JULY — SEPT. 185T.] 
for India, 
205 
and personal influence ; in the same manner in short, as the intro- 
duction of European literature and science, or Christian ethics. 
I would submit however that the cases are not parallel ; we ii\ust 
wait for the one, we cannot wait indefinitely for the other. In the 
one case the Government has no right to compel the adoption of 
their views, however correct and beneficial ; in the other, it 
becomes vl positive duty o^ the State to insist upon a just and defi- 
nite mode of dealing among its subjects, and to introduce a new 
and uniform system, not merely because they have found a bet- 
ter one than any Mhich exis'ts in India, but because the existing 
ones are radical]^* bad, and open a door to every kind of uncer- 
tainty, evasion, and ^raud. 
It does not requu-e much argument to show that the Natives of 
India v.'ill not of their own accord do what the people of England 
would not do without a legal enactment, and if there is a Law, it 
must be compulsory, or it will be a dead letter. It would have 
been deemed useless to attempt the introduction of a uniform Me- 
trical system by a Proclamation in the Gazette, or by ofiicial in- 
fluence, in England, where all classes of people admitted the in- 
convenience of so much diversity, and it is not likely that such 
measures will be successful in India, where the people do not 
admit such inconvenience, and the petty dealers are directly in' 
teresied in a continuance of the present irregularity. If official 
influence is to be exerted, it will probably end in that kind of in- 
fluence which is virtually compulsion ; a species of argument not 
unknown to official subordinates in India, and which it would not 
be wise to encourage. 
It may be thought that as it is already a'penal ofi'ence to use false 
Weights and Measures, the public are sufficiently secured ; but there 
is little use in testing them as long as the Standards are not defined 
by law. I may mention a few instances that have come under my 
own knowledge, of the inconvenience arising from this laxity. 
The first case was one, where the Land Revenue having been 
fixed originally with reference to the produce and price of grain, 
complaints were made of its pressure, in consequence of a con- 
tinued fall (as it was asserted) of price. To ascertain the truth of 
I 
