I may here mention that about thirty-five years ago, Dr. Graul, the head of the Leipsic Missionary Society, visited India, remained there three years at the various missionary stations, and was firmly convinced that to interfere with the social customs of the native Christians would be at once unjust and impolitic. As regards the exact action of the Roman Catholics at present, I have no information to lay before the reader, but I know that they always had the wisdom to interfere as little as possible with the prejudices of the people, as long as they did not involve idolatrous rites. Having thus laid before the reader an outline of the views of the supporters and opponents of caste, I shall now offer the conclusions I have arrived at, partly from my own observations and partly from the writings of others. I shall 1. Inquire into the origin of caste. 2. I shall inquire into the sanitary uses of caste, more especially as it concerns the approaching the communion-table promiscuously, as to the sitting together in church or other places, and as to its effects as regards general social intercourse. 3. I shall inquire whether there are not some compensating advantages, as regards caste institutions, which tend in a great measure to neutralize the prejudicial effects that arise from people's sympathies and feelings being confined to the members of their own caste, instead of being evenly distributed over the human race, considered as a whole. And, first of all, as to the origin of caste--a point which seems to have been thought of no little importance by our caste-condemning missionaries. I confess that I, for my part, do not attach much importance to this question of the origin of caste, and think it of far more importance to ascertain its present bearing and effect. But, as many have raised the question, and asserted that caste had an idolatrous origin, and was the invention of an idolatrous priesthood, it may be worth while to gather together such facts as we can lay our hands on regarding this somewhat obscure subject. And it seems to me that the first thing we have to do is to clear away the rubbish which has been piled upon it in common with most Indian institutions--to ask what is evidence, and what is not. Our missionaries have asserted that caste can be clearly traced to an idolatrous origin, and that the institution is entirely unaccountable on any other supposition, and they pointed to the Code of Manu in proof of that assertion. But, on referring to Mrs. Manning's valuable work on "Ancient and Mediæval India," we can find no evidence that caste originated in any special way whatever. And we are told, on the authority of Mr. Muir, that the sacred books of the Hindoos contain no uniform or consistent account of the origin of caste, and that the freest scope is given by the individual writers to fanciful and arbitrary conjecture. The story that the castes issued from the mouth, arms, thighs, and feet of