as a body, very superior to those in the lower provinces, among whom, especially in the vicinity of Calcutta, adventurers are to be found, whose conduct is often such as to bring disgrace upon the British character.' With respect to the planters in the Western provinces, where our author served many years, he thinks proper to observe a profound silence. The amount of his testimony then is to the following effect. In one part of the country where he had personal and official knowledge of their conduct, he is ready to bear witness to the good' which the indigo planters have effected. In another part, where he has had long and ample means of ascertaining, he makes no objection whatever to their conduct; and in a third, where it does not seem that he had any means at all, 'adventurers are to be found whose conduct is often such as to bring disgrace upon the British character.' The two first parts of the statement would be good evidence in a court of justice. The surmise contained in the last would be scouted in any court, and is of no value any where else. We are not such abstract admirers of the British character, as not to believe that very discreditable characters may not now and then be found in every class or body of it, from the nobility downwards, nor can we bring ourselves to imagine that there is any ground for supposing that the indigo planters of Bengal are exceptions. Even the class to which our author himself belongs, and it is a highly respectable one, now and then gives birth to a rogue of this description, or, as our author himself, with a bashful and reluctant censure, denominates unhappy persons of this class, those civil functionaries in Bengal, whose conduct has reflected least credit upon the body to which they belong,' and who shrink from appearing before a tribunal composed of members of their own service.'*

Even in respect to such of the indigo planters, as by our author's account are calculated to bring disgrace upon the British character,' the danger to be apprehended from their settlement, judging from the simplicity of the remedy which he himself proposes, does not appear to be very imminent. If persons of this stamp are to be indiscriminately admitted to the interior,' says he, a few European police officers must be attached to every magistrate's court, for the purpose of executing such processes as he may have occasion, for the preservation of the peace of his district, to issue against them.' Native officers, he observes, are unfit persons to be employed on such occasions, because if the European be refractory, he defies them, and if submissive, they abuse their power. Is this all? A few European constables then, it seems, are considered in 1829 a sufficient security against the danger, which in 1813 was represented as threatening the very existence of our Indian Empire! To judge however from the good conduct

* The circumstances alluded to are notorious, and recorded in print, p. 63.'

6

of the indigo planters in the only part of the country of which our author speaks from his own proper knowledge, even the small precaution which is here suggested does appear to be absolutely indispensable. It is singular, indeed, that throughout his publication, not one instance, authenticated or unauthenticated, is adduced, of violence or misconduct on the part of a private European settler in India. Where does the reader imagine our author goes to for a case in point? Why to Egypt,- to the canal that leads from the Nile to Alexandria.' Upon that canal he finds a party of English artificers, who were attached to a steam dredging boat employed in deepening it. Mr. Robertson enters into conversation with one of these judicious and enlightened persons, touching the character of the Arabs; and this person, not appearing to be an Oriental scholar, gives him the following account of his customary exordium when he attempted to discourse in the Arabian language. For my own part, Sir,' says the worthy in question, addressing our author, whenever I try to speak to these fellows, I always begin or end by knocking them down.' The Arabs of Egypt are looked upon by their Turkish masters as little better than slaves; and Mohammed Ali exacts from them every species of forced service, giving them nothing but a few boiled beans' and some hard blows for their pains. He places in authority over them in various departments (he being a reformer, after the fashion of the East), a number of Europeans of all nations, uneducated, and of the lowest description. One of this crew talks, but he does nothing more than talk, after all, of quickening the attention of the degraded peasantry in question, to a more lively perception of his bad Arabic, by knocking them down; and so from this instructive fact is to be deduced-the danger of European settlement in India under the British government! Our author being in Egypt, why did he not at once go back to the days of the Pharoahs and the Ptolomies, to shew the dangers of Grecian colonization in the first case, and of the Roman colonization in the second; for, without the smallest exaggeration, they are infinitely more in point than the example he has quoted.

In speaking of the dangers of our position in India, Mr. Robertson observes, that by far the most formidable discontent is that which arises out of the want of sufficient stipendiary employment for the middle classes, and the absence of suitable objects of laudable ambition to those of the higher ranks.' This is most true; but never for a moment does it occur to him that the very system he endeavours to vindicate is, itself, the grand cause of this evil. The class to which he himself belongs, exercises a complete monopoly of every office of honor or profit to which a Native could be eligible. Sir Henry Strachey, the most enlightened and able man ever employed in the judicial service of the East India Company, (no ground, we hope, for our author's frequent objections to his testimony,) observes, that the Natives are, from temper, habit, and peculiar circumstances,

in many respects fitter for the office of a Judge than the servants of the East India Company; and that, through the monopoly of office created by the Company, they are 'depressed and humiliated,' being I confined to subordinate and servile offices.' He thinks, in their judicial capacity, they require no European superintendence; and that they would perform every necessary function for somewhat less than one-tenth of the salary' of one of the Company's European Judges.' If this be true, and it would not be very easy to gainsay it, the existing Courts, so wholly inadequate, might at once be raised to ten times the present number; and the present monopoly of judicial office is, of necessity, an enormous nuisance. But our author's objections are, of course, not against the monopoly, but against an influx of European adventurers, who might possibly interfere with the servile offices at present held by the Natives of the country. The answer to this, as far as it deserves one, is plain. The white and the black subjects of his Majesty are equally interested in the good government of India; and if the European can perform the same duties to the state better and cheaper than the Indian, he is entitled to a preference: if the Indian can perform them better and cheaper than the European, then he is entitled to the preference. Distinctions and exclusions are the real evils of the present system, and there are no others, as far as this case is concerned.

Our author next proceeds to exhibit, according to his view, a case of the utmost possible difficulty to the Colonist; and, for this purpose, he selects a particular part of the country, that which stands (lies?) between the Ganges and Jumna.' Here, the inhabitants of each village have a common property in the lands annexed to it. If,' says he, an European agriculturist were, by any means, to get himself recognized, by competent authorities, as proprietor of the lands belonging to a village of the description under consideration, he must make up his mind either to acquiesce in, or to dispute the privileges claimed by, the different classes of the community.' Now, we ask what authority, in a country where there is the least semblance of justice, could possibly be competent to convey to an European, or to any other purchaser, the proprietory rights, if such exist, of third parties? To acquire a comprehensive right of property in the lands in question, the right of every peasant, whatever it may be, must be paid for, as well as the rights of those that are above the peasant. If partial rights only are purchased, like manorial rights in this country, then the purchase-money is proportionally small, and the returns for the capital will be small also. If the fee simple be purchased, then a large price must be given, and the profit or revenue returned will be proportional. If the rights of the peasantry, in the case alluded to, be not a saleable thing, there is an end of the transaction: there can be no purchase and no sale. If neither manorial rights, nor freehold, nor copyhold rights can be purchased, nor any thing that bears a resemblance to them; in short, if all rights be in a state of uncertainty, abeyance,

and inextricable confusion, not a thing very probable in any condition of society, then the estate is not a vendable commodity at all. No capitalist, ordinarily sane, would attempt to invest his money in it; and, of course, there is no danger to be apprehended from colonization, where colonization cannot take place.

Our author observes that if partial rights only were bought, the European purchaser would, in that case, not have sufficient' to 'subsist on-totally forgetting that for limited rights a limited sum only will be paid, and that the advantages derived may be as large in proportion as when the most extensive rights are obtained by a larger investment. In another place he supposes the probability of an European purchaser getting his throat cut by possessing himself of lands, on the conditions he supposes; and really if there were no laws to appeal to, we do not see what better treatment a man could expect who, without giving an equivalent, by fraud or violence should assume rights belonging to others. But in fact the whole affair is a matter of pure imagination.

Another objection of a very singular description, stated by our author, is, that every Englishmen who becomes an Indian landlord,will not stay in India. The answer to this may be brief:-some will stay and some will go away. The first settlers, at least, will desire to return to their native country; but as there is not the slightest probability that every Englishman who purchases land will be able, during a temporary residence, to make an independent fortune sufficient to allow him to live in a country where the necessaries of life are four-fold dearer than they are in India, the probability is that the great majority even of these will continue in the country. The desire to return to England will be smaller on the part of their descendants, and of these, a few of the wealthy only will either reside in, or visit Europe. If an Englishman, during a temporary residence in India, invest his capital in land, and returning to England draw his rents there, he notwithstanding confers a great benefit upon India, because he leaves his capital behind him for its improvement. If, becoming a landlord, he reside permanently in India, his personal superintendence of his property, and his example among his neighbours will no doubt confer still greater advantages; but signal benefit is assured in either case. We do not say that such objections as are here urged, are captious, but we assert that they amount, after all, to mere nibbling at a great question.

Mr. Robertson would give us to understand that there is no encouragement for new settlers in the capacity of artisans, tradesmen, shopkeepers, &c. He observes that there are already many such at all the principal stations at the Bengal Presidency, and that they do not appear to have ever been able to extend their custom much beyond the limits of the European circle in which they live.' There are persons, he adds, who would attribute the circumscription of the European trader's dealing to the tyrannical character

of the government.' He considers it useless to argue' with persons who consider the government of the East India Company tyrannical, and he adjudges the gulls who give credit to the impugners of acknowledged virtue and freedom, to be in a still more awkward predicament. 'Those who can believe,' says he, all the trash that is written on this head, are past the reach of reason and argument, and must be left to their prejudices.' 'The impossibility of any government, however cruel, preventing people from going to a shop to purchase commodities if they wish to buy them, he thinks is sufficient answer to the class of reasoners alluded to. We notice here that our author does not advert to the obvious, clear and satisfactory case of a country being so cruelly ill-governed as to leave few goods in the shop to sell and little cash in the purchaser's pocket to buy with, or to a state of things making any approach to this. Are heavy taxation and mal-administration of justice, as far as the purchaser is concerned, with deprivation of English law, and liability to banishment without trial, with a positive interdiction from dealing in some of the staples of the internal commerce of the country, as far as the seller is concerned, no adequate causes for circumscribed sales? Is a law prohibiting the establishment of British agriculturists, no reason for restricted sales with the British shopkeeper? or is the industry of the town and the country for the first time in the annals of mankind, to be considered distinct and unconnected?

We come now to our author's main objection to Colonizationthe climate. Replying to one of his opponents, he observes. The English are, as he says, but sojourners in the country, for to them it is forbidden ground. True, it is forbidden ground, but in this sense it is forbidden by nature. Are the very laws of nature to be reformed, and the climate, now so uncongenial under the present oppressive system, to be ameliorated by the liberal measures in agitation?' Here, Nature and the East India Company are represented to be marching hand in hand, although modesty precludes the insinuation that it is the march of intellect' they are conducting. Now, with respect to this affair of climate, we think a few short words will settle the matter. In most parts of the British territories there is a regular summer and winter, the latter extending from November to March, or for five months, during which the climate throughout is temperate and fine. In many parts again this winter extends for six months. The ground every morning is then covered with hoar-frost, and the climate is equal in beauty and salubrity to the finest Italian spring. The rest of the year is hot or wet, but not unhealthy. In some parts again there are extensive and fertile table-lands, where the climate is temperate throughout the whole year. We can see nothing in the soil or seasons of India, beyond those of any other warm country, to prevent the European race from being there acclimated. With the first settlers