1830.] Affairs of British India. 67 



rious to all that the mental habits and associations of the different families 

 of mankind are widely, and, to all appearance, irreconcilably discrepant. 

 Is the human mind more identical than the human stomach ? There is 

 but one structure for each j and all minds crave after happiness, as all 

 stomachs crave after food. Why not act upon " general principles," 

 and, as roast beef and plum-pudding are, to our tastes, at least, viands 

 far preferable to rice and vegetable curry, force our national food, as well 

 as our national institutions, upon the Hindoos ? The intestines are every- 

 where the same : let the Indian be dieted on bread and fat bacon ; and 

 let us victual our seamen on boiled pulse, and the putrid fish of which 

 our ultra-Gangetic subjects are so fond. It is vile bigotry to suppose 

 that the natives of Hindostan will not relish that which is agreeable to 

 us ; but experiment has proved, that hard biscuits are at once more nu- 

 tritious and more digestible than the soft unleavened cakes which the 

 poor wretches, knowing no better, devour in such enormous quantities ; 

 therefore we shall abuse the trust committed to us, if we do not constrain 

 them to change their food incontinently. 



This is absurd ; but wherein do such sentiments differ from the opinions 

 of those, who, when we are called upon to legislate for a people at the 

 further extremity of the globe, desire us to act upon "general principles," 

 and abstract reasoning on mind and government, in utter disregard to 

 the moral pulse, and the national idiosyncrasy of our subjects ? " A 

 people," did we say ? There are nations under our sway as numerous 

 and distinct in manners and feelings as all the inhabitants of Southern 

 Europe put together ; and yet there are professors of the art of govern- 

 ment made easy who talk of subverting every thing that has been done, 

 running counter to all their habits and prejudices, and introducing an 

 uniform system of entire novelty, as familiarly as " maids of fifteen talk 

 of puppy-dogs." And our warrant for all this pulling down and build- 

 ing up is to be the universality of the human mind ! 



We have saicj that this cant phrase, as applied by the writers to whom 

 we refer, is a mere verbal clinch. The Bedouin Arab loves liberty, so 

 does the Englishman : do they love the same thing ? The Arab's notion 

 of freedom is to rove the desert without control, and to rob by stealth 

 or open violence all but his own tribe. An Englishman, we suspect, 

 would give a different account of the object of his attachment. Again, 

 there can be little doubt that filial affection has a place in the breast of 

 the Hindoo, as well as in that of the Englishman. But how do the na- 

 tives of each country severally manifest their feelings upon the occasion 

 of the last great test ? The Englishman sends for Sir Henry Halford, 

 or the most skilful physician whose attendance he can command, to pre- 

 scribe for his dying parent ; the Indian carries him down to the bank of 

 the Ganges, and stifles his last gasp by filling his mouth and nose with 

 the mud of that sacred river. Could a clearer illustration be given of the 

 manner in which superstitious habits destroy the practical uniformity of 

 human nature ? Yet superstition is only one of the many agents which 

 have been constantly employed, since the date of the confusion of tongues, 

 in creating national individuality. The system of land-taxation which 

 has prevailed from time immemorial in India, would, doubtless, be in- 

 tolerable to the Englishman ; but is it more oppressive and vexatious 

 than his own Excise laws ? Our philosophers argue, in the first instance, 

 as if the feelings of the Hindoo were the same as our own, since mind is 

 universal ; and then propose ulterior measures because it is desirable to 



12 



