such endowment in the villages of Khas estates, subject to all the provisions, conditions, and limitations before described. This may be done not only with little cost to the State, but with great administrative facility in consequence of the existence of a distinct class of public officers who are charged with the management of those estates.
After setting such an example, it is worthy of consideration whether Government might, not only without difficulty or offence, but with honor and credit to itself, look to the endowed establishments of the country for similar arrangements on their estates, and enact that they shall be in like manner legally obligatory under the provisions aforesaid. The most important of these are religious establishments, with which no interference for religious purposes can be justified. To prevent misapprehension, therefore, and to guide to the adoption of views likely to obtain practical effect, I shall quote here the opinions which I find expressed by the Bengal Government and by the Court of Directors.
In a revenue letter from Bengal on the affairs of Cuttack, dated the 30th March 1821, and contained in the Revenue and Judicial Selections, Vol. III., pp. 68—90, the Bengal Government expresses its sentiments to the following effect:—“It appears to us to be doubtful whether it be advisable for the officers of Government to interfere to give effect to endowments purely of a religious nature; and we can scarcely consider it a matter of public interest to prevent the appropriation by individuals (Musulman or layman) of rents designed to support the servants of a Hindu temple or idol. The right of Government to do so is undoubted. In some cases where useful object are combined with purposes of religion, the exercise of the power may be a public duty; and if any class or community interested in maintaining an endowment shall complain of the misappropriation, it is, of course, our duty to see that the wrong done is redressed, though the ground of complaint may be founded on prejudice and superstition. Farther than this we are little disposed to go, for the misappropriations, though abusive, appear to us, in regard to most of the institutions in question to be of rather good than ill consequence to the public, and the nature of the instruction is such that it is always difficult for an European officer to touch without injuring them.”—p. 79, paragraphs 99—101.
The Court of Directors in a revenue letter to the Bengal Government, dated 10th December 1823, in reply to the preceding paragraphs, thus writes—“We concur in most of the sentiments which you have expressed upon this subject. When alienated by a competent authority, you doubt if they“ (lands held free for the support of religious institutions) “could be resumed for the purposes of Government, even though the revenue of them should be found to be misapplied. We think, however, that you may
