You have surely not considered, my Lord, that, if there be any subject on which publicity is essentially necessary to a nation, it is that of the state and appropriation of its finances. Let us, for a moment, contrast the darkness with which you have enveloped the finances of India, with the love of publicity which forms so prominent and excellent a feature in the character of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer,* and which, if his ambition be of the right kind, he will never depart from. In laying before the public a statement of the finances of Great Britain for the present year, (1806,) he thus expresses himself:

'If he indulged any pride in the financial detail which he had just laid before the House, it was this, that it is entirely open and without concealment. He had ever been of opinion that the publicity and notoriety of the financial affairs of Great Britain had been the prime source of her strength and success. He trusted this

frankness and absence of disguise would never be departed from. Like the old Roman moralist, he would wish so to build his habitation that every corner should be open to every eye, and every passenger become a spectator of what was going on within.-He believed if there were a system in the world to which this sentiment might be justly applied, it was the financial system of Great Britain, If there was any point he was more ambitious to attain than another, it was the character of promoting that knowledge and publicity. He should look to it on all occassions, and consider it as inseparably connected with the discharge of his duty to his country.'

But your system, my Lord, is that of darkness, mystery, and concealment, in every department. How, in the fettered state of the Asiatic press, can the inhabitants of India, whether European or Native, know what is doing in Europe, or the inhabitants of Europe know what is doing in India? Commercial men cannot, but by means of private correspondence, even hear of the arrival or departure of ships. The consequences of such dreadful ignorance are too shocking to bear contemplation. Look at the state of the Continent of Europe, and say whether that would have been so deplorable as it now is, if the liberty of the press had continued to exist, even in a factious state, in France. Do you believe that, if the press were free at Paris, Bounaparte would venture to issue orders, which are now implicitly obeyed, and dare not even be questioned? Do you believe that, if there were a free press at Vienna, the recent calamities of the German Empire, occasioned by the imbecility, blunders and treachery of individuals, might not have been averted? Do you believe that, if a free press existed at Berlin, the wretched and mischievous policy of the Prussian Cabinet would have so long continued to prevail, to its own disgrace, and to the detriment of all Europe? Do you imagine that, if the press of Calcutta had con

* The Marquis of Lansdown, then Lord Henry Petty.

tinued to enjoy its wonted freedom, even your own measures, iny Lord, might not have received salutary checks, when erroneous, and essential assistance, when correct?

Such is the powerful nature of truth, my Lord, that, with a free press for its circulation, the pernicious abuses to which so many nations are unhappily a prey, would instantaneously disappear, and the oppression by which their inhabitants are ground to dust, would speedily vanish. Despotism has a natural affinity to darkness; liberty, to light. As flowers are nurtured into blossom by the heat and light of the sun, so are the virtuous propensities of man thrown into action by the animating beams of freedom.

With a press perfectly free, good institutions acquire perfection, and bad ones disappear. But the liberty of the press being extinguised, bad institutions spring up apace, and scarcely any good one can continue to exist. Were I asked what part of our Constitution it would be most fatal to lose, I would answer without hesitation : The liberty of the press. Leave me that, and I will ensure the rest. But take that away, and I cannot answer a single moment for any other part of the fabric.' I do not believe, my Lord, (for really I do not think you a mere devil,) that, at the commencement of your war against the press, you had any idea of the length you might be induced to go, or of the enormous criminality of your object. But, having once embarked, you thought it inconsistent with your dignity to return. Of what consequence is it to a nation, my Lord, if they are enslaved, whether the mischief arise from ignorance or design? We have a grand lesson of colonial alienation before us, which may show the danger of arbitrary proceedings in our distant provinces. Did not the tyranny of Governors, in concurrence with the injudicious pretensions of the Legislature, first produce those discontents, which terminated in the separation of America from Great Britain? That separation may now, indeed, be productive of a good to the world, which was little foreseen. If the principles of such men as you and Buonaparte should unhappily prevail in Europe, liberty will still have one asylum in the universe.

For the comparatively moderate measures of our American Governors, however, some plausible pretexts, some shadow of justification, might have existed. But what possible justification can be attempted by you, for having utterly extinguished the liberty of the press in India, unless it be the stale and vague pretext of state necessity, the usual argument of tyrants?

So spake the fiend,

And with necessity, the tyrant's plea,
Excused his devilish deeds.'

But, besides that public men may easily mistake the gratification of their own particular propensities for the general good of the state, no species of necessity, at least no necessity under which you, my

Lord, as Governor-General of India, could have laboured, can be admitted as an excuse for violating the most essential principles of the British Constitution. Were you even beset with treason, sedition, insurrection, it would have formed no justification of your conduct, since there were British courts of judicature to try offenders. But the fact is, that there was even no visible pretext for your violent attack upon the press. Are the Natives of India become politicians? Or rather, are they not the least refractory subjects upon earth? Was not the press much more free, or licentious, if you will, under the administration of Mr. Hastings, and other Governors, than it was, at any time, during that of your Lordship? They, particularly Mr. Hastings, were even personally attacked; but they had too much conscious dignity and good sense to resent these ephemeral effusions of discontent, and too much wisdom to think of restraining the liberty of the press, on account of its occasional licentiousness. Good men,' says Junius, to whom alone I address myself, appear to me to cousult their piety as little as their judgment and experience, when they admit the great and essential advantages accruing to society from the freedom of the press, yet indulge themselves in peevish or passionate exclamations against the abuse of it. Betraying an unreasonable expectation of benefits pure and entire from any human institution, they, in effect, arraign the goodness of Providence, and confess that they are dissatisfied with the common lot of humanity.'

After disobeying the orders of the Court of Directors, and treating the principles of the British Constitution with contempt, what more could be expected, but that, if there were no obstacle but your own inclinations, you would have declared yourself independent of both? But your restrictions on the press constitute by far the most extraordinary measure that I have heard or read of in civilised times. It is even the most extraordinary act of your own Government. If there were really any rational grounds for a measure of political audacity, on which very few Governors would have chosen to venture, you, my Lord, with all the ingenuity that belongs to you, will no doubt be able to explain. At present, however, it must be regarded as a singular phenomenon in the history of British Government, that the press, in our great Eastern Empire, should be subjected to restrictions, which would be reckoned disgraceful in any of our little islands in the West Indies, of which the inhabitants are principally slaves.

These restrictions I shall first consider, as they are a violation of the British Constitution, which admits of no previous restraints upon publications of any description; and for this doctrine, without going back into antiquity, I will quote an authority to which even your Lordship will not object: I mean that of Lord Hawkesbury. It is yet in the recollection of every one, that, while this nobleman was Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Buonaparte roused the utmost

indignation of every British subject, by attempting to dictate limitations to the press of this country, not, however, one tenth part so degrading as those you have imposed upon the press of India. When the first of a long series of conflicts between the greatest power in the world and the only free press remaining in Europe'* began, Lord Hawkesbury, in his answer to M. Otto's representations, (see Correspondence between Great Britain and France, &c. 1803, p. 26,) declared the liberty of the press to be justly dear to every British subject. The Constitution admits of no PREVIOUS restraints upon publications of any description; but there exist judicatures, wholly independent of the Executive Government, capable of taking cognizance of such publications as the law deems to be criminal, and which are bound to inflict the punishment the delinquents may deserve.'

Now, I beg you will have the goodness carefully to compare this clear and luminous exposition of the noble Secretary of State, with your own general regulations for the press in India, and with your summary proceedings in my case, and to tell us whether you think you have not violated the principles of the British Constitution, of common justice, and of common sense; whether you, a mere Governor of a province, have not taken upon yourself to do that which his gracious Majesty cannot do, and that which has never been claimed by any branch of his illustrious House, to impose previous restraints upon publications, of which the Constitution of this country does not admit.

The murderer of his friend, whom we so justly abhor, only takes away the life of one individual, by which act, if detected, he forfeits his own. But the successful invader of the freedom of the press, deprives us all of the condition which alone renders life worth the holding, and of the means of exposing and punishing his own iniquities. Instead of my own crude thoughts, let me state the ideas of Milton on this subject, which may be considered as a genuine instance of the sublime: Who kills a man, kills a reasonable creature, God's image; but he who destroys a good book, kills reason itself, kills the image of God, as it were in the eye...... We should be wary, therefore, what persecution we raise against the living labours of public men, how we spill that seasoned life of man, preserved and stored up in books; since we see a kind of homicide may be thus committed, sometimes a martyrdom, and, if it extend to the whole impression, a kind of massacre, whereof the execution ends not in the slaying of an elemental life, but strikes at that ethereal and fifth essence, the breath of reason itself, slays an immortality rather than a life.'-Areopagitica.

An admirable idea of De Lolme on the liberty of the press, is so peculiary applicable to the present subject, that I cannot help quot

* Sir James Mackintosh's Speech on the trial of Peltier.

ing it: In short, whoever considers what it is that constitutes the moving principle of what we call great affairs, and the invincible sensibility of man to the opinion of his fellow-creatures, will not hesitate to affirm, that, if it were possible for the liberty of the press to exist in a despotic Government, and (what is not less difficult) for it to exist without changing the Constitution, this liberty of the press would alone form a counterpoise to the power of the Prince. If, for example, in an Empire of the East, a sanctuary could be found, which, rendered respectable by the ancient religion of the people, might insure safety to those who should bring thither their observations of any kind; and that, from thence, printed papers should issue, which, under a certain seal, might be equally respected; and which, in their daily appearance, should examine and freely discuss the conduct of the cadis, the bashaws, the vizir, the divan, and the sultan himself; that would introduce immediately some degree of liberty.' To this ingenious idea I will just add that, if any man, of a romantic turn of mind, diametrically opposite to that which distinguishes your Lordship, had taken the fancy of introducing into India, that sanctuary mentioned by De Lolme, there is no place upon earth where he could have done it with less risk of danger.

LETTER IX.

To the Marquis of Wellesley, &c.-A few words on his general Go

vernment.

'Ego ita comperi, omnia regna, civitates, nationes, usque eo prosperum imperium habuisse, dum apud eos vera consilia valuerunt.'-Sallust.

I WILL now, my Lord, ask any man of the smallest particle of candour, what could have been expected from that arbitrary spirit, of which I have given such damning specimens, when carried, as it must have been, into the various branches of the administration of public affairs, but that it should produce, among the native powers of India, disgust, irritation, revolt, and war? Accordingly, during the whole course of your administration, India has experienced these calamities in so full a measure, as scarcely to have enjoyed a single day of repose.

Nor let our common sense be insulted by being told, that it argues great talents in a Governor-General, with a numerous and one of the best-composed armies in the world, together with the whole power and influence of the British Empire at his back, to vanquish, either in conjunction or detail, the half-disciplined rabble of a few petty princes of India. To those who are acquainted with the country, such boasts must appear ridiculous in the highest degree. If a school-boy were placed at the head of the Government of India, I maintain that he could not, but by superseding old and experienced officers, to make room for his own ignorant or inexperienced favourites, avoid conquering. But this no Governor could do while