1826.] Leav6s lorn out of a Common-place Book. UK 



some of our political writers to generalize too much upon this subject. 

 They say — " act so by your colonics, that when the hour of separation 

 comes — as come it must — friendship may succeed to love, and habits, 

 formed by old association, be necessarily continued." Tliey complain 

 especially of the violation of this principle in our mode of acting towards 

 what is generally considered as our most important ultramarine posses- 

 sion, and ascribe this to its having been governed by the narrow and 

 selfish maxims which characterize every description of corporation. I do 

 not consider this as a fair view of the system of policy pursued by us in. 



Infiia. A periodical writer (whose cry is echoed by many) thinks 

 that the India Company, in preventing the permanent settlement of 

 English colonists in Hindostan, &c., is exclusively actuated by a sus- 

 picion that colonizing the country upon the same principle upon which 

 others are colonized, would lead to its speedier emancipation ; con- 

 tending that, though this fear might probably be verified, India, after 

 emancipating herself, would still preserve the same sort of commercial 

 relations with us that America does at present ; whereas, should India 

 emancipate herself from England under the present system of things, 

 she would emancipate herself ivhollt/, and for ever. 



In reasoning, however, respecting India, it does not appear very 

 rational to apply an abstract ])rinciple (however true) to a dominion 

 which has been ibundcd, perhaps necessarily, upon a system foreign to 

 all received notions of colonial policy. We have a handful of Euro- 

 peans situated in the midst of millions, entertaining notions the most 

 opposite to our own upon all subjects, and sensible, to the inost morbid 

 degree, upon every point connected with their religious prejudices. 

 The Company, however, by confining the European population to such 

 numbers as could be made responsible for their actions, have succeeded 

 in making the conquerors respect the prejudices of the conquered ; and 

 we have retained possession of an immense tract of country, aggran- 

 dizing ourselves (justly or unjustly, politicly or impoliticly) in a way 

 that, considering things prospectively, would have appeared absolutely 

 impossible. Now what would probably have been the consequences of 

 the reverse of such a system ? For I think every one will admit such a 

 case admitted no medium, and that England must have pursued either 

 a domineering or a conciliatory system of policy. If she pursued a domi- 

 neering system, had she the power to enforce it in a country so distant, 

 so much more extensive, and so much more thickly peopled than her 

 own ? And if she could not successfully pursue a domineering, would 

 it not have been as difficult to pursue a conciliatory system, under the cir- 

 cumstances which are supposed, in contending for a grant of a permanent 

 settlement to our Indian colonists ? All people are attached to their own 

 customs, and the English are not, perhaps, more so than others. But 

 they certainly are more intolerant of the customs of others than any 

 people under the sun. Who is there, then, but must anticipate the dan- 

 ger likely to result from India being inhabited by European numbers, 

 too great to be controlled by their own colonial government, and too 

 few to control the natives, whose prejudices they would be sure toi 

 insult ! If the grave inditer of the paper in the Quarterly Review can 

 speak without reprobation, and in a vein of pleasantry — Heaven help 

 him I — about squirting an engine-full of veal-broth over a mob of Hin- 

 doos, by way of depriving them of their privileges of caste, and of thus 

 driving them within the pale of Christianitv, might not we anticipate 



U 3 



