We derive our title from the sword, but it is undeniable that our conquering sword has almost invariably been forced from the scabbard either by hostile intrigues, or by the positive aggression of the native princes, who, on their part, it must be confessed, followed a very natural course. They could never shake off the feeling that our continuance in India as sovereigns of any considerable part of it was incompatible with their independence; and no wonder-for it is indeed as inevitable that barbarian states must succumb in the contiguity of regular governments, as it is for hunter-tribes to be gradually extinguished by the proximity of civilized and agricultural immigrants.

We now come to the latest and perhaps the most important of these publications-a skilful and condensed argument, by, as we understand, a gentleman who lately held the high position of Member of Council at Madras, against the whole system of our Indian administration, at home and abroad. Such a production, published at such a moment by such a person, must attract many readers, and seems to demand our best attention.

This Friend of India,' in his opening pages, says it is the interest' of his own countrymen in the East, of all classes,— 'that establishments should be kept at the maximum; that as large a revenue as possible should be drawn from India; that our territory should be extended to its utmost limits, in order that the field for the employment of Europeans should be co-extensively enlarged. It is the interest of the native millions, on the other hand, that the Government of India should be administered with the greatest economy, that the smallest amount of revenue should be drawn from their pockets, that our territory should be rather abridged than extended, because the extension of territory is the creation of a field of employment and emolument for Europeans at the expense of the natives.'—p. 3.

'If India is hereafter to be governed for her own sake, we shall require to make some change in our arrangements; but if it is still to be treated as no other than a carcase for a certain number of English to prey upon, to be considered as a patronage preserve for a President of the Board of Control and twenty-four East India Directors, then we need no change, for the existing system is admirably adapted for that object.'*-p. 7.

If the foregoing allegations were supported by facts, it is not some change in our arrangements that should be made, but an entire change, if not the abandonment of India altogether by Great Britain. The system of administration would not merely

In M. Thiers's book on the Consulate and the Empire there is the following passage:-'India, in fact, under the sceptre of England, is only a conquest ruined by the progress of European industry, and made use of to support some officers, some clerks, and some magistrates belonging to the metropolis.' It will be, no doubt, gratifying to The Friend of India' to find this agreement in opinion between himself and so sincere a Friend of England.'

be

6 great

be what it is called in a subsequent paragraph, a sham,' but a monstrous wrong, sufficient to consign the perpetrators to eternal infamy. Can the author, with an utter forgetfulness of the despatches from the Court of Directors which he has himself read-which he was bound officially to act upon --and which enjoined reduction of posts and salaries, and the strictest economy in every branch of the administration-persist in affirming that the governing bodies at home encourage wasteful expenditure- including even the frequent creation of utterly needless places-for the benefit of the Company's servants, civil and military? As to the actual scale of official emoluments in the author's own walk, may we venture to ask whether he considers himself to have been extravagantly paid?-does he feel that the competency which he has acquired was not well earned by thirty years of zealous and laborious service? We will go even further, and ask whether he believes that the important duties intrusted to him in the highest offices of revenue administration would have been as well and as uprightly performed by native officers, who, we readily admit, would have thought themselves well off with much lower salaries?

He tells us

The Slave kings ruled a mighty empire. About the year 1300 Alaoodeen completed the conquest of the Deccan, and he and his successor, Mahommed Toglak, appear to have been emperors of all India, the Hindoo chiefs of the south being at least tributary. Their empire was great and prosperous, and there yet remain great public works to testify their magnificence and munificence.'-ib. p. 14.

A similar description applies to India under the reign of Akbar and his immediate successors, that is, during a period of 150 years, employed by them in extending their rule over the whole of India. Why, then, we ask, should our intelligent native subjects, reasoning from these historical epochs, deplore the extension of the British territories? Where objections to this extension exist, it is not from any fear-far less experience-of misgovernment or extravagant expenditure, but because of the inevitable substitution of European for native agency in many departments it is not, accordingly, from the inhabitants of our old dominions that the murmur of discontent is heard-the feeling exists only among the official class in the new acquisition. It is quite true that, as extension of empire has been the consequence of success in war, great expense has been incurred in the first instance; but, as the territory acquired has brought large increases of revenue, no augmented burthen has really fallen upon our earlier possessions; the public debt has been increased, but so have the funds for the payment of it.

The author indignantly demands (p. 7), 'Shall we then continue to legislate sordidly and hypocritically for class and caste objects, or shall we begin to legislate for humane and national objects?' Parliament, it is to be hoped, will continue to legislate for the maintenance of the British rule, which implies a sedulous anxiety for the security of life and property among 100 millions of British subjects, and every possible exertion for the development of the resources furnished by a fertile soil to an industrious population. But-however The Friend of India' may vituperate our bigotry-we make bold to add that it is impossible for us to retain India without what he calls caste legislation by a British Parliament. The English are the master caste in India, and we cannot weaken this position without incurring the risk of losing it altogether. The Home Administration of our Indian empire, in whatever hands it may be placedwhether divided, as at present, between two executive bodies, or confined to one-must be exclusively European; even the 'Friend' indeed does not propose that the Board of Control and the Court of Directors should have a large infusion of Asiatic blood. With respect to his recommendation of a much more extensive employment of natives in the civil administration of our Eastern dominion itself, we may observe that even at present, according to what seems a fair calculation, 97 per cent. of the business is done by them, leaving 3 per cent. to European agency. We should, however, feel more distrust than we actually do in differing from such great authorities as the 'Friend' quotes in support of his view on this subject, were we not convinced that their arguments, if admitted, must lead directly to the conclusion that the civil administration of the country, except in a very few high offices, should be given up to the natives: a conclusion as much opposed, in the present condition of the Indian people, to good government as to British supremacy.

Sir Thomas Munro, it seems, has written thus:

'It certainly would be more desirable that we should be expelled from the country altogether than that the result of our system of government should be such an abasement of a whole people. If we make a summary comparison of the advantages and disadvantages which have occurred to the natives from our government, the result, I fear, will hardly be as much in its favour as it ought to have been. They are more secure from the calamities both of foreign war and internal commotions; their persons and property are more secure from violence; they cannot be wantonly punished, or their property seized, by persons in power; and their taxation is on the whole lighter. But, on the other hand, they have no share in making laws for themselves, little in administering them, except in very subordinate offices; they can rise to no high station, civil or military: they are everywhere

regarded

regarded as an inferior race, and often rather as vassals or servants than as the ancient owners and masters of the country.'

We willingly accept the description given by Sir Thomas Munro of the advantages that have accrued to the people of India from our government, and perhaps the majority of readers will think with us that in them are comprised the most essential objects of all government. Under the old princes the people had no share in making laws for themselves: our native subjects have not, therefore, been losers in that respect; and as the laws are, by Sir Thomas Munro's own admission, better administered by us than they were before, the people at large have no reason to regret the change of agency. The native sovereigns were certainly the ancient masters and considered themselves the owners of the country, but we do not really see by what process, short of leaving India altogether, we can replace them in that paramount situation. Although the actual Government is unavoidably absolute in its form, the great interests of society are guarded by laws that are regularly and impartially administered; there is neither tyranny nor caprice, for the spirit of British justice has passed over the waters, and is scarcely less prevailing at Calcutta than in London.

Lord Metcalfe is also quoted; and Mr. Elphinstone has said— 'Men who, under a native government, would have held the first dignities of the State-who, but for us, might have been governors of provinces, are regarded as menial servants, are often no better paid, and scarcely permitted to sit in our presence.'

.

The venerated person here appealed to can hardly on this point be accepted for a sufficient witness as regards the present practice: we believe, on the contrary, that no civil or military officer would now treat a native of high rank and ancient family as a menial servant, but would naturally, were it only with a view to his own interest, follow the example given by the English representatives of sovereign power in their behaviour to native noblemen and gentlemen. The passages adduced by The Friend of India,' from Munro, Metcalfe, and Elphinstone, reflect the chivalrous generosity of the writers, who, brought into official and social intercourse with the immediate representatives of houses recently powerful, were disposed to feel that the superior stations which they themselves held partook of the nature of an usurpation; and thus the exigencies of a changed policy and of altered circumstances were overlooked in sympathy for reverse of fortune. But we remain assured that all these enlightened administrators would, in practice, on any occasion when an European officer, civil or military, was conversant with the language in which im

portant

portant business was to be transacted, have preferred him to any native as the depositary of confidence; nor would this preference have depended merely upon comparative probity, but upon the conviction of superior fitness.

Has history preserved the names of any eminent and virtuous native statesmen, in the service of the Nabobs of Bengal, of the Carnatic, and of the Soobahdars of the Deccan, when we first came into contact with them? Had the chiefs or their ministers so acted as to acquire the affections of the people? Were their cazees, pundits, and officers of revenue more efficient and honest than the well-educated English gentlemen by whom the laws are now administered and the revenues collected? On the contrary, was not the whole internal government, from the prince to the lowest public servant, stained with corruption, oppression, and profligacy?

The late Runjeet Singh, the old Lion of Lahore, may be taken as a fair specimen of a native prince. He governed his dominions with energy and vigilance, and there was ample scope under his sceptre for the display of those great talents for administration that are attributed to the natives of India while as yet undebased by habitual subordination to Europeans. Let us consider, for one example, Dhyan Singh, Prime Minister to the Maha-rajah. On the accession of Khurruck Singh to the throne he was dismissed from his office, and what was the conduct of the Sikh statesman? "The dismissed Vizier lost his habitual moderation; he entered the Durbar, and slew the new Prime Minister before his master's eyes; the treasurer and some others shared the same fate.' (Mac Farlane, p. 581.) Dhyan Singh fell afterwards by the hands of the mutinous soldiery. Is this the description of man that would have been deserving of high office under a civilized government? A Member of Council of that temperament would, no doubt, be a very useful and agreeable colleague for an English Governor-General! Such of our readers as are the least conversant even with the most recent events in India will be aware that we might multiply illustrations of the same stamp, usque ad nauseam. We utterly deny the debasement of the natives under the British Government. That under our power and influence they have already been both morally and intellectually improved is our firm belief-though we do not believe that, putting aside imperative considerations of policy, they are as yet fit for the higher offices of administration.

As regards the departments with which another of our authors must be best acquainted, let us request attention to the following passage:

"It is, I think, a remarkable distinction between the manners of the natives