persecutors. Religious unity was to be obtained at the expense of humanity. The making charity to man depend on speculative opinions, has given an haughty and stern demeanour to the Moslems

in their communion with the rest of the world. It has prevented all free intercourse with other nations, and preserved through all ages Muhammedan Asia in its pristine state. That war is an ordinance of God, and that success is a mark of divine favour, are the natural principles of people whose religion was founded by the sword.* One circumstance runs through the whole course of Muhammedan history. Submission has been accounted a religious virtue, till a successful war proves that violence has been approved of by heaven; but in all the shocks of empires, which ambition or fanaticism

have occasioned, the forms of government have remained unaffected. Any change in the political or social condition of the world is contrary to a religion which is thought to be a perfect system of theology, morals, and jurisprudence. Impiety would attach to him who suggested any improvement; who wished, for instance, to put an end to polygamy, and to soften the character of men by restoring woman to her proper station in society. In the despotic governments of the East, the gradations of public and domestic life present only the two characters of tyrant and slave. Little, low passions must be engendered, and noble virtues destroyed. Injustice and oppression will be opposed by falsehood and cunning, and habits of deceit are gained. Justice can never be

well administered in a society where force is paramount, and revenge and other bad passions of our nature are unavoidably called into action.

Lordly pride, savageness, and ferocity, must be the strong and prominent features of the character of men who are influenced

by a religion which breathes war and persecution. The stamp of divinity and eternity, which Islamism fixes on every institution, has preserved the principles of Asiatic despotism, and the evils consequential to such a state of society are sufficiently numerous and dreadful to prevent, or at least to check, the practice of morality, however pure and beautiful such

morality may be.

*Some superficial writers on the subject of the Muhammedan religion have commended Muhammed for his toleration! A few passages in the Koran might indeed make bigotry blush; but such passages do not accurately represent the ch racter of the religion. The truth is, that (like all other reformers) while Muhammed was an humble preacher he granted liberty of conscience; but when he became a powerful prince, the only choice to those to whom his religion was offered, was submission or tribute. Those por

tions of the Koran, therefore, which were revealed at Mecca, breathe the language of tolera

tion, while those which were revealed at Medina,

speak nothing but persecution,

We were pleased to observe, in the sixth chapter, that the author had attended to our hints on the subject of the Alexandrian library, and they have led him to the conclusion we anticipated. We praise him for his readiness in acknowledging the common lot of authorship: it would be equally creditable to him if he would sometimes point out the sources of his corrections. He has enriched this chapter with many curious facts, and it is altogether very much improved. We think that the history of the literature of the Saracens is an interesting rather than an important subject. Historical accounts of science are often necessary to the inError must vestigation of truth. be exhausted before light appears. "Thus," as Bailly truly says, "the system of Ptolemy is founded on a prejudice so natural, that it may be considered an unavoidable step in the progress of astronomical science; and if it had not been proposed in ancient times, it would infallibly have preceded, among the moderns, the system of Copernicus, and retarded the period of its discovery." In this view, then, the

literature of the Saracens is not an important subject. What did their knowledge amount to? or, rather, what was peculiarly their's? In science they were children; in medicine they were little better than empirics; they somewhat enriched the herbal of Dioscorides, and though they gave chemistry a scientific form, their knowledge of the subject went no great way. It was the fashion among the literary men of the sixteenth century to attribute the origin of every thing to the Arabs; in many cases gratitude overstepped truth. In mathematics the Saracens went but few steps beyond the elements; for their warmest admirers cannot say much more for them, than that they had a good knowledge of trigonometry; we question whether in algebra their knowledge equalled that of the Hindus.

The most interesting point of view in which Saracenic literature. has ever appeared to our minds, is in its connexion with European letters. The wild and romantic literature of the middle ages may be traced to a two-fold source, but both these sources were of the same quality. On the one hand, the barbarians of the north tinctured the minds of central Europe, and the sentiments of these barbarians had their origin in the east. Thus, the Edda, or book accounted sacred by the northern nations, can be traced to Asia; to mention one proof out of a thousand, the Loke of the Edda is the Ahriman of the Zend Avesta. The tribes of the Scandinavians proceeded from Caucasus, or the north of Persia, and the Normans' theology and their's was the same. The Normans and other Danish nations inundated the south, and therefore by a circuitous course, eastern opinions were introduced into the west. In the south of Europe the Spanish and Italian Saracens made a direct and immediate impression of oriental sentiments on European learning, and hence it is that Spanish literature is so remarkable for the beauty and variety of its fables. Calderon's works are a perfect storehouse of theatrical plots and the best French and German writers of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, and even of later times, have gone to Spanish authors for their stories and tales. The Italian muse is under greater obligations to eastern fancy than is generally imagined. In marking the history of thought, it is usual to be satisfied with tracing the narrative to Boccacio. The inquiry might be pursued still further, and we should find that the most enchanting Italian songsters were as much indebted to eastern genius, as it is acknowledged on all hands that the Provençal poets

were.

To the seventh and last chapter we are arrived. There is in it a highly spirited and well written ac

count of the Wahabees, brought down to the latest time. This will be read with interest, as we do not know whether these enthusiasts may not yet make a dreadfully splendid figure on the theatre of ambition. If their arms had within the last few years been as successful as those of the Saracens were in the seventh century, they would have carried their religion along with them, and Socinian Islamism would have triumphed over the orthodox Moslem faith. The account of the pilgrimage to Mecca appears to much more advantage in the present than in the preceding edition. In a subsequent part of this chapter we were glad to see that the author had qualified his panegyric of Volney, or rather shewed his meaning more distinctly than before; in the first edition he called him the "incomparable," in the second "the best of all travellers ;" whether he be so or not we shall not stay to inquire, or to examine the merit of Mr. Gibbon's wish that Volney would travel all the world over; it is sufficient for us that our author's expression, “in

66

therefore, that the evils have ensued which are incident to the letting loose upon the world a large body of men, ignorant of the peaceful arts of social life. The author thinks that the number of Muselmans in India is between ten and fifteen millions. A general calculation indeed! The supposed census varies only five millions: the total population of England and Wales. an hundred years ago. Such vague estimates are perfectly useless. Most gentlemen conversant with India decline forming any opinion on the matter. If the old idea be correct, that the Muhammedan population is to that of the Hindu as one to ten, the number of Muselmans cannot exceed six millions.

We now take our farewell of Mr. Mills. His book has given us much pleasure and instruction, It has gained a distinct and decided character, and the second edition will be the textus receptus. From it the learned may refresh their knowledge, or give the particulars of it a new arrangement; and the unlearned may gain a valuable stock of useful and elegant information. The new edition is enlivened with many notes, containing anecdotes highly interesting in themselves, and illustrative of oriental man

ners.

66

The expression "ornari res

ipsa negat, contenta doceri," is no longer applicable. The story respecting the lost MS. of Apollonicus Rhodius is one of the most curious with which we are acquainted, and is a striking proof of the utility of the precise language of the mathematics. The system of the Muselman nations is not a subject of air-built fancy, or of ages and people which exist only in the mind of the poet. It relates to a race of men not far short in number to the Christian world; a people who, more than any others, have injured and insulted the true religion of Christ, and prevented the influence of his gospel of peace. It is not an unimportant affair to an English mind, for several millions of British subjects in Asia profess it, and to the eye of the politician the Turkish crescent is as interesting as the eagle of Russia. The schism which separates the east from the west is no light concern to the Christian, the philosopher, or the statesman ; it fills their minds with great, serious, and awful thoughts on the inexplicable ways of Providence, and the destinies of the human

race.

:

East-India House, June 18, 1817. ALLOWANCES TO SHIP-OWNERS. (Continued from p. 609, Vol. IV.) Mr. Freshfield said it was not his inten-. tion to have troubled the court with any observations upon this subject and he should have contented himself with giving a silent vote, but for some statements which had been made by the hon. gentleman who brought forward the motion, which appeared to him to be without foundation. The hon. gentleman had ventured upon statements from which, if correct, it would appear that the committee of the House of Commons and the court of directors had been acting most unjustly. In the first place, he must utterly deny the correctness of some of the

hon. gentleman's statements; and in the next, he must declare his opinion, that if any injustice was likely to be done, it would be by the hon. gentleman's own conduct, in bringing forward his present motion; because if any thing was more calculated to prevent that liberal view of the subject which the court of directors and the committee of the House of Commons had been desirous of taking, it was the manner in which the hon. gentleman had submitted this question to the court. For his own part, he must think that the report of the committee did contain as complete and as liberal a view of the rights and claims of the owners as it was possible to take, by any body of intelligent men, upon so interesting a subject. The hon. gentleman had complained of the re

The fact

port, by saying, "that no evidence had been offered to the commintee, but that of the ship owners themselves." Now he (Mr. Freshfield) admitted that upon the face of the report it would not appear that any evidence had been offered but that of the owners: but the hon. gentleman had drawn too large a conclusion from what the committee had said, when he contended that no other evidence, whatever, had been offered. was that the committee stated expressly in their report, that almost the whole of the accounts or estimates of the expenses of the shipping had been received from the owners; but they did not say that no evidence had been offered to them but that of the owners. If the hon. gentleman would take the trouble of looking at the printed evidence in his hand (and which, by the way, had not been printed for the general use of the house, but for the use of the members of the committee, only; but a copy of which the hon. gentleman seemed to have procured, some how or other,) he would find that other evidence than that of the owners had been adduced before the committee of the House of Commons, the tendency of which was to shew that very great and serious losses had been sustained by the ship owners. It was true the committee had stated that they had no other means afforded them of examining into matters of accounts and figures, but through the medium of the evidence of the owners themselves, who had produced their own accounts, and who must necessarily have been more conversant with that branch of the subject than any other persons. The committee, however, drew their own conclusion from such evidence as they had before them, but not from any partial or ex-parte view of the question. They did not confine themselves to any detached consideration of the subject; but, in forming their opinion, they examined into the causes which had occasioned the distress of the owners, and those causes were distinctly stated in the report. The committee did not found this statement upon the evidence of the owners alone, for the hon. gentleman must know, from the evidence now in his hands, it was clearly ascertained in the evidence before the committee, that whether the loss to the owners turned out to be more or less, yet to them it was a serious grievance, and furnished strong ground for the interposition of the legislature on their behalf. From the same private information the hon. gentleman would learn that no doubt remained that great and serious losses, (whether £20 or £100 more or less was not necessary to inquire,) were sustained by the owners, and that it was found to be a measure of imperious justice to relieve them from the peril of sinking under

those losses. It was true that the committee had received information respecting the extraordinary losses sustained by a particular individual, who had suffered to the amount of £167,000; but the hon. gentleman might have gained from the same private information a complete knowledge of the sentiments of the committee upon that particular case. The hon. gentleman must know, by comparing the evidence in his hand with the report, that it was not on account of any particular individual loss, however grievous it might be, that the committee would be justified in recommending the interposition of the legislature to adopt a general measure of relief, more particularly if the case in question and the terms of the contract into which that individual had entered, did not fall precisely within the scope of the act of Parliament; and therefore, whether the committee were at liberty to recommend relief or not, in such particular case, it was not upon the ground of partiality, but from necessity, that they abstained from taking that case into their consideration. The committee, in their inquiries, were guided with a view to a general measure, by the examination of such evidence and documents as afforded them the necessary grounds for coming to a general conclusion upon the case submitted to their notice.

The hon. gentleman who spoke last, taking his information from the gentleman who made the motion, had fallen into an error which it was very natural for him to do, from the manner in which the motion had been brought forward, namely that the owners were to receive £8 per ton under all circumstances. Whether the hon. gentleman's calculation proceeded upon that ground or not, he (Mr. F.) did not know (Mr. Hume said, No.) Certainly the hon. gentleman who spoke last seemed to understand that the committee had calculated upon paying every owner £8 per ton, in addition to what he received already. Now, the court would see that that was the maximum, and that in no case could an owner receive above £26 per ton. Therefore, where an owner already received £20 per ton he would not receive£8 in addition; but that, at the most, the court of directors would only give him £26.

The hon. gentleman then spoke to that part of the evidence which related to the insurance upon small ships. It might be true that the rate of insurance at Lloyd's was the same on small as large ships; but it was well known that the additional risk which was attached to a large ship was the reason why the same rate of insurance was charged on a large as on a small ship. The reason of this was obvious. The underwriters took a larger risk for the same rate of premium upon

the larger ship than they did upon the smaller; because the larger ship being engaged sometimes in the warfare of the country to which it was destined, as well as being exposed to the perils of the seas, the risk was greater than upon a smaller ship. Every underwriter was cognizant of the extent of a contract with the East India Company, for a voyage to the eastern world for it had been held that a policy upon an East India voyage extended even to the perils of the Chinese seas. These considerations, therefore, entered into the view of the underwriter, when he underwrote a ship for the East India voyage ; and knowing the probable risk to which a large ship would be exposed, he would charge the same rate of insurance as upon a small ship. The hon. gent. (Mr. Hume,) then proceeded to speak of the freight at which ships might be obtained, and had asserted that at the rate of £13 per ton the Company might bring their goods home. Now here again, he (Mr. F.) begged leave to refer the hon. gentleman to the evidence which he held in his hand, for the purpose of shewing that £13 per ton paid to the ships of the description alluded to, would in effect be higher than the £26 per ton proposed to be paid to the Company's ships. The hon. gentleman had in his hand the evidence of a gentleman who stated with great particularity the expenses and charges necessarily incident to a general ship, and clearly shewed upon a fair and rational calculation, that when the increased expenses of such a ship were deducted from the £26 proposed to be paid to the Company's ships, they would leave a considerably less sum to be paid for the freight of the goods to be brought home in those ships than would be to be paid to the general ships which were allowed £13 per ton. He (Mr. F.) alluded particularly to the evidence of Mr. Staniforth, from whose evidence the court would learn what was paid by these extra ships, and what expense they occasioned when engaged in that service: and from that evidence it would be found that the proposition he (Mr. F.) had just stated was confirmed by the calculation of that gentleman, who, no doubt, gave very good reason for his calculation, and gave satisfactory data to go upon. This, no doubt, was a question which would be decided by the directors with the assistance of the court upon a rational consideration of the evidence to be laid before them.

It was undoubtedly a question not to be discussed to day; but he (Mr. F.) only referred to the evidence of the gentlemen in question, for the purpose of shewing that the proprietors were not in a situation at present to say decidedly that the Company were to derive such considerable benefit as had been stated from the employment of ships at £13 per ton.;

because it would be found that, in the result, it was a fallacious calculation, and had no reference to the real amount of expense which would be incurred by the Company in employing such ships.

When the hon. gentleman had said "that the Company ought to be just before they were generous," he ought to have taken a more enlarged view of the case, before he applied that observation to the situation of the owners. It appeared to him (Mr. F.) that there never was a claim upon any body of men more just than this. Could it be doubted for a moment, that when the gentlemen who framed the act of the 39th of the King sat down to consider the different accounts upon which the owners formed their estimate of expense, they did not take into their calculation, first, that the actual state of war had a tendency to increase the costs of the outfit; and secondly, that the operations of such a war as had just been concluded must have tended to increase those costs. Could it be doubted that at the time when that act was passed there was not the slightest conception in any man's mind, that at the close of the war, the consequences of that war would be equally as injurious to the interests of the owner as if the country were in a state of actual warfare? Could it be doubted, that if the present state of things was contemplated at the time of the passing of the 39th of the King, care would not have been taken to provide for the interest of the owner, if he happened to be placed in such a situation as that in which he now stood? Certaiuly these were propositions which could not be doubted, for it was reasonable that the interests of the owners should not suffer by casualties over which they had no control, and which they could not foresee. Was it because the country was not in an actual state of war when the owners entered into their contracts, that therefore they were not entitled to relief from the pressure of events against which they had made no provision? It was clear that the state of war from which the country has just emerged, had subjected the owners to a higher rate of expense in their outfit than could have been previously calculated; therefore, whatever was the cause, those expenses and difficulties were the consequences of that war. This was not a question of generosity, but of justice-it was not a question to be decided upon the vague foundation of liberality and of consideration-for men who appealed rather to the feelings than to the judgment;-but it was a claim of justice, and consequently of strict right, arising from unforeseen circumstances, and a course of events unparalleled in history. The committee had founded their recommendation upon the