ing, among the ministers; in the production of a more liberal and enlightened piety, among the people; and in the promotion of that spirit of active zeal and Christian benevolence, by which the present day is peculiarly distinguished.

The piety of our forefathers had in it much of the spirit of mechanism. It was of a seclusive, austere, and sometimes even of a forbidding nature. That of the present day, if not more sincere, is at least of a more publicly active and benevolent character. Men are always given to extremes. There is no great evidence of real piety, in leaving the walks of social usefulness, to live retired from the world, apparently absorbed in the concerns of one's own salvation, to the neglect of that grand principle of Christianity, by which every one is in a certain sense called to be his brother's keeper; nor is there much evidence of real religion, in the bustling activity of some, who seem too much taken up about the eternal interests of others, to have any time to care for their own yet, on the whole, we think that though the purity of primitive Christianity has not been reached, its spirit has been in some degree revived, by the general practical recognition of the fact, that next to our own eternal salvation, we are bound to promote that of our fellow-men.

This principle, though theoretically acknowledged, had for ages almost entirely lost its influence. The clergy, it was supposed, were the only class who were bound by duty to seek the spiritual good of others. But now the change is great, and by the simple principle to which we have alluded, the most extensive system of agency ever employed for the moral renovation of the world has been called into operation, and is increasing in a ratio of which our fathers could have formed no idea, and acting through such a variety of means, as renders it quite impossible to calculate the amount of good already effected.

By means of voluntary combination, in England, for religious purposes, the aspect of society has been completely changed; and from the review of the few years of its past operation, we already feel a complete confidence of its future success, not only in the religious improvement of our own country, but also in the entire subjugation of the world to the dominion of the cross.

Through the same means Christians of all parties have been brought into closer connexion, and their charitable feelings towards each other increased. They have been formed into a great and powerful body, having the same general objects in view, and have obtained a weight and influence in society which they did not before possess. And though many have been, from various causes, led to join in the different objects of Christian benevolence pursued by the pious, who are not themselves the subjects of true piety-yet there has been, on the whole, a great increase in the number of real Christians, and a more marked distinction between the Church and the world.

Many are the evils yet to be deplored, and great indeed must be the improvement in religion, before England can rise to that high state of Christian purity which has been sometimes claimed for her; but it is cheering to the pious mind to be able to observe unequivocal marks of religious improvement. While she is looked up to as a pattern to other nations, as it respects her civil institutions, it is pleasing to contemplate her, as exhibiting an example of increasing national piety, and as that great centre from which are emanating the rays of pure Christianity to cheer and illuminate the nations of the earth. B.

IV. On the Possibility, the Practicability, and the Expediency of substituting the Roman in place of the Indian Alphabets. The discussion respecting the substitution of the Roman in place of the Indian Alphabets has recently been revived, in consequence of the publication of Mr. Trevelyan's Minute on the proceedings of the Education Committees in Calcutta. Mr. Trevely an advocated the substitution: Dr. Tytler opposed it. The Minute of the former is the exposure and appeal of a sweeping reformer and ardent philanthropist : the rejoinder of the latter, with the exception of a few awkward attempts at sarcasm, is the production of a sober minded gentleman and accomplished scholar.

It is not my present intention to follow the remarks of either of these. Long before the recent discussion arose, the subject in dispute was forcibly brought home to my own mind, in connection with various plans for the amelioration of the people of India. And the result of my own inquiries was a decided conviction in favour of the views that have been so ably propounded by Mr, Trevelyan.

The subject I conceive to be one of far greater importance, in the present stage of native improvement, than most people are willing to admit, or rather than those who have not made it an object of study, are capable of comprehending. On this account, I should rejoice to see the whole question traced in all its bearingsto see it agitated in the public press, and presented in every possible form to the public mind. With the view of adding my mite to the general cause, I shall now furnish a few facts, and offer a few cursory observations.

I. Is the proposed substitution_possible? One party replies, yes: and another, no. Those who answer in the negative dwell chiefly on the circumstance that, in the oriental languages, there are peculiar sounds, i. e. sounds unlike any which occur in the languages of the West. How then, ask they triumphantly, can these sounds be represented by Roman characters ? Now, it must be owned that if these characters were of the nature of pictorial delineations, like the Mexican paintings now to

be found in the Bodleian library; or of the nature of expressive symbols, similar to the Egyptian hieroglyphics; or of the nature of verbal representations, like the encyclopædic letters of China ;it would not be easy to divert them into new channels. But the case appears totally different when we find that alphabetical characters, like the Roman, are merely arbitrary or conventional signs of sounds, i. e. any character, bearing, as it does, no resemblance to the sound itself, may become the sign of any sound. All that is required is, that there be a mutual understanding amongst those that employ a letter of any figure, as to the sound which such letter is intended to represent.

Since then all letters are, or ought to be, the arbitrary signs of certain elementary sounds, and since, in all languages, the greater part of the elementary sounds are the same-it follows that the greater part of the alphabetic letters of any language may be directly represented by Roman characters. Next, as to peculiar sounds, it may often be found, as in the Indian languages, that they are not radically diverse from all that find a place in the languages of the West. That which is said to be peculiar in the former, may be only some particular modification of an elemental sound that enters essentially into the latter. The difference, instead of being a radical one, may be only a difference in the tone, time, or mode of enunciating the same elementary sound. In this case, the Roman character, with some mark, above or below it, would, if agreed on by mutual consent, sufficiently distinguish the peculiarity.

William Jones; and even the profoundest "By the help," says French, with a few of

This was the deliberate opinion of Sir as his authority ought to weigh much with orientalists, I shall here quote his words. he," of the diacritical marks used by the those adopted in our own treatises on fluxions, we may apply our present alphabet so happily to the notations of all Asiatic languages, as to equal the Deva Nagari itself in precision and clearness; and so regularly, that any one, who knew the original letters, might rapidly and unerringly transpose into them all the proper names, appellatives, or cited passages, occurring in tracts of Asiatic literature."

So positive and unhesitating an opinion, delivered by such a man, may be reckoned decisive of this part of the subject. But if any lingering doubt still remain as to the possibility of representing all peculiar sounds by means of Roman letters with diacritical marks, there is still the expedient of effecting this end by particular combinations of letters. Without reverting to the excessive simplification of Wachter, who maintains that ten distinct characters would suffice to express all the elementary sounds that belong to the human organs; or to the more moderate opinion of Harris, who declares that" to about twenty plain elementary sounds we owe that

variety of articulate voices which have been sufficient to explain the sentiments of such an innumerable multitude of all the past and present generations of men;" let us adopt what some would reckon the still more reasonable conclusion of Bishop Wilkins, that 34 separate characters would be requisite for the purpose, and what follows? That the Roman alphabet, being both defective and redundant, could never be made to express the sounds not peculiar to it? No such thing. Let any one consult the Bishop's alphabetic table, and if not satisfied with the extension of Roman letters with diacritical marks to denote all peculiar sounds, he cannot fail to be convinced that the object can be fully and satisfactorily accomplished, by an appropriate combination of two of the existing letters.

It is a mere fallacy to talk of the inadequacy of simple Roman letters to express certain peculiar sounds. No one has said that, barely and nakedly by themselves, unaccompanied by any mark or uncompounded, they can. What has been alleged is, that the majority of Indian letters can be represented directly by corresponding Roman characters, and that the remainder can be adequately represented by Roman characters with diacritical marks, or Roman characters suitably combined.

And after what has now been advanced may I not fairly conclude that such representation is in all respects possible?

II. Admitting the possibility of substituting Roman characters, under certain prescribed conditions, in place of all the Indian letters, the next question is, can such substitution be held to be practicable?

Those who regard it as impracticable, generally ask in a tone of defiance, Has such a thing ever been done-has such a thing been known or heard of?

Now, I may surely assert that, though we could not appeal to a single example in the history of the past, this would be a sorry argument. While I hold the maxim to be a sound one, that "what man has done, man may do again,”—I must hold it to be at once unsound and injurious to lay down the principle that "what man has not done, man cannot do." And yet this is the principle, on which in the present instance much of the opposition, on the score of impracticability, rests. The argument put in plain terms amounts to this: 1st, No people ever employed the characters of a foreign language to express the ordinary and extraordinary sounds of their own therefore, the attempt to accomplish this is not practicable:" 2nd, "No people ever substituted the appropriate characters of another language in place of those peculiar to their own therefore, the attempt to accomplish this is not practicable." This is palpably very bad reasoning, since if allowed to be valid, it would lay an arrest on all possible improvement. Applied to the inventor of the steam engine, it would stand thus: people ever made use of steam, as an impulsive force: therefore

No

the attempt to do so, is not practicable." And so of every other invention in art, and every discovery in science. In all these cases, and in all alike, would not the proper course of procedure be: "Is the thing in itself possible? is it, as to its object, desirable? If so, let us make it practicable." Past

But we have conceded too much to our opponents. history is not wholly a blank in respect of examples. And as facts seem to weigh with them more than arguments, on abstract possibility and desirableness, I shall indulge them with a few statements of facts.

First, As to the employment of the letters of one language to express the peculiar sounds of another.

The language of the Tonga Islands has various peculiar sounds; and yet these have been successfully represented, by a judicious application of the Roman letters.

The old Celtic, or Gaelic language, which is nearly the same as the old Irish, and is still spoken universally in the Highlands of Scotland, has several peculiar sounds, i. e. sounds to which there are none perfectly similar either in the English, or in any other of the European languages,—and yet, these sounds have been successfully expressed by Roman letters. No diacritical marks have been used. Only 18 of the Roman letters have been selected, and by a skilful employment of these, not only the common, but all the peculiar, sounds in the language have been represented in a way that is perfectly intelligible to every Highlander.

Ought not these facts to demolish the bugbear of impracticability on this head ?

Second, As to the national substitution of one set of characters in place of another widely dissimilar in form.

În Europe, these substitutions have been notoriously frequent from the earliest ages.

Before the conquest of Gaul by Cæsar, the old Gaulish letters, which somewhat resembled the Gothic, were alone used in that country. After the subjection of the Gauls to the Roman yoke, the letters of the conquerors, though extremely dissimilar, were universally introduced, and substituted in place of their own. Towards the close of the sixth century the Roman Gallic letters were again changed by the Francs, into what was called the Franco-Gallic, or Merovingian. This was succeeded, a few centuries afterwards, by the German mode of writing, which had been improved by Charlemagne. In the 12th and 13th century, the modern Gothic, the most diversified, complicated, and barbarous of all alphabets, supplanted the German letters. And at the time of the Reformation, the Roman once more usurped the place of the existing alphabet, and has ever since maintained its ground.

In England the changes were not less numerous. At one time the German mode of writing prevailed; at another, the Saxon; at another, the modern Gothic, &c. and finally, the Roman.