The Sun.
London, England, 1839-08-26 00:00:00

PRICE sd.

IDOLATRY IN INDIA.

TO THE RIGHT REV. THE LORD BISHOP
OF LONDON.
MY LORD —lt is not on account of the particular
connexion which I happen to have had with the subject
of your Lordship's motion in the House of Lords en
Tuesday last, but it is as a member o! the Christion
community that I desire to acknowledge myself deeply
indebted to your Lordship for the zoal and ability with
which your Lordship on that occasion exhibited ti.e
true state of the question which has lately been agi-
tated, in respect to the propriety of our assisting in the
heathenish rights of the Hindoo worship.
Next to the importance of giving to the people of
this country an accurate knowledge of the truth as it re-
spects this question, it is material to its right and satis-
factory adjustment that the efforts which are used to
that end should not be misapprehended in India, either
in respect to their object or extent. And lam per.
suaded that if pains are taken to prevent misapprehen-
sion, there will be found on the one hand no resentment,
and on the other no occasion for alarm.
There are one or two points in respect to which any
public discussion of the question in this country is too
likely to afford ground for erroneous impressions, either
because all who take part in the discussion have not that
intimate knowledge of its several bearings which oppor-
tunities of local observation can alone confer, or because
such as have enjoyed those opportunities are too apt to
imagine that it is not necessary to explain distinctly what
to themselves is so familiar and obvious.
I do not mean that in the statements and observations
of your Lordship any room was afforded for the error
to which I more particularly allude ; but from the tone
of some part of the highly interesting discussion which
followed, it is possible that an erroneous idea might be
formed of the change which every Christian must desire
to see introduced into the practice of our Government
in India. It cannot be too plainly avowed, or too
earnestly inculcated, that all that was intended by the
Court of Directors in their despatch of 1833, and all that
is desired by those who wish to see that despatch faith-
fully acted up to is, that the Hindoos shall be left to
perform by themselves their acts of public worship to
their idols, unaided and unmolested by the civil or
military authorities of the Company.
Hitherto we have given our positive countenance and
active support to this idolatrous worship. That hence-
forth we should abstain from doing so is the only change
that is contemplated, or ever has been contemplated.
Neither the Government, nor any of its servants, have
proposed or desired that the natives should, by any
compulsion, be constrained to abandon their own
religious observances or to adopt ours.
However slow may be the effect of teaching, example,
and persuasion, the most zealous Christian was not
only content to look to no other human means of con-
version, but
to any other.
That himselfoter. prohibited by his religion
from
That we do either intend or wish to propagate the
Christian religion by force, in our Eastern possessions,
is not imagined by any part of the people there, and
there is no point on which we ought to be more careful
than to preclude the possibility of such an inference
being drawn, from anything that may be done, or said,
in this country.

But, ,on the other hand, nothing can be more vain
and unreasonable than the fears of those persons who
imagine that the forbearing to assist in the superstitious
and idolatrous worship of the East will excite tumult
and hostility, and be resented by the natives as an inva-
sion of their religious freedom.

Blind as their attachment is to their superstitions,
they do not require that we should become idolaters :
and I venture to assert, that whenever the Government
shall think fit to allow their own order to be executed
(as I imagined they did intend to do, or rather bad
done, when I accepted the military command at Ms..
dras), they will find that our native subjects in India are
not so unreasonable as to deny to us, even in their hearts,
a right to exercise that religious freedom which they
themselves so fully enj ay.
I observed that in the debate of last Tuesday evening,
in the House of Lords, it was asked by your Lordship
what was the proportion of Mussulmans in the Madras
army. It was a natural inquiry, for it is material to
consider that in this Presidency the idolatrous worship
of the Hindoos does not stand opposed to the Christian
religion alone. It was replied, by the highest and most
respected authority, the Duke of Wellington, that the
proportion of Hindoos was by far the most considerable,
and that the Mussulmans were almost confined to the
cavalry regiments. I have no doubt that any member
of the Court of Directors would have given a similar
reply to your Lordship, and the information would have
been perfectly correct in reference to a period which is
now gone by, a period to is bleb his Grace expressly
alluded.

At present, however, the following is a just statement
of the proportion of the different creeds in the Madras
Native Army—viz.

Mahometans
Hindong
Other creeds
It will be evident from this statement, which is nearly
accurate, that the being compelled to attend at the
Hindoo festivals is naturally distasteful (to use a mild
term) to considerably more than half the native army.
Speaking of this attendance, a veteran and highly-
respectable officer of the Mahometan creed re-
marked, "We obey in silence, but (laying his hand
on his heart), it makes uneasiness here." This species
of uneasiness, however, is not always so passive.
It exhibited itself recently in overt acts at Mysore, and
made the presence of two regiments of cavalry and one
of infantry necessary to restore tranquillity. I refer to
one other instance, because it produced from the Hin-
doo officers and Sepoys of a regiment a proposal which
is worthy of attention. " Let us," they said, "in
future attend our own festivals, and you do the
same yourselves ; we will not hereafter interfere in the
Mahometan feasts."

These plain boundaries of toleration are too obvious
not to be acknowledged by the most ignorant, and even
by the most prejudiced and unreasonable. It is
what we have hitherto done upon a contrary system
that (to say nothing of religious obligations) has tended
to produce perplexity, and confound distinctions which
out to have been preserved. We are the ruling power
in India, and when the Hindoos see us managing. their
Pagoda revenues, directing their ceremonies, and pre-
senting offerings to their idols, they can but draw the
inference that our Government is countenancing and
supporting their heathen worship, willingly and from
choice ; or, at least, that they arc indifferent to the pre-
cepts of Christianity, since it is evident that they are
acting under no necessity.

The intention of the Directors' despatch of 1833 was
simply to correct this error—to assert practically the
claim of equal rights on behalf of all parties where their
conscience is concerned.

So far from there being any foundation for the appre-
hension that a ground so reasonable cannot be fairly
taken, I believe this to be precisely the position which
is the most safe and easy, as well as most just, to
maintain.

As often as our stations are visited by the preachers
of reformed Islamism, who strenuously inculcate on the
Alussulmans that idolatry is abhorrent to their faith, we
must expect that the repugnance of Mussuirnans to at-
tending at the Hindoo festivals will increase; and I
know that it is the opinion of some of the ablest of the
Company's servants in the Peninsula, that our safest and
best position in respect to the native worship would be
that of perfect neutrality.
I have thought it important, after reading the debate
of the other night, as it is reported in the newspapers,
to address your Lordship in this public manner, in order
that in India it may be thoroughly understood that the
well-known dispatch of 1833 was not a blow aimed at
the religion of the natives, but was intended to secure
to every religious denomination the full and free exer-
cise of their own religious observances, and to all a
perfect liberty of conscience.
I have the honour to be, my Lord,
Your Lordship's very faithful servant,
P. MAITLAND.
Bedford-lodge, Brighton, August 16, 1839.

THE LAW ON DRUNKENNESS.-Allen Col-
lins, a rather well-dressed young man, was brought before
Mr. Combe, upon the following charge :—A man, named
Cross, said that, being out of employment, he betook him-
self to sell a few oysters, at a stall in the Commercial-road.
On the night before the prisoner favoured him with his
custom, and, after clearing the whole board of its stock of
fish, and, being told the amount was Is. 6d., he declared
he bad not a farthing about him. The prisoner, in defence,
said he was drunk at the time, or he would not have acted
so. Mr. Combe remarked that the Magistrates at that
office had not enforced the clause relative to drunkenness
in the new Act, and he thought the prisoner would be a
very proper person to begin with. The prisoner begged
hard to be let off, saying be had a wife and family to pro-
vide for, and seven days at the treadmill whoiaulddebbet parnoddue-e
tive of the most serious consequences to him. He also
pealed to one of the officers for his ehanraarertnewr,
easneclapesaifdraerim-
would most willingly pay the oysterman
ex-
penses to be let off. This was acceded to, and he left the
fire broke,
noueatrat
office, expressing his thanks for his
shortly before one
On Friday morning,
brought
durance vile.
of water, and every a comb factory, in
the Victoria Theatre.
to the spot. There was a
oNVeelobcbker-aswntreeirdeCtrq,muNilici'lakgtleyrloo.road
esnaPtoPlyprevent the flames spreadingtoeaxkeerrt J
inn wascch madeich
they
be yy
Jones, firework maker,
the adjoining
PwtpEhlreeree'rnginfietiriinsesfeuuemslcseoef.qMfulr, or the most terrible consequences might
have followed. The fire was got under by two o'clock,
but considerable damage was done. How it originated is
unknown.