impracticability appear, as well as the danger of attempting it, that it was abandoned almost as soon as decreed. Yet, ashamed of revoking the decree, and thus proclaiming its rashness and inadvisedness, they now interpret the ordinance in direct defiance of plain grammatical English: Roma locuta est, and it is a point of honour not directly to reverse the erroneous decision. They now assert,

that they agree with their opponents in their ultimate object, viz. the amelioration of the vernacular dialects of India; and differ with them only upon the method of attaining that object, viz. whether by means of popular English schools, or by introducing English into the native learning, and giving due encouragement to both. The vernacular dialects possess at present so confined a vocabulary, as to be unfit for any but the most common purposes. How to raise and refine them-how to infuse new words into them, fit to express the ideas which our religion, our literature, and our science convey-is the point in debate. Mr. Trevelyan proposes numerous small schools, to teach the people: his opponents advocate as many grammar schools and colleges as possible, to rear up the learned. The latter are of opinion that the English exclusive plan will but create a new vernacular jargon, in the room of the old; that the knowledge of English thus acquired, will much resemble the French of boys' boarding schools-at best colloquial, and scarcely that; and that it is at all events cruel and unjust to strip the learned natives of their due encouragement and reward. An instance of uncandid statement upon which we must advert, is to be found in Mr. Trevelyan's assurance, that a greater number of English books are put forth by the new Education Committee, than were published by the old in Arabic and Sanscrit. The impression which this statement conveys, is, no doubt, that the books so published by the two committees were of similar value and importance relatively; for number is of itself no criterion upon such points. We reply to it in the words of an admirable article in the August Number of the Asiatic Journal, said to be the composition of the very learned and ingenious Sanscrit Professor at Oxford, (Mr. Wilson.) "Thirty-one thousand English books," our author says, were sold by the School-book Society in the course of two years; while the Education Committee did not dispose of Arabic and Sanscrit volumes to pay the expense of keeping them for two months, to say nothing of the expense of printing. Now, in the first place, a mere comparison of numbers proves nothing: tried by this test, works of the highest character would never be printed at all. Pickwick, we suspect, has far outstripped Hallam's Constitutional History; and 'Trevelyan,' some twelve months hence, will cut a sorry figure by the side of Dilworth and Dyche. The English books were,-primers, spelling-books, grammars, readers; the Arabic and Sanscrit books comprehended elaborate works on mathematics and law." Moreover, these latter were not intended chiefly for sale, although they might be purchased, but for gratuitous distribution as class books and prize books. A slight knowledge of English is an universal passport to preferment. Now if (again to copy from Mr. Trevelyan's parabolic way of argument) our government were to found schools of arithmetic in every parish, with the assured promise published at the same time, that all clerkships, superintendentships, subsecretary

66

ships, and every other of the higher grades of the humbler means of maintenance in the kingdom, should be given to those who had learned the Rule of Three Direct, would not the number of these latter eruditi, annually qualified, exceed the number of the first tripos at Cambridge? Would not the number of copies of Walkingame's Tutor's Assistant overwhelm the copies of the Principia, or of the Mécanique Céleste, which should issue from the University press? And what would be the increase in the number of wranglers raised in these prolific hotbeds of youthful intellect !

We must pass over much that we desired to remark-especially the utter failure of the new plan in many places, and its ridiculous results in others-in order that we may be able to offer a few brief observations upon the most important question in this controversy-the question, that is, whether the new plan will be the most effective instrument that can be devised to spread the Christian faith; whether it be wiser to teach our hearers the language in which we propose to address them, or to learn their own. Now, upon this point, we surely have a precedent to guide us. They who would follow the former plan, must think that the miracle of the day of Pentecost would have been more advantageously transferred from the tongue of the apostles to the minds of the multitude; so that the words of those sacred heralds of truth, issuing from them in their native language, might reach the minds of their auditors miraculously translated into their own several dialects; or that the latter might all as miraculously have been endowed with a knowledge of Syro-Phoenician, that the confusion of Babel should have been divinely rectified, and the whole earth be again of one language and of one speech. Such was not the will of Divine Providence. Diversities of tongues, connected in some wonderful manner with diversities of taste and feelings and habits of mind, are permitted obstinately to prevail ; and they who attempt to suppress these diversities will reap disappointment and hatred. Mere translations will not do; we must make disciples by oral instruction; and if we speak as barbarians we shall exhaust all our strength upon the understanding before we affect the heart. Christianity at first opposed the heathen philosophy so far only as that opposed the gospel and propped up paganism: so much is this the fact, that many of the ancient fathers retained certain of the philosophic notions in their schools, which, if pursued to their consequences, were opposed to the true doctrine;-the belief of coeternity of matter, for example. We are bound directly to combat heathenism in all its forms; but we cannot look for the blessing of God, if we shock the innocent feelings of patriotism, and reverence for antiquity, which Christianity may tolerate, and ennoble, and direct. There is much in the English language which must prevent it from becoming the catholic tongue: why, therefore, force it on the reluctant? We may hope that in due time native