office is held by a separate individual, who may then also become an extraordinary member of the Supreme Council of India. In like manner, the governor of Madras or of Bombay, if of the military profession, may be the commander-in-chief of the Madras or Bombay forces; but, if the governor is a civilian, then the chief command of the forces is held by a different person, who also becomes a member of the Governor's council. These appointments of commanders-inchief of the armies of the respective presidencies, and commanderin-chief of all the armies of India, are made by the Court of Directors, subject to the approbation of the crown. From these high offices down to the lowest commissioned offices of ensigns and cadets, the India army is officered by Englishmen who are sent from England for that purpose, and who rise according to seniority and length of service to higher commands. The rank and file of the army in India, is composed of Hindoos of all descriptions-Rajpoots, Mahrattas. Brahmans, Goorkhas, Sikhs-and of Mohammedans, Jews and Christians, that is, native Christians, with different proportions of each in the different armies. The army of Bengal is estimated to be one-eighth or one-tenth Mohammedan, and the rest Hindoo. The armies of Madras and Bombay are about one-third Mohammedan and two-thirds Hindoo. Jews are found only in the Bombay army; and native Christians are employed only in the musical bands attached to regiments. The entire native army of the three presidencies consists of about 120,000 troops, composed of twenty-one regiments of cavalry, one hundred and fifty-two regiments of infantry, and two battalions of artillery, to which are to be added 30,000 European troops of all arms, including infantry, horse artillery and foot artillery, besides European and native veteran battalions, provincial corps and irregular horse, of all which no authenticated enumeration is known to exist. The regular army, in various divisions and detachments, in times of peace, garrison forts, or are stationed in military cantonments, all over the country, wherever there is weak point or a turbulent population; or, wherever, for any other reason, a military force may appear re quisite. In the language of a writer, in the confidence of the British India government, In India, a large standing army is absolutely necessary to the existence of the English government. Without it, they would not collect a shilling of revenue from any portion of the country, nor hold its administration for a day." Native Christians are not permitted to enter the rank and file of the army with Hindoos and Mohammedans, although Jews are; and Hindoos and Mohammedans are permitted to rise to the dignity of corporals and sergeants, and of offices corresponding in name, but not in trust, emoluments or rank, with those of ensign and lieutenant held by Englishmen. Beyond that point, all offices of command are held by the conquering race in their own hands.

The ecclesiastical establishment of India, consists of a bishop, an archdeacon and a body of elergy, at each of the three presidencies, of whom the bishop of Calcutta is the metropolitan, and the bishops of Madras and Bombay are suffragan bishops, subject to the metropolitical, visitorial and appellate jurisdiction of the bishop of Calcutta.

The island of Ceylon, although a crown colony, and not subject to

the government of the East India Company, is, from its proximity, included in the diocese of Madras. The clergy in each presidency, were originally appointed as chaplains to garrisons and factories, and such, for the most part, are the duties which they still discharge, being principally attached to the military cantonments, and large civil stations throughout the country. The expense on account of bishops and archdeacons, is limited to 120,000 rupees, or $60,000 per annum, which is exclusive of the pay of the inferior clergy, and the whole expense is paid out of the revenues of India. Parliament has also directed, that, from 1814, a sum of 100,000 rupees or $50,000 per annum, should be employed in promoting the education of the people; and, with such inadequate means, some very feeble, desultory, and ill-directed efforts, have been made with that view.

as the

The fiscal system of the British India government, draws from the country an amount of revenue, varying from 20 to £23,000,000 per annum. The customs, stamps, post office, and other minor sources, yield about £2,000,000 per annum; the salt and opium monopolies yield about £4,500,000; and the remainder is a land tax, or, British India government prefers to call it, a land rent—i. e., a rent paid to government, by the tenant, occupier, or cultivator, for the use of the soil. The principle, or theory, on which this tax or rent is exacted, is the same as that which is recognized in the United States, when the general government is considered as the holder and owner of the public lands, for the benefit of the people. The difference is, that here the government parts with this proprietary right, and gives the farmer a fee simple, or absolute right in the land which he cultivates. In India the prince, or the government for the time being, is, and continues to be, the universal proprietor of the soil. All lands pay rent, either to the government or to some person to whom the existing gov ernment, or former prince and government, may have assigned it, either for a term of years, or on a life-tenure, or in perpetuity. In the provinces of Bengal and Behar, the English government has voluntarily and permanently limited its own demand for rent; that is, it has agreed never to claim more than it now receives. In the north-western provinces of India, it has more recently limited its demand for rent, for periods of twenty and thirty years, at the end of which periods it may raise its claims. In the chief provinces of the Madras and Bombay presidencies, it makes annual arrangements with the cultivators, and increases or diminishes its demands, from year to year, according to the judgment of its affairs, respecting the ability of the cultivator to pay. In each district there is a collector, or principal revenue officer, always an Englishman, and generally the same who discharges the duties of police magistrate in the district, and under him various subordinate native officers are employed in the collection of revenue. The whole system is as unjust and oppressive, as it is unwise and impolitic.

The political relations of the British India government, are either internal or external. Externally, that government has entered into political relations with Persia-first, to counteract the aggressive policy of France, and subsequently that of Russia; with Cabul, which, from a quiet neighbor, has been exasperated into an irreconcilable enemy;

with Senna, Muscat, and various Arab tribes, and with Abyssinia, Siam, and Acheen, for the promotion of British commerce and the extinction of piracy and the slave trade; and with Nepal and Burmah, both of which have been conquered in war, and stripped of valuable territory. Sinde, an independent State on the north-west frontier of India, with which diplomatic relations previously existed, was recent ly invaded, vanquished, and absorbed into the British territory. The Punjaub, another independent State, to the north of the British possessions, with which friendly treaties existed, has, for about the last ten years, since the death of Runjut Singh, been in a condition of internal convulsion, which has resulted in the total subjugation of the country by the East India Company's government. The British India government has no permanent diplomatic intercourse with Siam, Cochin China, or China.

In explanation of the internal political relations of the British India government, it must be borne in mind, that, although England has subdued India, she has not yet appropriated the whole. Numerous native States still exist, all acknowledging, by treaty, her paramount authority, and all relinquishing political relations with one another, and with all other States-internal combinations and foreign alliances hostile to English power being thus prevented. The native States may be divided into six classes, according to the nature of the treaties formed with them. The first class, consists of five native States, who have treaties offensive and defensive, with the right on their part to claim protection, external and internal, from the British India government, and the right on its part to interfere in their internal affairs. The second class, consists of two States, with which there are treaties offensive and defensive, acknowledging the right on their part to claim protection, external and internal, from the British India government, and the aid of its troops to realize their just claims from their own subjects; but no right on its part to interfere in their internal affairs. The third class, consists of at least twenty-five States, with which there are treaties, offensive and defensive: they are mostly tributary, acknowledge the su premacy of the British India government, and promise subordinate cooperation; but they are supreme rulers in their own territories. The fourth class, includes five States, with which there are treaties of guarantee and protection-promising subordinate coöperation, and securing their supremacy in their own territories. To the fifth class belongs only one State, with which there is a treaty of simple amity and friendship. The sixth class includes those States, with which there are treaties of protection, with the right on the part of the British India government to control their internal affairs. These native States, in the aggregate, have a revenue of about £12,000,000 per annum. They maintain armies of their own, more or less effective; and most of them are bound by treaty to aid the British India government in time of war, with the whole, or a specified portion of their troops. The total area which their territories embrace, is about 450,000 square miles, while that of the British territories in India, is about 625,000 square miles. The proportion of the entire population of India subject to native States, is probably about one-third, and the remaining two-thirds are under the British government.

Such, is a very imperfect representation of the extraordinary and anomalous system of government, which England has devised for India-a system, the whole end and aim of which is, to keep about one hundred and fifty millions of people in subjection, and to extract from them as much revenue as possible. In spite, however, of the vices of a European despotism, and of an Asiatic people, the seeds of science and learning, religion, morality and freedom, are taking root, and will, ultimately, produce fruit.

ART. IV-SLAVERY AND THE BIBLE.

[THIS paper has been handed us for publication, and, as it contains a summary of the Bible argument for slavery, we give it place, though the subject is growing hacknied.-ED.]

A VERY large party in the United States believe that holding slaves is morally wrong; this party founds its belief upon precepts taught in the Bible, and takes that book as the standard of morality and religion. We, also, look to the same book as our guide in the same matters; yet, we think it right to hold slaves-do hold them, and have held and used them from childhood.

As we come to such opposite conclusions from the same foundation, it may be well to consider, whether the Bible teaches us anything whatever, in regard to slavery; if so, what is it and how is it taught.

The anti-slavery party maintain, that the Bible teaches nothing di rectly upon the subject, but, that it establishes rules and principles of action, from which they infer, that, in holding slaves, we are guilty of a moral wrong. This mode of reasoning would be perfectly fair, if the Bible really taught nothing directly upon the subject of slavery: but when that book applies the principles it lays down to the particular subject in controversy, we must take the application to be correct. We think we can show, that the Bible teaches clearly and conclusively that the holding of slaves is right; and if so, no deduction from general principles can make it wrong, if that book is true.

From the earliest period of time down to the present moment, slavery has existed in some form or under some name, in almost every country of the globe. It existed in every country known, even by name, to any one of the sacred writers, at the time of his writing; yet no one of them condemns it in the slightest degree. Would this have been the case had it been wrong in itself? would not some one of the host of sacred writers have spoken of this alleged crime, in such terms as to show, in a manner not to be misunderstood, that God wished all men to be equal?

Abraham, the chosen servant of God, had his bond servants, whose condition was similar to, or worse than, that of our slaves. He considered them as his property, to be bought and sold as any other property which he owned. In Genesis xvii, 13, 23, 27, we are told that God commanded Abraham to circumcise all his bond-servants, "bought with his money," and that Abraham obeyed God's commandment on that same day. In Genesis xx, 14, we are told that Abimelech took sheep and oxen, and men servants and women servants, and gave them to Abraham. In chapter xii, verse 14, we are told that Abraham possessed sheep and oxen, and he asses, and men servants and maid servants, and she asses, and camels. Also, in Genesis xxvi, 14, Isaac is said to have had possessions of flocks and herds, and a great store of servants. In other places in Genesis, they are spoken of, but always as property.

Jacob's sons sold Joseph, their brother, to the Ishmaelites for twenty pieces of silver. They agreed with each other that they would sell him, when the Ishmaelites were afar off, and before they could have known that the Ishmaelites would buy him; only they knew, that such sales were common in the country at the time. The narrative of Joseph's life in Egypt, shows that the sale of slaves was common there.

No one can doubt, that Abraham regarded his servants as his property, and that they were so regarded in the country in which he lived. Not only was the bond-servant of Abraham considered his property, but the condition of the bond-servant was hereditary, or his child was a servant. In Genesis xvii, 13, God not only commanded Abraham to circumcise his servants, bought with his money, but also, those born in his house, and those which, at any future time, should be born in his house, or in that of any of his descendants; and in the twenty. third and twenty-seventh verses of the same chapter, we are told that Abraham did circumcise all his male servants, born in his house, on the same day. In chapter xiv of Genesis we are told, that Abraham took three hundred and eighteen trained servants, which had been born in his house, and pursued the kings who had carried off Lot. These three hundred and eighteen servants were born servants.

Let us now see what control Abraham exercised over these servants born in his house and bought with his money. God commanded Abraham to circumcise all his male servants-those born in his house were so numerous, that he had of them three hundred and eighteen men fit for battle. The command was, not that Abraham should use his influence over them and persuade them to be circumcised, but he and all his descendants are commanded to circumcise them-the crime and punishment for a disobedience to this command, were to fall on