tem than he is now, but he would gradually become so. He would by degrees accustom himself to the possession of property and the management of it. So will the slave.

In the United States, every one of the above conditions is complied with. The landlords remain at home: they cause their means to increase: they improve their roads: they invest their capital in such a way as to cause new demands for labour: and the government is cheap, and can dispense with taxes. Labour rises daily, and will continue to rise. The remuneration of the slave is daily improving, and the necessity for care is daily increasing, and must continue to do so, unless the opponents of slavery can succeed in rendering labour unprofitable. In that case the slaves of the United States may be reduced to the condition of the people of India.

Looking to ASIA, we find throughout a confirmation of the views we have submitted to the reader. Everywhere we find man desiring to tyrannize over his fellow men, warring against and plundering him: everywhere we find licentiousness and immorality: everywhere we find the people poor and wretched, and the sovereign powerless, while a host of subordinates fatten upon the contributions exacted from the unfortunate cultivator, or manufacturer.

In RAJPOOTANA we find the feudal system, the natural growth of war. As was the case in France, numerous chiefs exercise all the powers of sovereignty, making war and peace at their pleasure, and obeying or disobeying a phantom sovereign, as best suits their convenience. There is no security for person or property, and consequently there can be no improvement of condition.

HINDOSTAN, at the time when the central authority was suffi cient to maintain order, appears to have enjoyed a high degree of prosperity. Each village constituted a little republic, having officers for the maintenance of the public peace, and for other purposes. The contributions to the state are estimated to have been one-thirteenth of the produce of the land. Wealth increased, and education was generally disseminated, and nothing was required but peace and security to give to the people the right of controlling the action of their government. Unfortunately, however, VOL. III.-27

such was not to be the case. Invasions and a constant succession of wars, accompanied by increase of taxation, deteriorated the condition of the people, and destroyed the power of the crown, which was gradually assumed by its officers, and with the distribution of power there was an increase of its intensity. New wars required new contributions, and the contribution of the cultivator was gradually raised to one-half. Increasing poverty tended still further to diminish the power of the sovereign, and by degrees offices of all descriptions became hereditary, their holders plundering the people, and plundered in turn by those above them. "The havildar, the head of a village, calls his habitation the durbar, and plunders of their meal and roots the wretches within his jurisdiction; the zemindar fleeces him of the small pittance which his penurious tyranny has scraped together; the phoosdar, a military commandant of the province, seizes on the zemindar's collections, and bribes the nabob's connivance in his villanies by a share of the spoil; the covetous eye of the nabob ranges over his dominions for prey, and employs the plunder of his subjects in bribing or in resisting his superiors."*

The establishment of British dominion in India, although attended with much oppression and injustice, has at least had the effect of restoring order. Private war is at an end. To a great extent power is now united in a single body, and peace can therefore be maintained. Advantageous as it is, the cost is unfortunately very great, and the contributions therefor press heavily on the labourer, and prevent the rapid increase of capital that would otherwise take place. The unfortunate idea that the wealthy people of England have a right to obtain a large revenue from the poor and oppressed people of India, continues a system of taxation adverse to the free application of capital and labour, and thus prevents a rapid increase of production. Nevertheless, there is a steady improvement of condition.

It is hardly to be doubted that the time will soon arrive when India will cease to be looked upon as a source of revenue. Existing restraints will then be abandoned. Security will be increased, and labour and capital will be profitably employed.

Orme on the Government and People of Hindostan.

By degrees the physical and moral condition of the people will be improved. They will gradually fit themselves to fill important offices in the state, and ultimately the free system of England will be planted in Hindostan, thence to extend itself over the continent, diffusing happiness and prosperity, the consequences of peace.

The facts we have submitted must, we think, satisfy the reader that the extent to which various nations of the earth have been able to maintain and to exercise their own rights, has been in precisely the ratio of their respect for the rights of others. War and plunder have produced insecurity, poverty, disunion, and slavery, while peace has been accompanied by security, increase of wealth, physical and moral improvement, union of action, and freedom, tending to further physical, moral, and political improvement. History, therefore, teaches us that it is only by respecting the rights of others—by doing unto others as we would have others do unto us-that we can hope for improvement of political condition.

CHAPTER VII.

OF THE INFLUENCE OF POLITICAL CONDITION ON THE PRODUCTION OF WEALTH.

*

In the Second Part of this work we offered our readers a view of the political condition of the people of Hindostan, France, England, and the United States, showing to what extent their institutions had tended to enable them to exercise in security the rights of person and property, and what proportion of the produce of labour had been required for the maintenance of those institutions.† The result of our examination was, that the cost of government was in the inverse ratio of the security and freedom enjoyed‡-that in India the labourer knew little of the rights of person and property, and the government took a large proportion of the very small product of his labour, while in the United States, and particularly in New England, was to be found the highest degree of security-the most perfect freedom in the application of time, talent, or property to the business of production—the highest degree of control over the application of such portions thereof as were needed for the maintenance of security-the nearest approach to perfect self-government—the most productive application of labour, with the smallest demands upon the labourer for the payment of those persons charged with the direction of the business of the state. In the one we found political freedom and a high

* Chapters ii. and iii.

+ Chapter iv.

+ Chapter xi.

§ "L'intérêt personnel, encouragé par cette grande liberté presse vivement et perpétuellement chaque homme en particulier de perfectionner et de multiplier les choses dont il est vendeur; de grossir ainsi la masse des jouissances qu'il peut procurer aux autres hommes, aussi de grossir par ce moyen la masse des jouissances que les autres hommes peuvent lui procurer en echange. Le monde alors va de lui même; le desir de jouir, et la liberté de jouir, ne cessant de provoquer la multiplication des productions et l'accroisement de l'industrie, ils impriment à toute la societé un mouvement qui devient une tendance perpetuelle vers son meilleur etat possible.”—Mercier de la Riviere, ii., p. 444.

A distinguished writer of our time speaks of government as "the most difficult of all sciences," and hopes there will be "a further application of the division of labour,

productive power, and in the other a total absence of freedom and a low power of production. The result of a comparison of England and France was similar. In the one we found peace and security-a high degree of political freedom-and a high power of production, while in the other we found a perpetual succession of wars-an almost total absence of security-and a low productive power.

In Hindostan we found a dense population in a state of poverty, while in England we found a population almost equally dense, enriched by peace. In France we found a more scattered population impoverished by war, while in the United States, with still diminished density, we observed a rapid accumulation of capital, the consequence of peace and security. England, with her dense population, was seen to derive from the cultivation of the inferior soils, a constantly increasing return to labour, while the people of the United States, though widely scattered,

the principle upon which all government is founded, by providing an appropriate education for those who are to direct the affairs of the state."-Senior. Outline of Political Economy, p. 160.

If government is to regulate and control the affairs of individuals, no education is sufficient. A Metternich or a Chatham is as likely to do mischief as a Newcastle or a Bute. Men must be permitted to manage their own affairs in their own way, and when this is done, the science of government is most simple. Mr. Senior's suggestion would shut out almost every distinguished man of our age. Mr. Scrope is of opinion that

"The right of every individual in this matter is not to self-government, but to good government—to that form of government which is most highly conducive to the general welfare-a right to have his happiness consulted, and his rights protected, by the authorities entrusted with power, in the same degree with those of every other person in the community.”—Scrope's Political Economy, p. 23.

The best government is that which permits men to exercise their own judg ments in the application of their time, labour, and property, with a view to the improvement of their condition, and thus to obtain the largest quantity of commodities in exchange for their labour, and that it is which leads directly to self. government. The characteristics of "good" government vary with the opinions of those who exercise power over their fellow men. Napoleon thought a conquering government was a good one. Philip II. had the same idea of a persecuting one. In the system of self-government there can be no such differences. When the principle is fully carried out, it secures to each man the right of applying his labour and his capital in the manner that appears to himself most likely to promote improvement of his condition, physical, moral, and political, and consequently deprives all others of the right, while it relieves them from the duty of directing him.