Page images
PDF
EPUB

to understand, that God intended to restore his people to their land. "For thus saith the Lord, like as I have brought all this great evil upon this people, so will I bring upon them all the good that I have promised them; and fields shall be bought in this land, whereof ye say, it is desolate without man and beast, it is given into the hands of the Chaldeans. Men shall buy fields for money, and subscribe evidences, and seal them, and take witnesses, in the land of Benjamin, and in the places about Jerusalem, and in the cities of Judah, and in the city of the mountains, and in the cities of the valley, and in the cities of the south: for I will cause their captivity to return, saith the Lord." Jerem. xxxii. 42-44. Now, if we look back to the prophecy of which this return from Babylon is plainly the fulfilment, we shall find it expressed in language that we should not expect; and of which many would be ready to say, it is much too strong for such an occasion. It must relate to an event far more striking and important. What it contains, they would say, was not accomplished in the return of the Jews from Babylon. And yet it plainly appears, that it was accomplished by that event.

In the passage above quoted, there is one circumstance omitted, which is to be found in other passages containing the promise of deliverance and restoration; I mean the return of Israel, or the ten tribes, and their incorporation with Judah. I am ready to admit, that any return not including this, cannot be considered as the accomplishment of those prophecies, that relate to the re-occupation of the promised land; but I am much mistaken, if I cannot show, that Israel did return, in the sense in which the prophet's words were intended to be understood. The 50th chapter of Jeremiah opens thus: "The word that the Lord spake against Babylon, and against the land of the Chaldeans, by Jeremiah the prophet. Declare ye among the nations.... Babylon is taken," &c. Then follows in the 4th verse: "In those days, and in that time, saith the Lord, the children of Israel shall come, they and the children of Judah together, going and weeping, they shall go and seek the Lord their God." In the 20th verse, Israel is again included in the promise. "In those days, and in that time, saith the Lord, the iniquity of Israel shall be sought for, and there shall be none; and the sins of Judah, and they shall not be found." Again, at verse 33: "The children of Israel, and the children of Judah, were oppressed together....Their Redeemer is strong, he shall thoroughly plead their cause, that he may give rest to the land, and disquiet the inhabitants of Babylon." That all this relates to the events that were then at hand, cannot, I think, be fairly questioned. Indeed the matter is susceptible of proof. If this be so then, on what ground, I would inquire, are we to look for a future restoration of the Jews to the land of their fathers? If it appears, that the prophecies which contain the promises, had their fulfilment, is it right to look for another fulfilment of the same nature? If it appears, that all the land that was promised, was actually possessed: if it appears, that from the expressions for ever, and everlasting, no inference is warranted, in favour of a future restoration; and, finally, that Israel, as well as Judah, was included in the return from Babylon, I do not see, how, from the promises contained in the Old Testament, any expectation of the future restoration of the Jews, can fairly be entertained. I may be mistaken in all this; but I do not, at present, perceive any fallacy in the argument. Those, who are better informed on the subject than myself, may possibly shew me that I am wrong; and, if they should, I hope I shall not be unwilling to acknow ledge my mistake. In the mean time, I must say, that any thing that has a tendency to check the confidence, with which some interpreters of pro

phecy pronounce upon future events, is calculated to be of service, by leading to the exercise of that forbearance, which on these subjects, at least, seems to have been, in a great measure, abandoned.

Should you think proper to give insertion to this letter, it is my intention, with divine permission, to continue the subject.

I am, Sir, truly yours,

T.K.

MISCELLANEOUS COMMUNICATIONS.

SLAVERY IN THE EAST INDIES.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE CHRISTIAN EXAMINER.

SIR,--Your last Number contains a letter upon the subject of slavery in the East Indies, which I have read with surprise and regret, as I think it calculated to produce an impression upon minds partially acquainted with the subject, unfavourable to a cause that ought to be dear to every Christian heart; the abolition of slavery in our West Indian colonies. That such was not the intention of your correspondent, I can believe; but now, when the voice of truth and humanity is awakening the British public to a sympathy that will, ere long, I trust, extend a tardy justice to our negro fellow subjects, I must say, that I cannot see the good object of putting forth statements, that if true, can only tend to divert public attention from a crying evil, for the guilt of which this nation is answerable, because this nation supports it, and can remove it; to sin and misery, which, indeed we must deplore, but in the guilt of which we are not directly implicated, whose existence, it may not be in our power to terminate. It is not my intention to reply at length to your correspondent's letter, I should probably injure the cause I desire to serve, were I to attempt to do so; for I candidly confess, that I am not personally acquainted with the state of the East Indies, nor have I seen the document from which he quotes. I am not qualified therefore to do, what I doubt not, can most satisfactorily be done; but allow me to offer a few observations upon the subject.

Your correspondent is not satisfied with representing slavery as equally detestable in both Indies, but he exerts his very surprising powers of comparison, to swell the iniquity of one, to the unmeasured magnitude of "the Himalaya," and to contract the offence of the other, to the trivial dimensions of a "mite." Now, Sir, if all he states respecting the Hindoos be true to the uttermost, yet to speak of the oppressive bondage by Englishmen of 800,000 of their brethren, in such language as this, is as unjust as it is absurd and unnatural; but even to make the two cases at all parallel, it should be shown, that slaves in both, are the property of Englishmen ; that oppression under each system is practised by nominal Christians, and that the laws which establish, regulate, and protect the bondage, have received the sanction of the representatives of the nation. If, as the truth is, this in its fullest extent be the fact in relation to one case, and can in no degree be affirmed of the other, it would hardly be speaking too strongly to reverse the comparison as far as our national guilt and consequent duty are concerned. Your correspondent's statements consist of a few short sentences chiefly selected from a most voluminous document, all of them such as may be modified by fuller information; some of them too, taken at second hand from a writer, known I believe, to be hostile to the anti-slavery

cause. It is most important to remember, that the laws respecting slavery, so justly and strongly reprobated by the judges, whom he quotes, are the principles of the Gentoo code, enacted by Heathens and Mahometans; a code that we found holding its iron sway over the continent of India, and so connected with the existing idolatry, as to be incapable of immediate extinction. I have no doubt, that the East India Company, instead of defending these enactments, like others, as their birthright, lament and reprohate them as strongly as your correspondent; and the progress of their policy, has been to discountenance and annul their severities. I must also say, that it is hardly candid to use the word 'slavery' indiscriminately, while speaking of matters, differing not only in their origin, but in their na ture. When we use that word with respect to our West India colonies, we know but too well what we mean; its unjust theory is clearly defined by laws which we have mentioned; its cruel practice is established by the admissions of its supporters, and by the notoriety of facts confirmed by the publicity of courts of justice. Your correspondent includes under that term. various distinctions and disabilities arising from the well known 'caste' system of the Hindoos. No doubt, these are unjust, and frequently cruel; but it is a wilful abuse of words, to class them with West Indian slavery; does the writer know, that the lowest Pariar, whose slavery he laments so feelingly, looks upon Europeans as belonging to a still lower caste than himself, and would consider himself degraded, if obliged to partake of food, which their touch had polluted? Alas! the compulsory bondage of our negro fellow subjects, is far different from this.

That slavery, however, of different degrees of severity, does exist in different parts of the continent of India; but especially, perhaps I might say almost entirely, in the provinces lately subdued, and in the territories still permitted to continue under the dominion of the once mighty Rajahs, is, I believe, certain; but, that it is domestic slavery, and in the Bengal sugar districts especially, not predial, is, I believe undoubted. Mr. Hume, in the year 1826, stated in the House of Commons, "that he knew the East Indies, especially Bengal, well, and that he could undertake to say, that there were no agricultural slaves there;" and his statement was fully confirmed by Sir E. H. East, chief justice of Bengal. I may also state, that I had this year the pleasure of spending time in the company of two agents in the Company's service, persons of information, and decided piety, who had been, one for seven years in the Bombay, the other for ten years in the Bengal Presidency; both of them had heard of slavery in India, but neither had never met a case of it in their local jurisdictions, and both declared to me, that the cultivation of sugar which they had extensively witnessed, was carried on by peasantry of a low caste, but free labourers. Let me also observe, that Bishop Heber who travelled India from north to south, and whose graphic journal places that country before our eyes, while he speaks minutely of the customs of the people, and deplores their idolatry, never shocks our feelings by describing a gang of men and women at work under the lash, or a parent and child torn asunder by public auction. If that amiable and tender hearted writer, had as accurately depicted Jamaica, how different would have been his narration! While the document, large as it is, from which your correspondent quotes, refers only to a part of "British India," he classes together in a sweeping assertion, all the coun tries from which East India sugar is procured, as cultivated by slaves. Now, I confess, as before, that my information upon the state of all these Countries, is very limited; but, if in one instance, we find a person stating boldly what he ought to know was not the case, we give but little weight

VOL. XI.

P

to his assertion in others. This gentleman, includes Java among the number, whilst he should have known from Sir S. Raffles's history of that country, that its agriculture is carried on by a free peasantry, upon whose happiness, and simplicity of life, Sir S. R. frequently remarks.

One fact, stated by your correspondent, seems to me to neutralize, in a great degree, some of his most important assertions. He mentions the price of an able-bodied young man, as but little more than a year's wages of "the meanest servant;" how this is accounted for, I know not, but "they manage matters otherwise in Jamaica." If in the East Indies, a master possessed that complete property in the body, and children of his slave, that he does in the West, it is passing strange, that their value should be rated so low. We know, that in our Western colonies, where slavery is no voluntary distinction or disability imposed by caste or idolatrous religion, but a forcible and compulsory bondage, and where sugar is really cultivated by slaves; that an animal, whose thews and sinews may be turned to such profitable account, will fetch in the market from his Christian purchaser, at least forty times the sum. Your readers will remember, that the existence of slavery, under various modifications in the East Indies, may be allowed, and yet no direct implication in its guilt, of our duty or ability to abolish it; or of the fact, that East India sugar is cultivated by its victims. On this latter topic, I shall only say more, that I believe full evidence will be shortly laid before those who still desire it, that such produce on the Eastern continent, is derived from the labour of free men.

In conclusion, permit we again to observe, that even if your correspondent's assertions respecting the severities of the Gentoo code, and the horrors of idolatry, be granted true, to the uttermost, they wholly fail in placing the systems existing in both Indies, upon a level, either as to actual nature or claim upon British justice and sympathy; that they approach to a resemblance in these essential points, may be granted, when, but not until, it shall be known, that one Englishman or Christian, holds a slave in the Eastern Indies; that any British, or even the heathen law, there sanctions the flogging of naked females with a cartwhip, to force them to field labour; that any similar enactment authorises one man to impose on or flog another, for praying aloud to God, or teaching his word; and that any officers of the honourable company, set up to public auction to the best and fairest bidder, fellow-beings and fellow-subjects, without regard to the ties of blood, or nature. As long Sir, as these and similar enormities are sanctioned by British law in our Western colonies, let not, whatever be the miseries of heathen barbarity-let not the two systems be called by the same name-let not our national guilt, and our national duty, with respect to one, be made light of by classing it with the other; and let no man, under the name of philanthropy, seek to divert, or check us in our progress towards the abolition of an evil, which the laws of God, and the just and unalienable rights of our brethren, command us to terminate. HOMO.

ON CHURCH PROPERTY IN IRELAND.

The Church Property in Ireland, at the period of the Reformation, was very great. Large as we have seen it to be in England, it was infinitely

Our Constant Readers will perceive that this is intended to be a continuation of some article on Church property which appeared in a former Number.-ED.

greater in this island; which would have been more appropriately called the Island of Clergy than that of Saints. Independent of the large tracts. of land which the clergy had acquired, and which went under the denomination of Termon lands and Patrick's Ridges, and of the tithes which they had confirmed to themselves in the Synod of Cashel, as the price of their sale of Ireland to Henry the Second: monastic institutions covered the face of the country; almost all the fertile valleys, all the rich alluvial lands along our numerous lakes and rivers were in the enjoyment of monastics; and to this day, as the traveller directs his way through the island -wherever he meets a rich district-a green vale-or a broad river, flowing through fat and fertile plains ;-along the alluvial pastures of Limerick -by the waters of the Shannon, the Meig, or the Sure-on the banks of the Barrow or the Liffey-he sees the cloistered ruins of some abbey, rising amidst the rich and quiet scenery, and now adding to the natural beauties of the landscape, the moral interest connected with recollections of former religious splendour. Burke in his Hibernia Dominicana, gives a list of all the monastic institutions of Ireland; they amount to 536, a surprising number, when we take into account the state of Ireland as to its popula tion and natural wealth; when we consider that a large portion of the surface of the island was in those days covered with woods, fens, and bogs. It is no wonder then, that so large a portion of its inhabitants should have become ecclesiastics, as to have it declared that every third male was either a monk or a priest: it was no wonder that, saints should become so common, if sanctity be identified with monkish character; when the only way to be secure of plenty of meat and milk, not to speak of bread, was to obtain admission into a monastery.

It has been observed that Henry the Eighth and his children, secured the overthrow of the papal power in England, by transfering the spoils of the fallen church to the nobility and gentry, who were thus made deeply interested parties in the success of the Reformation. This experiment did not succeed so well in Ireland-because the power of the English monarch did not extend over its surface, nor beyond a few counties in Leinser. Without the verge of the Pale the Irish chieftain, whether of Milesian race, or of English descent, no matter whether he was a Fitzgerald or a Mac Carty, whether an O'Connor or a De Burgo-cared as little for a grant from the English king, as for his attainders; and therefore though the monasteries were nominally suppressed throughout Ireland, as well as in England-though the king's supremacy was promulgated by Act of Parliament, yet in Munster, in Ulster, and Connaught, the abbots still held their lands and their abbeys; nay, even bishops were nominated and enthroned in their sees by the pope and it was only where the English armies marched, conquered, and desolated, that the Reformed clergy were admitted to the vacant benefices of the expelled priests, and that the favourites of the crown and the followers of the Lord Deputy for the time being, could get possession of the land, and enjoy the tithes of the overthrown and wasted monasteries. The monastic property in Ireland was therefore not instantaneously, but gradually alienated; and consequently the abbots, monks, and priests had time and opportunity to dissipate, make over, and conceal a large portion of monastic and glebe property into the hands of their illegitimate children, relations, and family connexions; and to destroy the leiger-books and other muniments that could discover the alienation. In this way a large portion of the glebe lands in Munster and Connaught has passed into the hands of laymen, and the meerings being defaced, and every information held back from the Protestant clergy, whereby the

« PreviousContinue »