essential law must be the greatest of blessings to any country, and are particularly required in India, but a too tight tying of the hands of public officers is only necessary when we must guard against political tyranny. Such a system was once necessary in England, but a change is now taking place, and the essence of all our present administrative and judicial reforms seems simply to consist in trusting to the discretion of individuals many things which were formerly determined by the strictest rules of law. It is now found that public opinion and the press are sufficient checks on the conduct of great officers, and that a large latitude may, with much advantage, be allowed.

I do, then, think that the natives of India very much prefer large individual power, easy and popular justice, even at the risk of a little abuse of that power; and that, in comparing our present administration with that of a good native government, we must set against the many acknowledged advantages of our rule not only the obvious evils resulting from the expense of our system and the necessary ignorance of foreigners, but also the injuries and inconveniences caused by the cumbrousness and inflexibility of our machinery, and which I believe to be for the most part remediable.

Of course, the individuals lately dominant have suf fered by our rule, and some others who would like to be dominant are excluded from that position; but neither do I think that we are bound to govern the country for the benefit of the highest classes, nor (if the term be used in our sense) do I admit the existence of the ill-used "native gentry" so often expatiated on by philanthropic and imaginative people. The only persons who have any

good claim to that title are the better classes connected with the land, and their position (except in the Ryotwar territories) is unquestionably far more favourable under us than it was under other conquerors. But as regards general social rank there is no well-defined line between gentle and semple. Our European notions in this respect spring from a feudal origin. The organisation of the Rajpoots and other Hindoo conquerors is undoubtedly feudal; but the Mahommedan empires being, in the territories fully conquered by them, the purest of Oriental despotisms, and in no respect feudal in their character, exaltation or degradation but depended on the imperial will or the caprices of fortune. Slaves became Emperors, and Emperors became slaves-men rose like mushrooms, and like mushrooms decayed. True, individuals of all classes were elevated to high posts. There were prizes in the lottery which any of the people might draw, and of the chance of which they are now deprived. But no particular classes of society, except some of the latest Mahommedan rulers, can complain of special degradation.

If the supposed nobles and gentry are not subjects of just sympathy, still less are the recent princes. The old patriarchal chiefs and clans, never completely conquered, and who retained a feudal tenure under the Moguls, are at least as well off under us.

As concerns the general people, I believe that, upon the whole, the best administered of our provinces are now, taking all advantages and disadvantages together, about upon a par with the best administered of the small native states blessed with a good individual ruler. I have had a good deal to do with petty transfers, both one way and the other: I have generally found that

neither were the subjects of the very best of these patriarchal governments averse to be brought under our rule, nor did our subjects in every case think it an insuperable hardship to be made over to the rule of the native chief; petty local circumstances might turn the scale either way.

This, then, is the case as regards the best of those small states which are under our feudatory supervision and control; but as concerns the majority of native states, their subjects are undoubtedly infinitely worse off than in the worst of our territories, and would be delighted to be brought under our government. Almost all the large states, and those whose feudatory tenure has not been sufficiently regulated, are thus ill managed.

Upon the whole, then, the natives owe to us not only the blessings of protection from external war, and, what is still more important, from internal anarchy, but a considerable average improvement in the civil administration. But I do also think that that improvement is far from being so great or so general as it might be, and ought to be, if we make the most of our peculiar opportunities. In particular, there seems to be strong evidence to show that the results of our administration of the Madras and Bombay territories is by no means so favourable as could be wished.

Most people are agreed that there are many deficiencies in our system; but there is a very wide discrepancy both in the statements of present facts and the opinions as to future policy.

I believe that the great cause of these very contradictory statements and opinions is the want of uniformity in our system. In truth, our management of different

parts of the country is altogether various. This fact is instanced to show that our government is altogether bad; and it turns out that it is peculiar to Bombayor to one province of Madras. Proofs are brought that things are better than represented; but the facts on which they are founded do not extend beyond the limits of the North-Western Provinces. So it goes on and the discrepancy becomes wider and wider.

A constant source of error is the too common mistake of supposing Calcutta or Bombay to be India, and reasoning on ideas thence derived. I believe that experience of this kind is the worst possible guide, and that those whose opinions are built on such a foundation have not only everything to learn but a great deal to unlearn before they can understand India. I do not think that any man can really understand the natives who is ignorant of their language, and is thus altogether debarred from communication with them. A man may live for years in India, and may travel all over it, but still, if ignorant of the language, he is in many most essential matters a blind man. His knowledge is but derived from others at secondhand; and he is too apt to contract false ideas, from fancying the few Europeanised natives who speak English to be fair specimens of the inhabitants of the country. The result is generally an unjustly low estimate of the native character, an ignorance of native education, and an idea that the "educated natives" are those who speak bad English. In truth, the native education is by no means so contemptible as is supposed; and I am certain that so far as concerns polish, command of language, use of the pen, and general intelligence, no men can be superior to many

of the educated natives of the middle classes, even though they do not understand a word of English. It is from these classes that a knowledge of the country may be best derived. I fear that the Parliamentary Committees cannot have the benefit of the evidence of such men ; but there is another class, whose knowledge is not so perfect, but who have a vast deal more practical information than the editors and merchants of the presidency towns-I mean the European planters of the interior. Some of these men are capable of giving most useful information, and should not be lost sight of by those now engaged in the investigation of Indian affairs.

It does seem most unfortunately to happen that most of those who discuss the subject have very insufficient information; and most of those who have information scrupulously abstain from divulging it. The official silence of the most qualified Indian servants appears to become habitual; and in giving up office they generally close their mouths and throw away their pens for ever. So great is the lack of information, that they cannot even keep up their knowledge of the progress of their own departments a day after leaving India. It is quite

wonderful how soon a man in this country loses his connexion with India and his knowledge of passing events.

Hence the difficulty of getting at the real facts, or in any way generalizing, is so great, that most men are repelled from the attempt, and not unnaturally come to the conclusion that, if people are not agreed and cannot agree what and how much is wrong, better let things remain as they are. And in truth, if we wait till the various questions affecting the conduct and cha