the buildings is such, that, to keep it in a state in which he can reckon upon letting the tenement to a respectable tenant, Patrick must expend twenty shillings a-year in repairs; and the taxes, rates, cesses, &c., for which, if they were not paid, the landlord's estate or interest in the house would be seized, by process of law, amount to twenty shillings more. Now, if the house is only let for ten pounds a-year, upon condition of its being kept in repair by the landlord; and if he is also the person who, after the letting, is to be responsible for the year's taxes, rates, cesses, &c. in respect of the house, to the amount of twenty shillings, and a question arises, whether Patrick is a man. of property of that class which is defined as owners of tenements of the "clear" yearly value of ten pounds, it is quite clear that, unless he has some other property, he is not. But if the question is, whether Denis is the occupier of such a tenement, a little consideration. will make it plain that, with regard to his respectability or substantiality, it matters not one jot what becomes of the ten pound rent which he pays. Whether it all goes into the pocket of Patrick and remains there, or it is disbursed by him in whole or in part to the bricklayer, or the carpenter, or the tax-gatherer, does not in any way affect Denis or his means of living, or station in his class of society, or qualification, or fitness to be an elector: and even if he should in part enable himself to pay the ten pounds by hatching eggs in his garden, or yard, or cellar, whether they be of partridge, pheasant, or barn-door hen, inasmuch as the law has in no way proscribed such occupations, it would make no difference. If, in any case, the occupier pays the rates or taxes, they ought all to be included in the estimate of his qualification. In short, the qualification of an owner is a certain net yearly value; the qualification of an occupier is a certain gross yearly payment.

It is to be hoped that these matters may be set right

in the House of Lords, and that any reasonable adjustment of them by the Lords may be accepted by the Commons.

Would it not be deplorable, that a composition of the differences of the United Kingdom should be unattainable because a clause in a bill has been loosely drawn in the first instance: because the leaders of parties in the House of Commons are not so technical as to have contemplated with precision all the incidents connected with the difference between the two qualifications of ownership and occupancy, which had been lost sight of in the bill; and because there may be some who would rather have a difficulty remain, or even grow larger, than see it cleared up and removed?

What, if the qualification should be made either the ownership of a tenement which is of the clear yearly value of seven pounds, and which is rated at that value; or the occupation of a tenement rated, at the least, as of seven pounds yearly value, and for the year's occupation of which the occupant has paid, in the whole, the amount of ten pounds?

IV

LEGISLATION IN INDIA.*

To all but those who contemplate the condition of mankind with a stedfast faith, and with some perception of the relations which life bears to eternity, it is a woful and overwhelming thought that, for the most part, wide destruction has gone before wide improvement; and that in the book to which the world looks for the precepts of heaven, there is one case in which it is recorded, that a people was commanded to destroy a people, " So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings; he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the Lord God of Israel commanded."

Christianity proclaimed a contrary and universal precept: but when that proclamation had rung through the old earth for more than a thousand years, a land, not inaptly called a New World, was found; and, as if to rebuke the vain exultation of man, and to inform him that he was not, in his fresh acquisitions, to look for any other than his ancient and accustomed lot of sin and sorrow, the prevailing law of social progress again declared itself, and wrote upon the fair front of America its cruel edicts in indelible letters of blood.

The descendants of our own race have dealt with the

* See No. I. p. 13; No. II. p. 57.

red tribes by a less sanguinary, a less sudden, but scarcely a less fatal process; and even now there are those amongst them who argue, with a sincerity which is not to be mistaken, that in human affairs there is an overruling necessity which forbids the amalgamation of a conquered with a conquering race, and dooms the former to a disappearance, more or less sudden, from the face of the earth.

Facts do not bear them out: and it is of importance that this should be well understood; for if there are any who think it impossible that, in the present state of society, the minds of any civilised portion of mankind could be reconciled to the deletion of a people, let them read the story of the massacre of Gnadenhutten, of the witnesses of which some still survive: let them observe the dispositions in the present day of the anti-abolitionists of the United States; let them consider to what logical consequences the argumentation of Archdeacon Paley, in his twenty-ninth sermon, might be carried out by fanatic

zeal.

Our own history, as remarkably, perhaps, as any other, gives the lie to the assertion of an universal necessity. Celts, Saxons, and Normans, are blended into one people, and if we do not overrate the excellence of our institutions, it seems that the good consequent upon the defiance of that devil's-law is proportioned to the force with which it presses upon humanity, and to the difficulty of resisting it. A greater occasion than any which the history of the world has known for superseding it for ever by the example of a contrary and successful course, is presented in the relations of the British people with India. We have ventured into a position in which we are compelled to decide whether we will act under it, or in opposition to it.

If the United Kingdom was next door to India, and was to be let loose upon it, the destruction, slow or sudden, of the Hindoo race, and the expulsion or extrusion

of the Mahometans, if not inevitable, would be as probable as any happier result.

Let us place, therefore, in the strongest and most favourable light the object which the East India Company declare they have, above all others, at heart, the protection of the native races. Let it be taken as the first principle of all legislation for India, that, to save the Indian people from destruction, or extinction, or oppression, is the first and most sacred duty of England in its relations to that country; yet, according to the lessons of history, is a most difficult, and, in the eyes of many, an impracticable task.

The question, then, arises, whether there is any basis of legislation or peculiar form of internal government to which it is desirable, and, to which, for the attainment of that great object, it would be advantageous that we should proclaim and maintain an adherence. The time has come when this must be considered. In the papers which have been laid before Parliament, it is intimated to be the intention of the Legislative Council of India, to establish an impartial despotism."

Those who have arrived at the conclusion, that, in all human affairs, there are two extremes, and that it is a part of our lot to seek continually between these for the right course, will probably think that some point nearer to the liberty of doing what is right than any despotism can be, would be further from anarchy; but if despotism is to be the form of government for India, it is next to be considered who or what is to be the Despot?

* See No. II. p. 60.

LONDON:

PRINTED BY JAMES MOYES, CASTLE STREET, LEICESTER SQUARE.