tuting any other. These he thought more debased than the most bigotted Hindu, and their principles the bane of all morality.

"This strong aversion to infidelity was by no means diminished during his visit to England and France; on the contrary, the more he mingled with society in Europe, the more strongly he became persuaded that religious belief is the only sure ground-work of virtue. If I were to settle with my family in Europe,' he used to say, I would never introduce them to any but religious persons, and from amongst them only would I select my friends; amongst them I find such kindness and friendship, that I feel as if surrounded by my own kindred.'

"He evidently now began to suspect that the Unitarian form of Christianity was too much rationalized (or sophisticated, perhaps I may say,) to be suitable to human nature. He remarked in the Unitarians a want of that fervour of zeal and devotion found among other sects, and felt doubts whether a system appealing to reason only was calculated to produce a permanent influence on mankind. He perceived the same defect in the Utilitarian philosophy, and ridiculed the notion that man, a being governed by three powers-reason, imagination, and the passions-could be directed

by those who addressed themselves only or chiefly to the first of these powers, overlooking the importance of the two other elements of human nature, which must continue to exert an everlasting influence so long as the world endures.

"A writer in one of the daily papers has said he was in politics a republican. I know of no ground for this opinion; if there be any, it must have reference to an early period of his life. He may have approved of it, in theory, while surrounded by power more or less arbitrary, from the form of Government existing in his native country; he may have deemed a republic good in America, but he thought the rule of the citizen-King the best adapted for France, and in the same manner heartily rejoiced in the establishment of the throne of King Leopold in Belgium. Though a decided reformer, he was generally a moderate one. For his own country, he did not propose even an Indian legislative council, like Mr. Rickards; he deemed the English more capable of governing his countrymen well, than the natives themselves. A reference of measures of internal policy to a few of the most distinguished individuals in the European and Native community, for their suggestions, previous to such measures being carried into a law, was the utmost he asked in the present state of the Indian

by him beforehand. How much of his reputation, as an elegant writer, may therefore be attributable to others, both here and in India, can only be conjectured. As he was exceedingly ambitious of literary fame, he took care, both in Europe and in India, to obtain the best assistance he could get, both European and native. His works, therefore, do not furnish an absolute criterion of his literary talents, although these were no doubt considerable.

Perhaps, we cannot do better than, distrusting our own means of observation and judgment, lay before the reader the following sketch of his character in England, by a gentleman* who was in close and intimate communication with him here, and whose impartiality cannot be suspected, though he does not deal in that general strain of panegyric, which either elevates the man above the standard of humanity, or leaves the outline vague and indistinct.

After observing that much obscurity had been thrown on the history of Ram Mohun Roy by those who wish to give the sanction of his name to their own peculiar opinions and doctrines, he goes on to remark:

"Some have said he was a Hindu, others a Christian; some that he was a Unitarian, and others

The late Mr. Sandford Arnot is here referred to.

that he was attached to the forms of the Church of England. Some have asserted that he was a republican; others that he was an admirer of a citizenKing. His different biographers have thus made his real opinions a riddle; those who knew him better, seem not much disposed to clear up the mystery. The fact is, that in religion it is much easier to say what he was not than what he was. He did not believe in the doctrines of Hinduism, nor did he respect its practices: at the same time, he carefully avoided any open and flagrant violation of them, which might have shocked the feelings of his countrymen. He did not believe in the Trinity, yet he regularly attended the places of worship where that doctrine is inculcated. He wrote books in support of the unity of God-a doctrine which Christians hold in common with the Hindu Vedantís, the Jews, and Musulmans. In short, he believed in the Deity, and had a strong sentiment of natural religion, which increased with his years, and, towards the close of his life, was often expressed with all the fervour of genuine piety. He had always cherished, and the longer he lived became more confirmed in, the opinion, that religion is essentially and indispensably necessary to the welfare of mankind. As to the rest, he estimated the different systems of religion existing in the

public mind. He not only always contended, at least among Europeans, for the necessity of continuing British rule for at least forty or fifty years to come, for the good of the people themselves, but he stood up firmly against the proposals of his more radical friends, for exchanging the East-India Company's rule for a colonial form of Government. His argument was, that in all matters connected with the colonies, he had found, from long observation, that the minister was absolute, and the majority of the House of Commons subservient; there being no body of persons there who had any adequate motive to thwart the Government in regard to distant dependencies of the British crown. The change proposed was, therefore, in his estimation, a change from a limited Government, presenting a variety of efficient checks on any abuse of its powers, for an absolute despotism.

"He had been an enthusiastic advocate of the Grey administration, from his arrival in Europe till his departure for France, in the autumn of 1832. Whether it was that he imbibed some fresh light from Louis Philippe and his subjects, or that the first Reformed British Parliament disappointed him, or that he had taken some personal disgust at the present ministry (the most probable of the three), he became most bitterly opposed to it. He