be what it is called in a subsequent paragraph, a great 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 About the year 1300 ، The Slave kings ruled a mighty empire. 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 natives and ours, and one which affects our dealings with them, that there does not exist that difference between the higher and lower classes, the distinction, in fact, of a gentleman. The lower class are to the full as good and as intelligent as with us; indeed, they are much more versed in the affairs of life, plead their causes better, make more intelligent witnesses, and have many virtues: but these good qualities are not in the same proportion in the higher classes; they cannot bear prosperity; it causes them to degenerate, especially if born to greatness. The only efficient men, with of course a few exceptions, are those who have risen to greatness. The lowest of the people, if fate raised him to be an Emperor, makes himself at home in his new situation, and shows an aptitude of manner and conduct unknown to Europeans similarly situated. But his son is altogether degenerate; hence the impossibility of adapting to any thing useful most of the higher classes found by us, and for all fresh requirements it is necessary to create a fresh class.'-Campbell, p. 63. We have already stated the common calculation, that 97 per cent. of the civil business is actually transacted by natives: we must add our conviction that, if this be the case, the individuals so employed belong, with few exceptions, to a class that has grown up under English superintendence and instruction. Our Government, as locally administered in India, has gradually raised the standard of qualification amongst the European public servants. The knowledge of the vernacular languages has rendered them, as a body, independent of native assistance in the duty of superintendence, while well-directed vigilance has checked the natives holding subordinate posts in their tendencies to corruption and oppression. The lower courts of justice may be safely intrusted to the Presidency of native judges as long as an immediate appeal can be made, and an immediate inquisition into complaints of wrong inflicted can be obtained from an European gentleman-but no longer; nor is strict superintendence less indispensable in the affairs of the revenue, to be collected chiefly in many parts from cultivators who possess little capital beyond their cattle and implements, and often require abatements to meet the vicissitudes of the climate. To satisfy such exigencies great discretion must be allowed to those with whom the final decision rests. We recommend an attentive perusal of the description given by Mr. Campbell in his sixth chapter of the duties performed by the civil servants in the judicial and revenue departments, and we think most who do study it will come to the conclusion that the European gentlemen so employed, instead of being numerous beyond just demands, are too few for the weight and variety of the tasks imposed upon them. The 'Friend of India,' while he extols the Mahomedan emperors for the confidence reposed by them in their Hindoo subjects as governors |