justly make an exception where forfeiture has been legally incurred by neglect of the condition on which the grant was made. In other cases we agree with you that it can scarcely be regarded as a matter of public interest to interfere. ‘The misappropriations,’ you say, ‘though abusive,’ appear to you, and we doubt not justly, ‘in regard to most of the institutions in question, to be rather of good than ill consequence to the public.’ One thing, however, in such cases is always worthy of attention, and that is, the inquiry whether to objects of little or no utility which thus may have an expenditure devoted to them, might not be annexed other objects really beneficial; whether good institutions of education, for example, might not be combined with the services performed to an idol, and even in some cases whether the useful objects might not quietly and without offence be substituted for the useless. It was highly proper that you should issue orders for an accurate account of the extent and nature of the lands thus appropriated. When that is before you (and we desire its communication to us), it will be more perfectly seen in what way any endeavour can be made to derive from such a fund some general advantage.”—Selections, Vol. III., p. 96, paragraphs 33, 34.
Again, the Court in a revenue letter to the Madras Government, dated 29th September 1824, after referring to various recorded proceedings of the Local Government relating to the temples of natives and the control exercised, or proper to be exercised, by Government, remarks—“The questions connected with this subject are both delicate and important; but we are sorry to perceive from the documents before us that so little of order has hitherto been established, and that the proceedings of Government have been so little regulated by any settled principle. The difficulty is how to interfere so as to prevent the misapplication of the funds to mischievous purposes, without exciting the religious jealousies of the people. But yet we doubt not that a line of conduct may be drawn, by which, without infringing on religious liberty, or interfering with the most jealous scruples of the people, not only evil where it exists may be avoided, but something useful especially in the shape of education, may be connected with the expenditure of the revenues, often very large, of the native temples.”—Selections, Vol, III, p. 596, para 7.
It is probable from these extracts that any measure which would have the effect of peaceably drawing forth the resources of these religious establishments, to however limited an extent, for the promotion of education, would receive the sanction of the Honorable Court. The Government and the people have strong claims upon them for strenuous co-operation in prosecuting such an object, provided always that nothing shall be mixed up with that object inconsistent with their character as religious institutions.
