170 



Notices of Books. 



[July 



appear not the least satisfactory point having frightened Mr. Bell. I 

 must take the liberty of beginning at the end of Mr. Bell's paper, and 

 proceeding upward ; by this method we discover the source of Mr. 

 Bell's alarm, namely, the great and increasing prosperity of Bombay. 

 Mr. Bell may be assured that I have very good authority for estimating 

 the trade in cotton at very nearly three crores. He says ' the external 

 commerce of Bengal has not for many years been so brisk as at this 

 moment, but Bombay will beat us hollow ( hinc Mas lachrym<B I) if 

 she takes such vast strides, &c. &c.' " 



Here we put it to our readers, to Dr. Lush himself, now that the irri- 

 tation under which he penned that passage has subsided, to say whe- 

 ther he would be satisfied with such an answer from another, or if that 

 is meeting the question fairly. The accuracy of a statement of his, 

 presumed to rest on official returns, is called in question, on the faith of 

 the correctness of official authorities, open to all, which seems incon- 

 testably to prove that his statement is a greatly exaggerated one ; and 

 how is the objection met ? not by producing his authority, but by tell- 

 ing his readers that Mr. Bell may be assured his statement rests on 

 good authority ! This may be satisfactory to him, but not to us; the 

 more so^ when we find that, at the rate of sixty-two and a half rupees 

 per candy of 500-lbs., it amounts to the enormous quantity of 240 mil- 

 lions of pounds; or more, by a million, than the estimated produce of 

 the whole of India, and more than half (nearly six-ninths) the produce 

 of the United States. 



We trust Dr. Lush will not accuse us of envying the prosperity of 

 Bombay, for we can assure him that none can more heartily rejoice in 

 her success than we shall, when he makes good his assertion, by the 

 production of adequate authority; but, until he does so, we must be 

 excused for withholding our belief in its accuracy, and adding that we 

 think he has weakened all the other statements adduced in reply to 

 Mr. Bell's objections, by shirking the only one which, if his authority 

 he such as he alleges, could have been answered to the satisfaction of 

 all parties, by their immediate production. Having thus far followed 

 Dr. Lush in beginning with the end of Mr. Bell's paper, partly we 

 confess, with a view to show how much he has lost the vantage ground 

 on which Mr. Bell's premature attack placed him, by descending from 

 the elevated tone of scientific discussion to the dogmatizing one of his 

 antagonist; a departure from decorum which can only be excused by 

 allowing for the feeling of injustice done him, under which the reply 

 is dictated ; we shall now return to the beginning, and notice a few 

 only of the leading points of difference between them. 



After a careful perusal of the whole series of Dr. Lush's papers, it 

 appears to us that their sole object is to prove that labour and care 



