men, whose intellects have been enfeebled and destroyed by injudicious forcing, and who cannot be expected to have been humanized by association with men of culture, and to have been developed in the healthy society, large numbers of the best men of their own age and force of intellectual and moral character-pedants and charlatans, in whose hands the splendid patriarchate of India-the Indian Civil Servicemust degenerate into a cruel, inefficient, and corrupt bureaucracy; into which, as I maintain, it is already beginning to degenerate before our eyes.'

There is a concurrence of evidence on this point that leaves no room for doubt that the service is rapidly and dangerously deteriorating, while at the same time education is extending among the natives. Besides a powerful native commercial interest has risen up, and is now flourishing in India, and its representatives, its members are distinguished for high intelligence, liberal accomplishments, and superior mental culture generally. They naturally exercise a highly beneficial influence on the middle and upper native circles, and high-class education is now the rule among them, so that Europeans have no longer a monoply of knowledge. Sir C. Trevelyan, who strongly advocated that a better class of Englishmen should be selected and sent out to India, says :

We, who have seen the remarkable progress which has been made in education and general intelligence by the native youth at the presidency cities and elsewhere, know how important it is for the consolidation of our Indian Empire that our nation should be represented in this country by the flower of our British youth, and that adequate motives and facilities, to qualify themselves for their high mission, should be provided for them.”

We now advert to a system of oppression so singularly despotic and barbarous, that it would be scarcely credible were its existence under British rule not testified to by un

exceptionable authorities. It appears that there is a species of slavery systematically practised throughout India, and that, too, by high Government officials. It consists in extorting forced labour, and levying contributions at will-giving no remuneration whatever in return; simple robbery in fact, which naturally causes great discontent and suffering among the people, who have no means of redress. This evil rose to such a height that Colonel Jacob, when Commissioner of Scinde, made a report to the Government of Bombay, in which he says:

Forcing men to work without pay or with insufficient pay, disgusts them with labour, drives them into idleness, excites all manner of ill-feeling, and produces a very great amount of crime, disorder, and disaffection." "The

fact of such a barbarous practice having existed under a rude Native Government can never suffice to justify its continuance under British rule. The present state of affairs in this respect is of enormous evil; it crushes every energy, and, more than all else, stops all real improvement in the country; it reduces the peasantry to a species of slavery, and causes all labour

to be looked on as an intolerable hardship."

Mr. Nowrozjee gives several cases that he had duly authenticated, to illustrate the extensive prevalence of this system of forced labour, and forcible exaction of articles of food in Western India. He says:

In the Bombay Presidency, during the tour of the collector, assistant-collector, superintendent of police, or other Government officer in the districts, the potters of the village are often forced not only to supply earthen pots to the whole establishment, but are also compelled to supply water, wash clothes, sweep the floor, prepare lights, and perform other menial offices without any remuneration. The blacksmith and carpenter are also forced to work in the officer's camp without Milk, butter, fowls, eggs,

pay.

sheep, corn, and other supplies are forcibly procured by policemen at a little more than half price. Bullocks and carts are seized and detained two days before the commencement of the journey, and little or no payment is made for the detention. In order to make up the number of bullocks and carts required by the European officers, the Sepoys or policemen often unyoke and carry off bullocks actually employed in irrigating or ploughing the fields, and thereby subject the poor cultivators to heavy loss and damage.”

We must do this distinguished and enlightened native the justice of saying, that, in pleading for his fellow-countrymen at the bar of British opinion, he does not appear at all inclined to deal in exaggerated statements, or make indiscriminate accusations. On the contrary, while lamenting and properly reprehending the offensive bearing and demeanour of Europeans towards the natives in language not half as strong as distinguished statesmen like Sir Charles Trevelyan has used, he very justly discriminates, and guards against his strictures being understood as applying to the whole

race.

"There are many honourable exceptions. There are a great many Europeans of a totally different character. There are many Europeans who treat the natives as their equals, show them every consideration and kindness, who respect their feelings and prejudices, who love and cherish them, who give them every assistance, protection and redress, whose demeanour in public as well as private intercourse is most affable, courteous, and conciliating, who reflect the highest credit and lustre on the British character. Men like Canning, Elphinstone, Munro, Bentinck, Trevelyan, and many others, who could be easily named, are held in the highest estimation as sincere friends and well-wishers, and are revered as benefactors of the natives. I wish I could add their name is legion; but, the interests of truth compel me to declare that Europeans of this stamp do not form a large and preponderating majority in India."

The Marquis of Salisbury is now Secretary of State for Indian Affairs, and surely it is within his province to take cognizance of such gross abuses and oppressions as Mr. Nowrozjee has so distinctly specified aud authoritatively detailed. He does not, he says, enumerate these deeds of misgovernment because he is inimical to the British race, or because his countrymen are disaffected or wanting in allegiance to the British Crown, but because his desire is to vindicate the character of the English race, and eliminate any apprehension of danger to British rule in India. He does not write as a mere native of India, but as a British subject, with the consciousness that as such he and his liberties which should be held as fellow countrymen have rights and sacred and inviolable in India as they are in England.

Like every intelligent native, he is quite alive to the blessings and advantages that have been conferred on India by the substitution of British rule for the abominable and

desolating despotisms that preceded

it.

"We are indebted," he says, "to England for security of person and property, perfect toleration in matters relating to usages and religion, liberty of thought and action, an excellent education, and material improvements," in fact, for all that constitutes the civilization of a people and makes life desirable.

Such blessings are highly appreciated and valued by the natives, and the prevailing desire is to strengthen rather than weaken the connection between England and India, which has been productive of such vast and inestimable good. But the very existence of this feeling makes it all the more desirable that all causes of irritation should be removed, that every grievance should be redressed, and all complaints promptly investigated. and as promptly satisfied. The first

great change, however, that must precede all others is to improve the Indian Civil Service, so as to secure

a more competent class of administrators. Without this India can never be well governed.

FEW names have been made the subject of more undeserved reproach than that of Malthus. When that political economist first broached his theory of population, he had to encounter not only opposition, but obloquy, and one adversary of the time went so far as to say that he had covered his name with universal execration. From the persistent vituperation lavished upon him and his system, one might suppose that Malthus had advocated some barbarous and inhuman policy, such as systematic and wholesale infanticide, or the exposure to death of all the feeble and otherwise helpless members of the community. At least, these invectives against Malthus are calculated to impress those who have not studied his great work with the idea that he was a gloomy ascetic

a species of philosophic misanthrope, whose main object was to extinguish all the social instincts of humanity, to stifle the domestic affections, and cast every discouragement upon the marriage state. Nothing could be more erroneous or unjust. Whether or not we agree with the theories set forth by Malthus, we are bound at least to admit that his motives were those of benevolence and philanthropy.

He saw and lamented a great and wide-spread amount of human

The

misery, and discovered what he considered the chief cause, and the only remedy. So far from attempting to discourage matrimony, Malthus regarded it as an institution highly conducive to national and individual happiness, and wished to place it upon a basis which should render that happiness most secure. Indeed, his views of the marriage state were far more exalted than those of his detractors, or than are exemplified by the general customs and opinions of the world. domestic affections he recognized as an important source and element of human felicity, only he did not hold the prevalent notion that the greatness of the happiness must be intimately associated with greatness of number. He saw that the scriptural beatification of the man whose quiver is full, however true it may have been in more primitive ages, is quite inapplicable to the totally different conditions under which we now live.

Malthus's principal formula was, as everyone knows, that " population has a tendency to increase beyond the means of subsistence." From this he proceeded to show that much of the poverty-with its attendant evils-prevalent in longsettled countries springs from a too rapid multiplication of numbers.

Although, to establish his case, he surveyed and compared the state of population in nearly all parts of the world, the conclusion of his arguments was intended to apply to England only, and the following remarks will be similarly restricted.

Many and strenuous as have been the attempts made to disprove the doctrines of Malthus, it cannot be said that any has completely succeeded; while, on the other hand, he has had sufficient able supporters to claim the victory on his side with considerable show of reason.

Some of the greatest social and political economists, such as Ricardo, James Mill, John Stuart Mill. Say, Cairnes, Garnier, and Fawcett, have signified their acceptance of Malthus's population theory. We have remarked that his opponents have been too prone to substitute invective for calm discussion; and there has also been a not unnatural reluctance to enter into the subject at all. Many eminent authorities have shown a disposition either to blink the question, or to indulge in that easy optimism which casts a halo of hopefulness upon any existing conditions, and asserts that, if everything is not exactly right now, it will be sure to come right in the end. They seek refuge in some such profound axiom as, never sends more mouths than He sends meat a proposition which we have only to look around us in any direction to at once disprove. It is, indeed, very doubtful whether it can be just or correct to cast upon Providence the blame or burden of a condition of things for which man is directly accountable. Another argument maintains the efficacy of those positive checks to population which have prevailed in all ages, and should therefore suffice for the present and future. But of what nature have been these positive checks? Desperate remedies,

"God

indeed! Wars, pestilences, and famines-three of the direst sources of national ruin and distress-have hitherto been the main correctives to superabundance of human life. We have every reason to hope that the prevalence of these terrible scourges is constantly decreasing with the progress of knowledge and social improvement. When they have been entirely removed, what check is to take their place? The optimists say that none will be required. We cannot say that facts warrant their sanguine anticipations. It is futile to argue as many have done

"The world is wide, and it must be many ages before its population can possibly have filled it up and exhausted its immense resources, or even approached that state when the ultimate check of starvation must supervene, so what have we to fear?"

I am not contemplating any such distant prospect; it is so remote as to be altogether beside the question. What we have now to consider is

"How are the resources of the world to be made available for the present and immediately succeeding generations, so that they may be henceforth kept as far as possible from a state of destitution?"

It is impossible to over-estimate the vital importance of the subject. Upon it rests the fabric of our moral and social welfare. Argue how you will, all the considerations this involves ultimately come back to the great question of numbers. It is obviously easier, at any time, and under any circumstances, to provide for few persons than many, and this truth, in its extended application, goes to the root of the whole

matter.

Emigration has continually been. held up as a panacea for all the evils of over-population; but it will not be difficult to prove that it affords only a temporary relief Dr. Chalmers calculates that it

would require an annual emigration of 2,000,000 from Great Britain to carry off our surplus).

In 1810, when the fifth edition of the work of Malthus came out, the population of England and Wales was 10,488,000; by the latest census (1871) it was 22,712,266. Although the intervening period has been one of great progress and increase of wealth, it has been also fruitful of influences tending to retard population. We have had many long wars and periods of scarcity, and epidemic disease. Moreover, emigration has attained an immense and ever-increasing development. New colonies have been founded and peopled; in older ones, the number of inhabitants has greatly augmented. The United States, which doubles its population every thirty years, has been much assisted in that rapid increase by the wholesale emigration from the mother country. In the ten years, 1847-56, owing to the gold discoveries in Australia and California, and the potatoe famine in Ireland, the emigration from the British Isles exceeded all precedent, being no less than 2,800,000-a number of itself sufficient to stock a kingdom. The total exodus from Great Britain, since the time of Malthus, has been 7,000,000.

Thus we see that, in spite of a very large subtraction, the population of England has doubled itself in sixty years. The rate of emigration, immense as it is, cannot keep pace with the birth rate. The latest

census gives the proportion of these two opposing influences as two to five; that is, for every five persons born on any given day, two persons will emigrate. A country that finds it necessary to send forth so large a proportion of its inhabitants, and still multiplies their number so rapidly, cannot but be considered as, at least, rapidly approaching a state of over-population.

Nor should it be forgotten that emigration is only suitable for certain sections of the population, which are not necessarily those sections which the community can best spare. Large numbers, whose expatriation would be most beneficial to their country-for instance, the disabled or hopelessly afflicted-cannot avail themselves of this mode of relief. There are, besides, thousands of persons whose occupations are entirely connected with those arts and conditions of life which can only prevail in long-settled countries, and for which in colonies there is no scope. Such persons, however impoverished by excess of numbers and consequent competition at home, cannot benefit themselves by emigration, except by taking to other employments, to which they are not by education fitted, and in which they have to compete with those who are. Moreover, colonies are subject to fluctuations which render them unreliable as a constant resource. Any sudden discovery of wealth causes a rapid influx of population from older countries, necessarily resulting in a glut, which, for the time, negatives the advantages of emigration.

Even that Utopian idea, the equal distribution of wealth, could it be carried out and there are no signs of our even approximating to it, since the general cry is that the rich get richer, and the poor poorerwould not prove a remedy for excess of numbers. Independent of those great differences in luck or capacity which, of two men starting with equal advantages, would lead one to poverty and the other to affluence, the apparent prosperity caused by this equality of riches would, among the least educated and most improvident classes, give such a stimulus to early marriages, and consequently to population, that in a few years we should again find ourselves at the