THE PEOPLE AMONG WHOM WE LABOUR (Continued).
HINDUS.
I have endeavoured in my account of Benares to describe the Hindu
idolatry there practised, and in my account of our missionary preaching
I have stated the arguments by which that idolatry is defended. The
Hindu system, it is well known, is at once pantheistic and polytheistic.
The universe, we are told, is God expanded. _Brahm_--he alone is the
Existent One; but there are several persons and objects in which he is
more manifest than in others, and as owing to _Maya_ (illusion) we
believe in our separate existence, it is fitting that to these objects
special honour should be paid. I have mentioned the hideous aspect of
the images worshipped at Benares, and their hideous aspect well accords
with the character attributed to the gods worshipped under these forms.
[Sidenote: THE INFLUENCE OF HINDUISM ON CHARACTER.]
We are all familiar with the maxim, Like priest, like people. May we
say, Like God, like worshipper? If so, we must regard the Hindus as in
the very mire of moral debasement. Just think of a whole people acting
like Shiva, Doorga, and Krishna! I think it cannot be doubted by any one
who looks at the nature of the human mind, and the power exercised over
it by its belief, that the worship of these and similar gods, along
with the prevalent pantheistic and fatalistic views, which strike at the
very root of moral distinctions, have done much to deprave the Hindu
mind. The people, indeed, often assert "to the powerful there is no
fault." The gods had the power and the opportunity to do what they did,
and therefore no fault attached to their conduct; but ordinary persons
have neither the one nor the other, and for them it would be very
culpable to pursue the same course. Can a people fail to occupy a low
place on the plane of morals to whom the maxim I have quoted would be
tolerable? I believe they do as a people occupy a low place, and yet not
nearly so low as might have been anticipated.
There is much to counteract the influence exerted on the Hindus by the
evil example of their gods, by their excessive trust in outward rites
apart from all mental working, and by the pantheistic teaching of their
philosophers. They retain a moral nature, and acknowledge the
distinction between right and wrong as readily as we do, though the
distinction be inconsistent with the views they often express. The
requirements of society and of daily life exert a powerful and salutary
restraint by the obstacle which they present to a vicious career. The
family constitution has conferred immense benefit on the Hindus, as on
other nations.
It must be acknowledged that however long we may reside in India, our
knowledge of the inner life of the people is very limited. We may be for
years on the best terms with them; we may meet them frequently, and
converse with them freely on all subjects; there may be not only
acquaintance, but to all appearance friendship: and yet we have no
entrance into the family circle, we cannot join them in the family
meal, we can scarcely get a glimpse into their home life. If they be of
the poorer class they would be shocked at our entering their houses, and
conversing with their women and children. If of a higher class, they
visit us and we visit them. They have a room of audience in which they
welcome us. On occasions they prepare sumptuous feasts for Europeans, of
which they themselves do not partake. However friendly we may be with
natives of rank in Northern India, it is difficult, often impossible, to
secure an interview between our wives and the female members of their
families. As to English gentlemen, they never see the face of a native
lady. Still, notwithstanding our being kept so far outside Hindu family
life, we know enough about it to be sure there is often strong family
affection. We have many proofs that parents regard their children with
the most tender love; and we know that in the lower classes, at least,
children often requite this love by sending a large portion of their
wages to their aged parents. I myself have often been the channel of
communication. It cannot be doubted that this family affection is widely
extended, and has a very happy influence on the character and life of
the people.
[Sidenote: THE CHARACTER OF THE HINDUS.]
Professor Max Muller, in his recently-published book, "India, what can
it teach us?" discusses at length the character of the Hindus. He quotes
the views entertained by persons of large Indian experience, who had
mixed freely with all classes, and yet differ widely in their testimony,
showing that in forming an estimate of the character of a community we
are greatly influenced by our temperament and by the standard we employ.
Sir Thomas Munro, the famous Governor of Madras, speaks of the character
and attainments of the Hindus in the most laudatory terms. He says, "If
civilization is to become an article of trade between England and India,
I am convinced that England will gain by the import cargo." Sir Charles
Trevelyan, on the other hand, speaks of them as a morally depraved
people, to whom "the phenomenon is truly astonishing" "of a race of men
on whose word perfect confidence may be placed." "The natives require to
be taught rectitude of conduct much more than literature and science."
The Professor is evidently inclined to take the favourable view. He
thinks the ordinary view of their falsehood and dishonesty is applicable
only to the rabble of the cities and the frequenters of our courts, but
is most unjust to the unsophisticated people of the country, whose
truthfulness he extols. After the laudation of these honest and truthful
people, I must say I was amused with the _naïveté_ of the learned
Professor, when he goes on to show that the excellence of his _protegés_
is not sufficiently strong to be maintained in the face of temptation.
He says, "A man out of his village community is out of his element and
under temptation. What would be called theft or robbery at home, is
called a raid or conquest if directed against distant villages; and what
would be falsehood or trickery in private life, is honoured by the name
of policy and diplomacy if successful against strangers." The lauded
truthfulness and honesty are so delicate that they cannot stand the
breath of the nipping cold which has to be encountered when they leave
their sheltered enclosure. The excellence is, according to the
Professor, though he does not say so in words, merely conventional, as
it rests on the principle of mutual insurance among those who form a
closely-knitted community, bound together by common interests and
associations. Even then excellence needs to be guarded by an oath, which
is viewed with superstitious awe. I do not think the Professor's friends
will thank him for this defence of the morality of their countrymen.
When I think of the wickedness rampant among large classes in a country
like our own, notwithstanding our great privileges, I shrink from
applying to the Hindus the strong terms of condemnation which I have
often heard. There is among them, as I have already said, much family
affection; they are, in ordinary circumstances, very courteous; they
often manifest a kindly disposition; almsgiving is reckoned a high
virtue; many lead quiet, orderly, industrious lives; and, as Max Muller
tells us, from the earliest age _satya_, "truth," in its widest sense,
has been represented by them as the very pillar on which goodness rests,
though it must be allowed it has been much more praised than practised.
[Sidenote: THE HINDU AND CHRISTIAN STANDARDS.]
Am I then to say, as many have done, that Hinduism has done its
adherents no harm, and that Christianity has done its adherents no
good--that the Hindus as a people stand as high morally as we do? With
every desire to speak of them as favourably as I can, with a pleasing
recollection of many acts of kindness and courtesy, and with every
desire to rid myself of prejudice, I must dissent strongly from this
view. I cannot forget the lurid light cast on the native character
during the Mutiny; the treachery, ingratitude, falsehood, and cruelty
shown by many who gloried in their caste purity--relieved, however, it
is only right to acknowledge, by notable instances of faithfulness and
kindness. I cannot but remember the impression often made on my mind of
their low standard of character, the absence of high motive, even when
full expression has been given to the distinction between right and
wrong. Happily, in our land there are many, in every class of society,
who, as the result of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, hate sin in every
form, and strive after excellence, an excellence springing from supreme
love to God, and prompting to sustained effort for the good of man, for
which we look in vain among the best of Hindus, though among them we
discern the workings of conscience and the desire to do what is right.
The standard of character is undoubtedly far higher among us than it is
among Hindus, and this standard, protesting as it does against
wickedness, and calling us to aspire after goodness, is in itself an
incalculable benefit to a community. For many a day it has been my
settled conviction that Hindus are vastly better than, looking at their
religion, we could expect to find them, and that we on the other hand
fall far below the excellence to which our religion summons us. If
Hinduism was allowed full sway over its adherents society would go to
pieces, while we should rise to the excellence of angels if we were to
come under the full sway of the Gospel.
All have heard of the caste system of India, but only those who have
lived among the people can understand its innumerable ramifications and
its remarkable effects. Every caste, down to the lowest, is endlessly
sub-divided. There are Brahmans who would as soon eat, drink, and
intermarry with people of low caste, as with many who like themselves
boast of Brahmanical blood. In books the Sudras are described as the
fourth, the low, servile caste; but in fact a vast number in Northern
India, who are loosely reckoned Hindus, are far below the Sudras, and
thus the Sudras acquire a relatively high place. These low-caste
people, on whom the people above them look down with contempt, are in
their own fashion as tenacious of caste as their superiors, and they,
too, multiply their divisions, one class maintaining its superiority to
others. We have a large community called _Chumars_, "leather-people" as
the word means, though many of them have nothing to do with leather. One
of them once told me there were twelve divisions in their caste. We had
near us at Ranee Khet a little colony of Dhobees, washermen, whom I
visited now and then. I observed some huts were built separate from the
rest, and I asked the reason. The man to whom I was speaking, for his
class an intelligent man, expressed his surprise I did not know the
reason. He said, with an air of dignity, "These are of an inferior
order, and it is requisite their huts should be built apart."
It has been often shown that this caste system is most baleful. It
narrows the sympathies of the people, keeps them in the same groove,
fetters their minds, represses individuality, and is a bar to progress.
It would be unfair, however, to say that all its consequences are
pernicious. It so far benefits those bound by it that it restrains them
from some forms of evil, and secures mutual helpfulness, just as the
close trade guilds of our own country did, of which we have happily got
rid. When the clan system was in full force among the Scotch
Highlanders, there were broken men, men who had left the clan or were
expelled from it, and these were notorious for their crimes. In like
manner there are persons who break away from caste, and are the worst
members of the community.
The patriarchal system, the system so prevalent in India, by which the
people, instead of forming separate families in their separate
dwellings, all form one household, to a large extent with a common purse
and under a common rule, is perhaps still more fitted to fetter the mind
and to obstruct progress than even caste itself. Those who have embraced
Christ as their Saviour have often suffered more from their own kindred,
dwelling together, than from their caste brethren.
[Sidenote: THE DISINTEGRATION OF CASTE.]
Many things tend to the disintegration of caste, such as education, the
subjection of all to the same laws, the growing demands of commerce, and
travelling together in railway-carriages. The attractions of the
railway, notwithstanding its disregard of class distinctions, are
irresistible. Thousands of pilgrims thus make their way to distant
shrines, though by travelling in this easy fashion they lose the merit
which suffering would bring. When railways were constructed, a proposal
was made by leading Hindus to have separate carriages for separate
castes, but compliance with the proposal was of course out of the
question; and now high Brahmans and low Chumars--who are never seen in
the same temple even though they worship the same gods, as the presence
of a Chumar there would be deemed a profanation--may be seen packed in
the same carriage in as close contact as two human beings can be. When
they separate the Brahmans have recourse to lustrations, and satisfy
themselves the impurity has been washed away.
In the great Presidency cities caste is no doubt greatly weakened. Many
openly violate its rules, and are never called to account, but these
very persons take care to maintain their caste position for certain
domestic and social purposes. Leaving these cities and a small class
scattered over the country, the mass of the people seem as much bound by
caste as they ever were, so far as its outward requirements are
concerned, though, as I have said, there are no doubt influences widely
spread which tend to its relaxation. This is the case in Northern India,
at any rate.
Much has been said about the Brahmist movement. The number of its
professed adherents is very small, but many of the educated class are
imbued with its spirit. Years ago branches of the Brahmist Sumaj were
formed in the great cities of the North-West by young Bengalees employed
in the public offices. For a time their services were kept up zealously,
but soon they declined. The last time I heard about these communities
most had ceased to exist, and only two or three had any sign of
vitality. So far as I have learned, the Brahmists have had very few
adherents from the Hindus of the North-West. At first sight Brahmism
seems an advance towards the Gospel, and a preparation for its
reception, but the best of our native Christians in Calcutta look on it
as furnishing a welcome abode to those who cannot remain Hindus, and yet
for various reasons refuse to embrace Christ as their Lord and Saviour.
Its avowed hostility to definite doctrine, to what is denounced as
dogma, the dreamy sentimentalism characteristic of the system, the
ignoring to a great extent of the terrible facts of man's depravity and
guilt, and the coquetting with Vedism, do little towards bringing its
adherents to the feet of Jesus. The Brahmists used at one time to taunt
us with our divisions, but for a long time they have had two separate
Sumajes, composed respectively of Conservatives and Liberals. In
consequence of Chunder Sen's Hindu proclivities in his later years, the
Liberals became divided among themselves, the majority having seceded,
while a few remained his devoted followers, who are likely to settle
down into a Hindu sect, tinged with Christian thought and feeling.
[Sidenote: HINDU REFORMERS.]
From time to time reformers have appeared among the Hindus. Gautam, the
Sakya Saint, was one of the earliest and greatest of the class.
Successive reformers have had a great following, but the stream has not
risen above its source. From Gautam downward some fundamental principles
of Hinduism have been retained, and in the end these principles have
asserted much of their former sway. This threatens to be the case with
Brahmism. Notwithstanding its assertion of the Divine Unity, it has a
strong pantheistic tinge, and already we see its effect. As it has
arisen in a measure as the result of Christian teaching, and among a
people to whom the Gospel is made known, it may be hoped that many,
influenced by it, may travel upward to the light, instead of turning to
the darkness from which they have emerged.
Increasing effort has been put forth in late years for the menial and
spiritual improvement of the female portion of the population. From the
commencement of missions, the wives of missionaries have bestowed much
labour on the women and girls to whom they could find access. These have
been well-nigh exclusively either Christians, or of the lower class of
society. Very occasionally individuals of a higher class come under
Christian teaching. A daughter of the late Rajah of Coorg, a state
prisoner at Benares, was for a time under the tuition of Mrs. Kennedy.
She was brought daily to our house, sat with us at table, and was taught
with our children. The Rajah wished her to be brought up as a Christian
and an English lady, in the hope that he might thus be helped in getting
back his kingdom. Eventually she was brought to England, was baptized
by the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Queen standing sponsor, and was
married to an English officer. She survived her marriage a very short
time. This was altogether an exceptional case. It has been most
difficult for the wives of missionaries to obtain even an occasional
interview with native ladies, as I have already intimated, though their
husbands have been our frequent and friendly visitors. From the Reports
of Zenana Missions we learn that of late years access has been obtained
to many native families which had till recently been excluded from all
Christian, and, indeed, from all European influence. The lady physician
is often welcome where the ordinary teacher can find no entrance. In a
city like Benares--and I suppose it is the same elsewhere--except for
the lady physician in her professional capacity, and only rarely even in
that capacity, the door of the Zenanas in the houses of the great
magnates continues shut against all who would seek to awake and guide
the dormant minds there.
[Sidenote: THE POSITION OF WOMAN AMONG THE HINDUS.]
Nothing can be conceived more deplorable than the condition of the
ladies of India, living, as the phrase is, behind the curtain. They are,
as a rule, utterly uneducated, know nothing of books, are shut out from
the world, and have no refuge from _ennui_ in such employments as
needlework, knitting, and embroidery, for which the nimble fingers of
the sisterhood are so well adapted. They have no society beyond the
women of the household, their husbands and their children. An occasional
glimpse has been got by our ladies into their state, and, as might have
been expected, their minds have been found utterly childish and dwarfed.
Happily for themselves the vast majority of the women of the country
are under no such bondage. Their husbands cannot afford to curtain them.
They move about freely as they do in our country, only with the hood
ready to come down over the face. They are seen in the streets of
Benares as they are seen in the streets of our own towns.
All have heard of the low view of woman entertained in India, and of the
humiliating customs to which she is subjected; but nature asserts itself
there as elsewhere, and notwithstanding all the inferiority with which
she is charged, she exercises a profound influence on the male portion
of the community. This is recognized by the people always saying, _Ma,
Bap_--Mother, Father--not _Father and Mother_, as we say. It is well
known that in the large households of which I have spoken the dowager
lady is the supreme ruler, often the tyrant--not the less a tyrant
because in her youth she had been treated as a slave. The state of
widows, many of them mere children, is sad indeed.
Shut out though we be to a large extent from native families, we have
many proofs presented to us of the power of female influence, a power
often most perniciously exerted, as it is the power of ignorance and
superstition, a power opposed to all intellectual and spiritual
progress. The devout women of India are often our most formidable
enemies, as they were of Paul in Antioch in Pisidia, and no doubt in
other places. Some of our converts have known from painful experience
what their opposition to the Gospel is, and it cannot be doubted that
many have been prevented from joining us by the pressure brought to bear
on them by their mothers, wives, and sisters. Well may every friend of
India pray earnestly that Zenana Missions may be crowned with success.
A returned missionary is often asked what are the prospects of missions.
From careful and trustworthy statistics we learn the number of
Christians is increasing rapidly. It is right to observe that this
increase has come mainly from the non-Aryan tribes, and people of low
caste. We have valuable converts from the higher castes, but they are
few. When we leave statistics we have recourse to impression, and that
impression depends greatly on circumstances, and still more, perhaps, on
the temperament of the observer. It is very difficult to gauge public
opinion. When we think of all the influences at work, such as education,
both primary and more advanced, Christian literature, missionary effort
in many forms, railway travelling, commerce, and a Government bent on
doing justice, we look forward with hope to an awaking of the Hindu
mind, under which it will seek and embrace the highest good.
[Sidenote: OBSTACLES TO CONVERSION.]
The obstacles to success are most formidable, so formidable that,
notwithstanding promising appearances, we should despair if we were not
assured that the work is of God. The literature of our own country is
strengthening the opposition to us. The unbelief of many educated
natives, an unbelief springing both from repugnance to the Gospel and
from dread of the sacrifices to which its acceptance would subject them,
is fortified by the perusal of sceptical books and periodicals. Years
ago I met a Bengalee far up in the mountains, who told me I need not
speak to him about Christianity, for all reasonable people in England
were abandoning it. In proof he put into my hands a letter from
Professor Newman in answer to a letter he had sent to him. The Professor
counselled his correspondent to worship God as his conscience and reason
directed him, and to keep apart from the Christian Church.
Notwithstanding these obstacles to the reception of the Gospel, there
are persons to whom it has come with a Divine sanction, but who are so
bound by family and social ties that they do not avow their faith.
Striking instances of this failure to act in accordance with conviction
have come under my observation. I mention only one. I once had an
interview with a dying young Hindu, who had been taught in a mission
school and was well acquainted with the Gospel. With tears in his eyes
he said all his trust for salvation was in the Lord Jesus Christ, and
that he knew it was his duty to avow his faith, but he could not, for if
he did his relatives would one and all abandon him. He seemed to dread
any one but myself hearing the confession of his faith. I have known
others who have had a strong drawing to the Saviour, but they have
stifled their convictions, and have become, as I remember with sadness,
bitter foes of the truth. Let only the tide set in in favour of
Christianity, and many, I doubt not, will be ready to flow with it.
It ought ever to be remembered that in India we have a vast population.
In the North-Western Provinces and Punjab alone there is a population
twice as large as that of Great Britain and Ireland. Those of this
population who may be said to be educated in a high degree are the
merest handful. You travel hundreds of miles through regions full of
towns, villages, and hamlets, where you find that the partially educated
are very few compared with the wholly uneducated many. Even most of the
shopkeepers who can keep accounts well are unable to read a book with
ease, as the written and printed characters are very different. All know
that their English rulers are called Christians; those who live near the
great lines of road hear an occasional address from a passing
missionary, many frequenters of melas have come under the sound of the
Gospel, but the vast majority have not the slightest conception of its
meaning. When Christianity had spread to a considerable extent in the
Roman Empire, country districts were so little affected by it that
_pagani_ (villagers) became soon synonymous with "heathen," the only
meaning which attaches to the word as it is now used by us. A vast work
has to be done before the villagers of Northern India cease to be pagans
in our sense of the word. The work of evangelization is only in its
initial stage. It is yet with us the day of small things--but it is the
day, not the night. The morning has dawned; over a great part of
Northern India we can only see the faint streaks of the coming day, but
the light will spread, the darkness will vanish, and the millions of
that great country will yet be gladdened by the beams of the Sun of
Righteousness.
I mention, and merely mention, help which India gives for the solution
of some great questions:--
(1) _The immobility of the Eastern mind._ In manner of life, in
salutations, in offerings of inferiors to superiors, in many customs,
the far East, like the nearer East, continually reminds us of the East
as presented in the records of antiquity--above all as presented to us
in the Bible. He must be a very careless observer who has not been
struck with the resemblance. The restless changing West furnishes in
this respect a striking contrast to the staid, unchanging East. There
has been no such immobility as to religious opinion and practice. There,
as elsewhere, it holds true that man's mind never remains in one stay.
The Hindus of the present day speak of their Vedic ancestors with
profound reverence, but if they were to rise from their graves and act
as they did when denizens of earth--kill cows, disregard caste, drink
largely of the intoxicating juice of the som plant, and worship in an
entirely different manner--their reverence would turn into horror and
detestation. We cannot say that the modern Puranas do not rest in any
degree on the Vedas; some Vedic principles are manifest in them: but in
the gods they set forth for worship and in the practices they enjoin,
there is between them and the Vedas a marked diversity. The numerous
sects which have arisen from time to time among the Hindus show that
they too have had that measure of mental activity which has led to new
forms of thought and practice.
[Sidenote: RETROGRESSION.]
(2) _The genesis and evolution of religion._ In the dim remote past to
which the Vedas introduce us, we find the Hindus a religious, a very
religious, people. There is no indication of any period when they could
be called secularists. Their religious views and practices have changed,
there has been an evolving process; the connection may be traced, and we
see the result in the Puranic system of our day. Has this movement been
forward, or backward? Has the fittest survived and the weak and useless
perished? The Vedic system little deserves the praise often lavished on
it, but surely it is preferable to that which has taken its place. There
has been deterioration, not improvement. Has not this ever been the case
in reference to religion, so far as the working of the human mind is
concerned? Is not modern Buddhism a falling off from ancient Buddhism?
Does not Rabbinical Judaism belittle and dwarf Old Testament Judaism?
Does not Roman Catholic Christianity materialize New Testament
Christianity? The facts of man's religious history prove incontestably
that his constant tendency is towards retrogression, not towards
advancement.
[Sidenote: THE BIBLE AND THE HINDU SCRIPTURES.]
(3) _Comparative religion._ On this subject elaborate treatises have
been written with the object of proving that all religions have had
their origin in the human mind, and have been evolved under purely human
conditions. Some of the writers, prompted, we may hope, by a devout
feeling, allow in vague terms an influence exerted on the evolution by
Providential arrangements. Still, in the result we are not to see in any
case the effect of a supernatural revelation, but in all cases an
approximation in different degrees to truth, secured by the unaided
working of the human mind. Does a comparison between the sacred books of
the Hindus and the Bible support this view? Listen to a Sanscrit
specialist like Professor Max Müller, who has spent years in the study
of the Veda, and who has every conceivable motive to say everything he
can on its behalf: "That the Veda is full of childish, silly, even to
our mind monstrous conceptions, who would deny? But even these
monstrosities are interesting and instructive. I could not even answer
the question, if you were to ask it, whether the religion of the Veda
was polytheistic or monotheistic. Monotheistic in the usual sense of the
word it is decidedly not." The dreamy, vague teaching of the Veda has
hardened into the unmistakable polytheism and pantheism of modern
Hinduism. In no country in the world has mind been more active than in
India; in no country have the learned had such abundant leisure, such
full opportunity for quiet, sustained thought--and you see the result.
We follow with deep interest and sympathy the straining of these minds
to understand themselves and the world around; as they grope after God
we find they occasionally obtain a glimpse of the highest truth, but
the darkness, though for the moment relieved, is not dispelled. The
truth has continued to elude them. They have not arrived at the
knowledge of even the first principles of a theology worthy of God, and
fitted to direct, purify, and guide man. Excellent, high-toned
sentiments are no doubt found in Hindu writings, but these do not alter
their general character. The Bible, by its teaching regarding God and
man, above all by its record of the peerless excellence of our Lord
Jesus Christ, and of the provision made through Him for the supply of
man's deepest wants, presents a marvellous contrast to the Veda, to the
great epic poems of the Hindus, to their philosophical treatises and
their Puranas. I know a good deal of what has been said to show that the
characteristics of the Bible may be accounted for on merely human
principles, but the certain facts of the case refute, to my mind, the
arguments adduced. Max Müller says in one of his writings--I cannot
quote his exact words--that we are not to look in the songs of the Veda
for anything so advanced as we find in the Psalter. Why not? Had not the
Pundits of India far more cultured minds than David and the hymnists of
Israel? Their works are different, for their teaching came from
different sources. One benefit I have got from my residence in India, a
conviction deepened by every successive glimpse into Hindu teaching and
practice: that in the Bible we have a supernatural revelation of God's
will, and that in building on it we are building on a rock which cannot
be shaken.
(4) _The migration of nations._ Few things in the history of the world
are more surprising to us than whole nations making their way to new and
remote countries. I have thought I have got a little help towards
understanding these movements when I have observed large bands of
people--men, women, and children--pursuing their journey, carrying with
them all they deemed necessary, and lying out at night on the bare
ground, with a blanket, which they had carried over their shoulder, as
their only covering. They took food with them when they knew that at
their halting-place it could not be procured. Very differently do our
native regiments travel. They are attended by a host of camp-followers,
and have a formidable amount of baggage. I once saw a party of woodmen
in the hills sleeping under a tree when there was frost on the ground;
and on the remark being made it was a wonder they could live, a hillman
remarked, "Has not each got his blanket? What hardship is there?" When
nations migrated they no doubt sent out scouring parties, who seized all
the food on which they could lay their hands. When travelling alone in
the hills I had commonly with me a tent so small that a man carried it
on his head, but I must acknowledge I could not approach the simplicity
of the native traveller's arrangements.
[Illustration]