kind of need. The climate is terribly destructive to our soldiers. The latest accounts are worse in this respect than any that preceded them. The population is so scanty, that even under the best government, and most favourable circumstances, many years must pass before the country can be adequately replenished. Its long and open frontiers on the north and west are peopled by fierce, predatory, and hostile tribes. It has not a single recommendation but those of fertile soil and water-carriage, which we possess in superabundance, for centuries to come, in our older territories.

We pass by M. de Warren's charge, that the British government used its influence to prevent the efficient administration of the affairs of the Punjab, after the death of Runjeet Singh, in order that it might profit by the weakness of his half-witted or profligate successors, and obtain some booty on the dismemberment of his Empire. What might have happened if Lord Ellenborough had remained in India, we will not venture to say. Lord Auckland certainly had no wish to seize upon the Punjab and the signal proofs of good faith, and forbearance before action, and of moderation after victory, which Lord Hardinge has recently given to the world, entitle us to regard such allegations of ambition and perfidy as abundantly refuted by facts.

We entirely concur in almost all that M. de Warren has said respecting the evil consequences of the system which obtains at Lucknow, Hyderabad, and elsewhere, of supporting a worn-out native government by British troops, subsidised for that end. That system combines and aggravates all the faults of both British and native rule. The giant force of civilisation and discipline is employed to compel submission to the most abo minable misgovernment. We are bound by treaty to furnish soldiers: we are under equally stringent obligations to permit the civil government to take its own absurd and barbarous course. So long as we maintain good faith towards the prince, we must witness in silence, or combat with unsupported remonstrance, the cruel oppression of the people. And without a breach of our engagements to the ancestors of the puppets-impotent for aught but evil-whom we alone maintain upon their thrones, there is no hope of escape from this miserabledilemma. The best interests of millions have been sacrificed for years on the altar of good faith to rulers utterly devoid of all sympathy with their subjects. Paradoxical as it may sound, absolute anarchy is really in these cases a thing to be earnestly desired. It would compel us to cut the knot, which we can never untie. The unhappy people see in this their only chance 2 H t

VOL. LXXXIV. NO. CLXX.

of deliverance. Even M. de Warren, certainly no flatterer of the British government, says, Ces trois populations' (of Nagpore, Hyderabad, and Oude) attendent avec impatience et béniront le jour qui les réunira ouvertement au domaine de • l'Angleterre.'

We have serious misgivings that the recent treaty of Lahore may place us in some such false position. Indeed, the British government has already consented to act the very part which has done so much mischief elsewhere. We have undertaken to protect the sovereign for a time against his natural protectors. At the close of that period, the infant prince will probably be no better able to stand alone than he was at first. If we leave him, we leave him to certain destruction. Having assumed the office of guardians, we shall not easily shake it off. And if we remain, and leave the whole civil government in the hands of the young Rajah, or rather of his mother and her paramours, we, in fact, undertake to give stability to all their profligacy and oppression. If, on the other hand, we attempt to direct and control the administration, as we did, for a time, both at Hyderabad and Nagpore, we shall be intrigued against and thwarted at every step by the nominal sovereign, and by all whom we should deprive of the profit of misrule; and shall be able, at the best, only to govern much worse than we do in our own provinces.

1

We must say a few words upon the much misrepresented land revenue, and the condition of the several classes connected with the soil. We have fully explained, on former occasions, that Rent was never private property in India;-that it was, in fact, the fund set apart, from time immemorial, to defray the expenses of the State. To represent the British Government as extortioners, or as taxing the products of the soil, because it does not give away to Zemindars or Ryots what never belonged to them or to their forefathers, taxing other parties to make good the deficiency, is absurd in the extreme. In M. de Warren's case this absurdity is aggravated by his inconsistency. He says in one place, (tome iii. page 221,) les produits du sol sont tellement taxés, que l'agriculteur Européen qui entreprendait la culture d'une ferme, mourrait de faim à coté de son champ;' and in the next page, (222,) that Il est rare, qu'après douze ou quinze ans de travail, des indegotiens du nord,' (where the revenue is not fixed in perpetuity, and the rent paid to the state is much heavier than elsewhere,) ne se retirent pas avec une fortune modérée.' He is equally wrong in representing the native Zemindars as impoverished, and the Ryots as reduced to the verge of nakedness and starvation, by the system of land revenue.

We could prove, if necessary, and if space permitted, by the price for which Zemiudaries (certainly not the most profitable ones) are sold by public auction for the recovery of arrears of revenue, that

the difference between the actual rental and the demand of the State, is in general considerable. In many cases it is very large, and in a few (as in that already mentioned of the Rajah of Burdwan) enormous. That Zemindar has, we believe, a larger net income than any English landholder. The returns of the Court of Wards, which manages the estates of minor, female, or lunatic Zemindars, afford other means of ascertaining the average incomes enjoyed by landholders. From a Report of the Court, now before us, it appears that in ten estates under its management, the aggregate difference between the rental received from under-tenants, and the revenue payable to the government, amounted to L.33,607,-affording an average income of L.3360 per annum to the ten Zemindars. If the Zemindars in general had the knowledge and energy necessary for the improvement of their property, this surplusage might be vastly increased. That this surplusage exists in all cases is, in itself, a sufficient proof, that whatever be the cause of the depressed condition of the Ryots, or actual cultivators of the soil, it is not the excessive demands of the State, as is represented by M. de Warren. In fact, the Ryots are not, in any respect, in a better condition on those estates which pay no public revenue.

6

6

6

We think that M. de Warren has justly exposed (Tome iii. p. 263, et seq.) the absurdity of the British Government in establishing one college dont le but avoué est de faire de Savans et pieux Musulmans;' and another, dont le but est absolument semblable à celui du college Mahométan, c'est-à-dire de former pour les Cours de justice de la Compagnie, des conseillers Hindous savans dans les lois et la religion de Brahma.' But then he has no right to censure that government, as he does elsewhere, for showing a want of consideration for the feelings and prejudices of the people; and, especially, (Tome iii. p. 291,) for having done nothing to soothe the irritation of its Mahomedan subjects. In respect to Education, at least, the true interests of the rising generation have been deliberately sacrificed (for protests have not been wanting) to a truckling spirit of conciliation. To please those whom we found the slaves of error, the State has undertaken to provide the means of teaching false religion, false morals, and false science, to their children. At the same time, the government is paying for the inculcation of truth short of religious truth-in other institutions. Now, we do not think that it is the business of the government of British India to undertake the conversion of its subjects.

We

believe that more of evil than of good would result from such an attempt. It is a work that should be left to private zeal and benevolence. But if the government cannot, from the circumstances in which it is placed, directly advance the cause of truth, it is solemnly bound not to afford the slightest aid towards the propagation of error. And it is the grossest cajolery to affect this respect for Mahomedan and Hindoo learning-religious and secular-whilst we are training up youths in other Seminaries, for the express purpose of stimulating and qualifying them to pull all such false systems down upon the heads of their fathers. It is dishonest in the extreme now to look one way and now another. It damages the character of the government; and the constant effort to keep up the imposition tends to retard that emancipation of the educated classes from the trammels of caste and superstition, which must prepare the way for the general triumph of truth.

As in the case of commercial grievances, M. de Warren is too late in denouncing the open homage to idolatry, at one time— we are ashamed to admit-paid by the British Government of India. The guns of our forts no longer thunder, as he alleges, in honour of les fêtes de la Dourgale et de la Kali, déesses de la lubricité, de la prostitution, et de l'assassinat.' Nor does the government still condescend, comme les Brahmes, exploiter 'la crédulité des pauvres Hindous, et vivre aux dépens de la pagode de Jagarnath.' From the worst of these abominations it has already shaken itself free; and every step that has been taken, of late years, has been in the right direction. We trust that erelong we shall be able to say, that whilst we accord the most complete toleration to the religions of our subjects, we take not the smallest part, direct or indirect, in their encouragement or support.

We must stop here. The field over which M. de Warren has expatiated is so extensive, that we have been compelled to confine ourselves to those of his general charges which appeared to us most plausible and most important. As regards both what we have done, and what we have omitted, our Continental readers will do us the justice to bear in mind, that an allegation may be made in a single sentence, the full refutation of which by facts and figures would demand pages. On the other hand, we feel that some apology is due to our English readers, for having travelled over much ground that must be trite to the well-informed upon Indian affairs; and for having filled our pages with answers to accusations, which even those but ordinarily acquainted with the character of the administration of our Empire in the East, must know to be utterly unfounded. But our chief aim has

been to disabuse the minds of those by whose patronage the work of M. de Warren has come to a second edition. And in our endeavour to vindicate the truth for their better information, we trust that we have been able to avoid, on the one side, that morbid sensibility which resents as national insults, mistakes or misrepresentations of our public character and conduct; and, on the other, that indifference to the opinion of our intelligent neighbours, which, in our judgment, little becomes those to whom God has committed a weighty and solemn trust, for the due fulfilment of which they are responsible both to Him, and to the great commonwealth of mankind.

ART. VII.-1. Report of the Officers of the Railway Department to the Lords of the Committee of the Privy Council for Trade1844-5.

2. Statistique Raisonnée de l'Exploitation des Chemins de Fer. Paris: 1843.

3. Dinglers Polytechnischer Journal. Stutgard: 1844-5.

4. Railway Legislation, with Suggestions for its Improvement. By JAMES MORRISON, Esq. M.P. London: 1846.

5. The American Railway Journal. New York.

6. Report of the Railway Gauge Commissioners. London: 1846. 7. Die Eisenbahnen Deutschlands Statistisch dargestelles. BARON VON REDEN.

8. Eisenbahnbuch. VON REDEN.

9. Grosse Eisenbahnkarte von Deutschland. VON REDEN.

10. Railways, their Rise, Progress, and Construction; with Remarks on Railway Accidents. By ROBERT RITCHIE, Civil Engineer. 8vo. London: 1846.

W HEN we consider the great material resources of this country, her progress in commerce, and the antiquity of her naval supremacy, we cannot fail to be surprised at the late date of her advancement in the important art of Internal Transport. Yet from the conditions of her topography there must always have existed the strongest incentive to improve the means of inland communication. All her great seats of manufacture are situate near her geographical centre. There, her soil teems with mineral wealth. There, inexhaustible sources of iron and coal abound. Yet, until within little more than fifty years from the