in the whole amounted to 100, and of these only two officers. There have been taken from them also, besides the conquest and alienation of their country, about 60,000 head of cattle, almost all their goats, their habita. tions are every where destroyed, and their gardens and corn-fields laid waste. They have, therefore, been chastised, not extremely, but sufficiently.”

“ Amongst many passages illustrative of the manner in which the war was conducted by the British troops, I select for illustration the following, from a letter addressed by Colonel Smith to yourself on the 11th of June. The enemy, although his traces were numerous, fled so rapidly, that few were killed, and only three shots fired at the troops. The whole of the country has been most thoroughly traversed ; upwards of 1,200 huts, new and old have been burnt; immense stores of corn in every direction destroyed ; 215 head of cattle of all sorts captured ; several horses, and nearly 2,000 goats, have fallen into our hands. The women were very numerous; and I there. fore caused them to be amply supplied with beef and biscuit, and dismissed them with the assurance that the atrocities of their husbands had made them forfeit their homes, and that they must move over the Kye. They all stated that they were anxious to do so. It is most gratifying to know that the savages being the unprovoked aggressors, have brought down all the misery with which they are now visited upon the heads of themselves and their families; and that the great day of retribution, and the punish. ment of the unprovoked atrocities committed by these murderous savages on our colonists, had arrived.''

As nothing we could say could possibly brand, with the infamy it deserves, such inhuman conduct better than Lord Glenelg's own comnient, we quote it entire.

Reading those statements at this distance from the scene of action, I must own that I am affected by them in a manner the most remote from that which the writer contemplated. In the civilized warfare of Europe, this desolation of an enemy's country, not in aid of any military opera. tions, nor for the security of the invading force, but simply and confessedly as an act of vengeance, has rarely occurred, and the occurrence of it has been invariably followed by universal reprobation. I doubt, indeed, whether the history of modern Europe affords an example even of a single case, in which, without some better pretext than that of mere retribution, any invaded people were ever subjected to the calamities which Colonel Smith here describes : the loss of their food, the spoiling of their cattle, the burning of their dwellings; the expulsion of their wives and families from their homes, the confiscation of their property, and the forfeiture of their native country. I am, of course, aware that the laws of civilized nations cannot be rigidly applied in our contests with barbarous men; for those laws pre-suppose a reciprocity, which cannot subsist between parties of whom the one is ignorant of the usages, maxims, and religion of the other. But the great principles of morality are of immutable and universal obligation, and from them are deduced the laws of war. Of these laws the first and cardinal rule relating to a state of hostility is, that the belligerent must inflict no injury on his enemy which is not indispensably requisite to ensure the safety of him by whom it is inflicted, or to promote the attainment of the legitimate ends of the warfare. Whether we contend with a civilized or a barbarous enemy, the gratuitous aggravation of the horrors of war, on the plea of vengeance or retribution, or on any similar grounds, is alike indefensible.

“ I am bound to record the very deep regret with which I have perused this passage. In a conflict between regular troops and hordes of barba.

rous men, it is almost a matter of course that there should exist an enor. mous disproportion between the loss of life on either side. But to consign an entire country to desolation, and a whole people to famine, is an aggra. vation of the necessary horrors of war, so repugnant to every just feeling and so totally at variance with the habits of civilized nations, that I should not be justified in receiving such a statement without calling upon you for further explanations. The honor of the British name is deeply interested in obtaining and giving publicity to the proofs that the safety of the King's subjects really demanded so fearful an exercise of the irresistible powers of His Majesty's forces.”

If this was the christianity of the Cape Government–if these were its acts of clemency--if these its exhibitions of mercy-what must bave been its acts of retribution, its displays of penal power, its days of chastisement and oppression ? What they were, let the sighs of the widow, the cries of the orphan, the wailings of the destitute, the blood of the brave Hintza and his companions—let these tell the amount of suffering, oppression, and wrong, which have been heaped upon the aborigines of South Africa by a professedly Christian Government.


IV.-Chapter of Correspondence.

To the Editors of the Calcutta Christian Observer.

Among the various departments of labour which press upon the attention of Christians in this country, there is one which, in my view, begins to require more attention.

It is the preparation of suitable Commentaries for the help of Native preachers and catechists, &c. It is generally felt, yet I think it needs to bo more strongly felt, that Native preachers form one of the most important agencies that we have, for giving currency to Christianity in this country. Now this instrumentality dever can be brought to bear with any thing like its natural power until such helps are brought within the reach of this class. In the present state of things Native preachers are very important auxiliaries. But they have generally no means of storing their minds with such knowledge of the Bible as will give fulness, and depth, and solidity to their religious instructions, nor such as will give full development to their own piety. They generally become very familiar with the methods pursued by Musalmáns and Hindus in opposing the Bible, and acquire expertness in replying to their objections, but then their own minds remain empty - void of that knowledge which would produce a vigorous growth of Christianity around them. It is true that Native preachers are generally in the immediate neighbourhood of some Missionary or other person capa. ble of giving them instructions. But a Missionary seldom feels that he has time to spend in giving that full and copious knowledge of the Scripture history, geography, manners and customs of the times, character of the then popular systems of idolatry, &c. &c. which the other ought to possess. And if he does take the time for this, there is a great waste of power; for if he would appropriate about the same amount of time that is necessary to instruct one, he could prepare a well adapted commentary that would furnish the means of self-instruction to hundreds. Besides, if he sit down


2 z

with one and instruct him fully in these important matters, he makes him a mere passive recipient of knowledge ; on the contrary, if he put a volume into his hand, which discusses these and furnishes a storehouse for him, it gives elasticity and enlargement to his mind. He then feels that he has in his own hands the means of self-improvement, of employing usefully his leisure hours, and of giving more fulness and force to his preaching to others. If they possessed these means they would be so much more able to edify and bring forward the dwarfish and almost famished specimens of Christianity which gather around them. Now this work of preparing such a commentary would, in the hands of an individual, be very laborious. But if an arrangement were entered into by a number of individuals who are qualified for such a work, and each one take a part, somewhat after the example of the different parties who prepared the current English trans. lation of the Bible, the labour of each individual would not be great-the time and labour would not be much greater than each one ought to give to the instructing of the Native preacher or catechist, who is in a measure dependant on him ; and the result of these combined labours would, in the course of a few years, furnish Native preachers and Native christians with much invaluable assistance.

I rejoice to know that the Rev. Mr. Wilkinson has prepared a commen. tary on Genesis, and hope that that work will soon shew the importance of having others of the same kind embracing all the other parts of the Bible.

The details of such an arrangement will have to be suggested when it shall be ascertained whether the public mind is ripe for such an under. taking.

The consideration of this subject throws the mind almost instinctively on another question of immeasurable importance, and of great perplexity, i. e. in what churucter should such a work be published ? If the views of your friend “CINSURENSIS” in the February No. of the Observer be cor. rect, then this work ought to be published in the Bengáli and Nógari and Persiun characters. But if otherwise, then such a work might be published with great advantage in the Roman character. Let us compare the rela. tive economy in the use of these respective characters; and economy, in a country like this, and for the use of so many generations of men as we suppose will live after us, is no unimportant consideration. We see that the whole Bible and Testament can be printed in the Roman character, and bound in one convenient pocket volume, and be perfectly distinct and legi. ble. Whereas, with the best improvement of Núguri types, the single part of the Old Testament which has been published, tills a large unwieldy volume. The Bible complete, then, will fill at the least three large volumes; and the same, in the Persian character, still larger. Now, suppose a Native preacher be even able to purehase a whole Bible; when he goes out to preach he will of course desire to have the whole of that blessed volume, which is his treasure house, with him.' Then he must fill his arms or load a servant to carry it for him, or do without; when, in the other character, he could carry it in his pocket without parade or trouble. Henry's or Scott's Commentary in the Roman character, forms six pretty large volumnes. In either of the other characters it would make, at the very least, 18 or perhaps more very large volumes. Then to procure a Bible and a single Commentary, the Native preacher must purchase at least 21 large and expensive volumes !-and where is he to get the means? Now suppose that Christianity had made a little further advance in this country, and the Native preacher will need to have his library furnished at least with such works as the following ; viz. “ Horne's Introduction," which will be, in this character, 12 large volumes ;“ Mosheim's Church History,"

which will be 18 large volumes; “ Rollin's Ancient History,” which will be about 24 volumes ; “Gibbon's Decline and Fall,” &c. about 9 volumes; “ Russel's Modern Europe,” 9 or 12 volumes. Here then I have enume. rated but a few of the works that go to form the very elements of such a library as should be in the house of every preacher of the Gospel, and we have an array of 93 volumes, and all large and expensive volumes. Now suppose we add what he ought to have in the way of Biblical criticism, works of practical piety, and a few miscellaneous volumes, it would swell the list to at least another 100 volumes. And I have specified only one class of Natives, because that class seems to require attention first. But how many others are to be supplied. Look at any of the large towns in England, and see how many other private libraries there are besides those which belong to the clergy of the place. As many for each of the large towns of equal size in this country will be needed. Now to furnish such libraries for the families of Hindustán, who will estimate the difference in the expense, if they have to be in the Persian or Nágari character, or in both? And for the generations that are to follow us throughout all time, if we shall entail on them the necessity of purchasing all their libraries in a large and cumbrous character ;-and when viewed in all its bearings on the future prospects of India—who will tell us how much the difference in the economy of the two systems is short of infinite ? Viewed in this single aspect this subject is vastly important; for the mass of the people are a poor people, and in despite of all our efforts will continue to be a poor people, at least till knowledge shall be made cheap and attainable by the common people*.

Allahabad, Feb. 27th, 1838.



To the Editors of the Calcutta Christian Observer.

I perceive in the February number of your work the remarks of “ Cin. SURENSIS" on an article, in a previous number, on the Comparison of IndoChinese languages. The writer has manifested a spirit of perfect candour and fairness, and I doubt not that his statements in regard to the Bengali language are fully correct. Cinsurensis has adverted to several errors which he supposed me to have made in the article upon which he remarks ; but among the inaccuracies which he has mentioned, I find only one which can be considered such, viz. that I applied the epithet “ peculiar" to that feature of the A sámese language which requires a different pronoun in the second person, according as the speaker is superior or inferior to the person addressed. This, however, was said without any reference to the Bengáli; nor had I any ineans of ascertaining whether this feature was a characteristic of that language or not.

CINSURENSIS says further“ The comparison of adjectives in Bengáli is effected by a similar process to that erroneously stated to be peculiar to the Asamese.” The process by which Asámese adjectives are compared, was not stated in the “Comparison, &c.” to be “ peculiar to the Assmese.”

Our Correspondent W. will perceive that we have omitted the concluding portion of his letter, for reasons which, on reflection, he will himself, we doubt not, approve. We are most desirous that our pages should not contain any thing that either is or might be deemed personal, and wbich could only give rise to painful and unpro. fitable controversy. If w. will divest his argument of every thing of this tendeucy, we shall readily give it room is a subsequent number.- ED.

He again says—" Also what are termed in the Comparison, &c.'numeral affixes, are of ordinary use in Bengali; so that the analogy of the two languages is much closer than supposed in the Comparison.'"

Nothing was said in the "Comparison" intimating that numeral affixes were a pe. culiarity of the Asámese.

All the other grammatical minutiæ particularized," he observes, “equally apply," to the Bengáli. He has, however, himself afforded us one instance of material dissimilarity, viz. in the third person of the verb, which is varied in the Bengáli to denote the superiority or inferiority of the person spoken of.

CINSURENSIS appears to labour under the error of supposing that the remarks in the “Comparison, &c." on the grammatical construction of the A sámese language, were made for the purpose of showing as great a diz. tinction as possible between that and the Bengáli; an object the farthest from the writer's aim. The grammatical characteristics of the Asámese noticed in the “Comparison,” were not set in contrast with those of the Bengáli, inasmuch as no such notices of the latter language were made. Not having a knowledge of that language, it was not part of my under. taking to give a synopsis of its grammar. The list of Bengáli words I copied from two or three vocabularies and dictionaries, taking what appear. ed, from them all, to be the primary and most common terms to denote the various objects specified in the list. It was foreign to the design of the Vocabulary to insert columns of secondary and synonymous words in the various languages. Such a compilation, embracing all the secondary terms, and all words transferred from one language to another, though with some changes of meaning, would be highly desirable ; but it will at once be seen that it would have been impracticable on the limited plan of the “Comparative Vocabulary.” An investigation of this kind would doubt Jess increase the similarity apparent between any other two languages of the Vocabulary, in as great a proportion as it does that of the Bengali and Asamese. It would not however furnish a fair specimen of the real resemblance of any two languages, as actually spoken or written. The proper method to ascertain this, would be to compare specimens of Scripture, or other works, faithfully translated into each language; where the discrepancies, not only of common words, but of all particles, prefixes, and affixes, with the differences of idiom and construction, would be manifest at a glance. This would show a very different result from that obtained by the comparison of a few of the most common terms, as man, horse, dog, cal, &c. which, in languages of a common origin, are almost sure to be alike,

The latter part of CINSURENsis's article is devoted to the discussion of the Romanizing system. His arguments on this subject I have no design to controvert ; but will only observe that the great folly of the Romanizer which he has undertaken to expose, and which he proposes to deduce from the “Comparison, &c.” is not to be found there. My words were, “that the Roman character is adequate to express every sound of the human voice, and is well fitted to be the written representative of all languages.” “ This assertion,” says CINSURENSIS,“ involves a negation of such adequacy and fitness to all other characters." But this inference is a mere gratuity (gratuitous assertion?) In predicating such adequacy of the Roman character, I neither assert or deny, that there are other systems, which might be rendered adequate to express the same variety of sounds. It has often been said that the Roman character is inadequate to the ex. pression of the oriental languages. It was sufficient to my purpose to affirm that it was adequate, without asserting either the adequacy or inadequacy of any other set of characters. I might, indeed, and I apprehend with safety, challenge Cinsurensis to produce any existing alphabet, which, with what.

« ElőzőTovább »