intention, facts oozed out which rendered the partial statements of foreigners more readily credited, while the enemies of the Company attacked them violently with misrepresentations, and supplied with imagination those facts which the Company unwisely withheld."

The early Court of Directors were certainly neither better nor much worse than the age in which they lived. Corruption was flagrant from the throne downwards, so that when we estimate their proceedings, we must compare them with the prevailing customs, and not select this body as meriting an inordinate share of public indignation. "The Company never laid claim to any of the higher order of virtues. They professed to be honest and enterprising, but their aims were limited by their own interests. But there are, it is true, periods in their early history, when their conduct was almost magnanimous. The Court of Directors lived and laboured for themselves, but they resisted so stoutly the open assaults of doughty adversaries, countermined the 'concealed approaches of secret foes, rallied their fainting troops, and from their own unfailing fires rekindled the extinguished energies of their servants. Such an indomitable spirit claims our admiration, for the vulgar instinct of selfpreservation appears then in an imposing dress of heroic glory."

The contrast between past and present Government is thus pourtrayed, and deserves attention from all connected with, or interested in India. It cannot fail to make a strong impression upon our Indian brethren, in allusion to whom it is remarked: "It would be well if discontented natives could be brought to compare their position under British rule, with that of the English under Native. There is now at least security for life and property, the tax which the subject pays for the support of the Government is small, when we consider that really it is the rent of his land. He has the most absolute con'trol over his own movements. He may travel North, South, East or West, and be safe from injury and insult. If his journey be on land, the tribes, such as Bhils and Kalis, which formerly would have plundered him, are now the police which protect him; if his course be over sea, he no longer fears lest behind each headland there should lurk some ferocious rover, and that to double it would be his death or ruin. His religion is tolerated and his person respected, the oppression of petty tyrants is restrained by equitable laws, and he meets with consideration and politeness from that dominant people, whom he still regards as outcasts and ⚫ unfit to share his social enjoyments."

6

6

Compare this with the position of the English under Native authority. "There was no power to protect the merchant either by land or sea; if he wished to convey his goods from Surat to Agra, he could only hope to defend them from plunder by mustering a strong party, and setting regular guards at each camping place, as though he were in an enemy's country. Still more dangerous were the paths of the ocean. There he had to depend entirely upon his own resources, for it would have 'been vain to seek protection from law. Nay, the proud Emperor appealed to the despised strangers that his shipping might be protected, and they were expected, not only to defend themselves, but also the mariners and traders of a ' vast empire, yet he and his subjects, helpless haughty barbarians, affected to despise the English, wronged them incessantly, imprisoned their chiefs, insulted their envoys, fleeced 'their merchants, and drove them to turn upon their oppressors in despair. Thus the evils of native rule compelled English merchants to protect their ware-houses with ⚫ battlements, and all the muniments of war."

66

Short as this history is, it yet seems a labyrinth of human 'follies and errors. Religion, however, which is the only solid basis of all knowledge, enables us to trace through it all a mysterious clue of Divine Providence and protection. European vices and Native vices bear an overwhelming proportion on the record, and the catalogue is relieved by a few items of 'virtue. But as two negatives make an affirmative, so the 'vices of Europeans and Natives have produced a positive good. The thirst for riches, the unscrupulous efforts of ambition, the reckless violence which often struck Hindoos ' with terror-all these were the disgrace of the English, but they hurried them on to empire. The perfidy, the cunning which over-reached itself, the cowardice, the exclusive bigotry which disgraced the natives, smoothed the way to their subjection, and surely these results are being directed by the Universal Benefactor to good. We know of no other way in which India could have been regenerated. Had the English 'in India been a set of peaceful saintly emigrants, what impression would they have made on the country? Had the 'natives placed confidence in each other, and been united un'der a common faith, how could they have given way to the 'encroachments of a few foreigners?"

6

"But although Providence has thus brought good out of evil, we have certain indications that for the future, they who sow 'vices will not reap a harvest of blessings. Moreover all history teaches one certain truth, which is this, that between conquering and conquered people, there must be mutual for

*

bearance, frankness and liberality, or there is no hope of 'permanence, much less of progress and improvement. Where these are wanting, good policy, energy and courage cannot long be of any avail. We may take a lesson from Sparta ' in ancient, and Spain in modern times. The Spartans would ' admit no conquered people to the rights of naturalization, and the consequence was, that as their power spread, the boughs soon became too heavy for the trunk, and it was uprooted by a tempest, The Spaniards treated most illiberally the natives of South America, and consequently their conquered territories were wrested from them. Widely different was the manner in which the Romans discharged their duties towards the people which they subdued. Whole families, cities, even nations, were admitted to all the rights of Roman citizenship; so that, as has been said, 'it was not the Romans that spread upon the world, but, it was the world that spread 6 upon the Romans.' Hence conquerors and conquered rose in company to greatness. Amalgamation like theirs cannot indeed take place between European and Oriental races. The example of the Portuguese has satisfied us that it is not desirable there can be no reason why there should not be mutual ' esteem and regard. These, however, can never be built up 'securely, unless they have for a foundation growing intelligence, a more fervent and disinterested love of truth, a noble morality, a juster appreciation of immutable principles than formerly distinguished Natives or Europeans. When truth is represented on both sides, with intellectual vigour as a living principle, Natives will have a claim to receive, and Europeans will have a disposition to give, both political and social privileges. Then indeed we shall plant, and posterity shall gather greatness and happiness for both the English and the Native multitudes of Hindustan.”

But

Our extracts will have enabled the general reader to form a fair opinion of the value of this literary accessory to Indian history, but there is another part which we have scarcely touched upon, and which reveals much of the under-working, and difficulty with which the Leviathan Company has had to contend. We allude to the anecdotical portion, which furnishes both personal and political information alike amusing and in-. structive, and deserves attentive perusal, inasmuch as it explains many secret springs of action hitherto wanting in the early narratives of the records of the East India Company.

*i. e. Not only to the jus commercii, jus connubii, and jus hereditatis, but also to the jus suffragii, and jus honorum.

ART. IV.—A History of India under the two first Sovereigns of the House of Taimur, Baber and Humayun. By William Erskine, Esq., Translator of "Memoirs of the Emperor Baber." 2 vols. London, 1854.

THESE volumes, for which we are proximately indebted to the filial piety of Mr. Claude Erskine, of the Bombay Civil Service, claimed from us an earlier notice. The work is one of great research and great ability, and it the more behoves us to extend to it a kind and cordial greeting, inasmuch as it is scarce likely to meet from the outside public, the acceptance which is so justly its due.

That works of this kind are not popular, it must be unreservedly admitted. It remains for some historian yet unborn, uniting in himself the grandeur of Gibbon with the brilliancy of Macaulay, to render a narrative of purely Indian adventure acceptable to the European reader. When once the corner is turned and we come upon the bridge which joins the opposite banks of Mahomedan and Christian supremacy, it is to the dullness of the writer, rather than to the inapprehensiveness of the reader, that we must attribute the unattractiveness of Indian history. We can sympathise with our own countrymen, on whatever shores they may be cast, or in whatever situation they may be thrown; but it is not easy to sympathise, under any circumstances, with a genuine Asiatic. Even the most experienced amongst us understand but imperfectly the feelings, the instincts, the principles of action which move the Hindoos and Mahomedans, by whom we are surrounded. And if we do understand them, it is troublesome to go out of ourselves for the occasion, to place ourselves in the situation of people of different color and different creed, and to forget our nationality altogether. Somehow or other, we cannot take a living interest in the actions of our dusky neighbours. rounded as we are by them, often seeing from month's end to month's end no other faces, we are still little able to regard them as anything more than so much furniture. We do not think how the blood flows, or the heart pulses, or the brain works beneath the dark skin. Even a dead body is a mere thing of corruption-not the outward and visible sign of a foregone tragedy of the deepest human interest. It is an atom of a great mass of mortality-not one living member of a family complete in all its parts, and bound together by the same endearing ties, that we ourselves are wont to recognize. In

Sur

uor eyes it is not the ruin of a father, a brother, or a sonwhose place is vacant-whose lotah has passed into other hands. We may speak his language-know thoroughly the history of the country and the geography of the district to which he belonged-perhaps, in the abstract, understand something about the mysteries of caste; but he is, after all, nothing more than one of so many millions of tax-payers-a grain of sand from the great desert, on which we have stamped the foot-prints of the European conqueror.

It is mainly, we think, to this intelligible want of sympathy, that we are to attribute the scant welcome which is given, even in this country, to works of pure Asiatic history. And if we cannot appreciate such works, how can we expect our homestaying brethren to accord to them a liberal greeting. It is common to declare that the great stumbling-block resides in the unpronounceable names. But "Baber"-Mr. Erskine's hero, is as euphonious a name as "Raglan ;" and "Delhi" is much more pronounceable than " Sevastopol." "Sooraj-ooDowlah" (or " Sir Roger Dowler") is not more difficult than "Sir De Lacy Evans ;" and neither Runjeet Singh nor Dost Mahomet will break a jaw, which has not yielded to Menschikoff and Gortschakoff. Indeed, if hard names make unreadable books, we do not see with what chance of success, the history of the Crimean War is to be written. If we could understand the feelings, appreciate the motives, and altogether penetrate the inner lives of Oriental heroes as easily as we can pronounce their names, we are inclined to think that there would be fewer complaints of the dulness of Indian history.

But whether the obstacle to a more general appreciation resides in the remoteness of the sympathies evoked, or the strangeness of the proper names; there is no doubt, that such works as Mr. Erskine's, meet with public acceptance in a measure very disproportionate to their deserts. These two first volumes of the History of the House of Taimur are distinguished by deep research, pregnant learning, considerable knowledge of mankind, and elegant scholarly diction; but the book is one which men will rather place on their shelves, for future reference, than carry about with them for continuous reading. In addition to the disadvantages common to the class, it has others to contend with peculiar to itself. In the first place, it is but a completed fragment of a great uncompleted design. Had Mr. Erskine been longer spared to his labors and to the world, he would have presented us with an elaborate History of India, from the commencement of the reign of Baber