except that the Indian officials choose to fix such a definition and termination to the intention of that Treaty, in spite of its precise words, and that as they desire to repudiate any other reading, the other party interested must therefore perforce accept their reading.

The East India Company itself, never made any such pretensions. It was not safe, neither was it the policy of the Company to affect such rights. On the contrary, they supported the line of succession in Meer Jaffier's family through eight successive Nawabs, venturing no further than the clipping away portions of the Nawab's revenues-but always under some plausible pretext of its being done as a reservation for his benefit, or that of his family. It was not until the systematized plunder of Indian Princes on the method originated by Lord Dalhousie, that such an idea was even insinuated as regards the Nawabs Nazim of Bengal; and even then, as no possible flaw in their title could be found, and no lapse" was probable, the matter was allowed to rest-the Nawab being kept in happy ignorance of the impending danger. But when the Mutiny, which that system had brought about, was over, a new Government succeeded, and although the desire for spoliation slumbered, an untoward indiscretion on Sir Charles Wood's part, in 1864, betrayed so much of the concealed plot, in his Despatch of that date, that the Nawab awakened to his danger, was roused to resistance, and determined to appeal direct to the Throne and Parliament of England for justice to himself, and protection for his children.

Will any one venture to pretend, has it by any one, anywhere been pretended that in either of the treaties made with Meer Jaffier he surrendered his right and the rights of his heir, in the throne of Bengal, Behar and Orissa to the East India Company? Did he not on the contrary, under the perpetual Treaty of Alliance, nominate his second son (the eldest having been killed by lightning) his successor, and give him strict injunctions regarding the payment of all sums due to the Company, and more especially the balance owing of his gift of £60,000 to his fellow soldier Lord Clive? On the other hand, the King of Delhi's grant to the East India Company, of which so much has been said, was merely a grant of his Dewannee or collectorship to the Company, (a power they suggested to be at his disposal) while His Majesty recognised the accession of Nudjum ul-Dowlah as the hereditary successor of Meer Jaffier-such recognition by the Lords Paramount, being a matter of unbroken custom in India on payment of tribute, like the succession and recognition of an incoming tenant by a landlord in our copyhold tenure, and indeed equivalent to it. This pretension of Lords. Paramount, Lord Dalhousie ventured to push beyond that exercised by the Emperor of Delhi, with whom succession duty and "tribute" were alone required, as with us, fines;" but the U. S. MAG. No. 505, DEC, 1870.

૨૨

Dalhousian system pretended to "a right of lapse," a choice of acceptation of heirs, a prerogative of "recognising," of adoption, and an authority of absorption. It is to be regretted that these pretensions-immediately proved to be so dangerous in exercise as to peril our hold of India-have been so virulently renewed of late by the Indian officials of the Imperial Government, which they represent as disposed to push the notion of a "High and Paramount" power to the intolerable extreme of a repudiation of Treaty obligations.

Enough upon this painful subject, the scandal of our Indian Government. We trust that advantage will be taken of present circumstances to arrive at some solution of the points at issue, equally to the satisfaction of His Highness the Nawab Nazim and the credit of the Imperial Government, whose character for justice, honour and integrity has been placed, by the ventilation of such pretensions, at a low ebb in the opinion of the millions of Hindustan.

It has been our good fortune to converse on this Russian question with some who have full acquaintance with the feeling of our Indian fellow-citizens. The conclusions arrived at are unmistakeably portentous. If the Abyssinian War were a necessity, as we were instructed, to our prestige in the East, how much more so, it is argued, must be a firm confronting of the Russian demands to our raj in India. And here it is we come face to face with one of the singular characteristics of our Indian Empire. The Mahomedans are said to be but twenty-five millions of the Indian population, of whom two hundred and fifty millions are Hindoos, and the remaining fifty millions, Hill men and others of different sects. The Mahomedans, however, once the dominant race, still hold their importance; we, who have taken their place, having even as yet but little hold,-having made, as it were, no roots.

Throughout India, in all great questions of national existence, our presence is scarcely recognised as a permanence. Everywhere before the native vision, still rises the glory of Akbar, the bloody vision of Nadir Shah, the triumphant glare of Tamerlane and of Genghis Khan. It is of little avail shutting onr eyes to the fact. In the Mutiny, had the Mahomedan Princes stept forward as leaders, it was known that our kingdom was gone. But Delhi was a feeble shadow, and Moorshedabad not merely stood aloof from rebellion, but loyally ranged itself on the side of Englandto be rewarded for that loyalty as we see the Nawab Nazim now rewarded in this country.

It is something pitiful to think, that in these days when Mr. Gladstone calls upon us "to strive more and more to realise the generous conception, according to which we hold a moral trusteeship of India, to be administered for the benefit of those over whom we rule”—it is sad, we must say, to be told that the precise

our rule in

means by which this "generous conception" of "a moral trusteeship" must be carried out; the only method by which " India" is possible, is through the aid of "an antagonism" between the Mahomedan and Hindoo populations of the country. And is this all? Can wisdom do no more! Can the generous conception of the Minister, the grand morality of the "trusteeship" of the happiness and prosperity of three hundred millions, do no more than advise us to govern by fostering divisions among the people we rule, and introducing in India the policy of religious partisanship, that faction-fighting which for nearly two centuries have been the curse of English rule in Ireland!

Let us hope the contrary; indeed it would not be long were such a policy put to the severe test of an invasion before its futility, and not impossibly its danger would become manifest. We notice it but to comment, in passing, that the statement is incorrect, and has its origin in certain special circumstances connected with those who originated the expression of the idea, such as render it equally unworthy of trust and unimportant. But when danger is imminent and our policy defective, to be "forewarned is to be forearmed," it therefore behoves "the British Lion" to watch carefully the movements of " the Russian Bear in the direction of "our Indian Empire."

EDITOR'S PORTFOLIO;

OR,

NAVAL AND MILITARY REGISTER.

Spain has at last got a king, after a fashion. The Duke of Aosta, the second son of Victor Emmanuel, has been, through Prim's influence, chosen by the Cortes, and is said to have officially accepted the crown of thorns. This may appear all very well, but the question remains, how will the son of the excommunicated Sardinian, who has just despoiled the Pope of the last poor shred of territory, be received by the "most Catholic" people of Spain? We venture to say, with abhorrence. The choice is evidently a temporary affair, not likely to last as long as the Provisional Government, and if the Italian prince should escape the fate of Maximilian he may be reckoned a very lucky fellow indeed. The fact of nearly one third as many votes being

૨૨ 2

given for a Republic as for Prince Amadeus shows there is trouble ahead from the Liberals, and that the priests should now abandon either the Carlist or the Isabella party is not to be expected by the wildest imagination. Until worse comes of it, if we do not greatly mistake, the only effect will be, that the name Amadeus will appear along with those of Serrano and Prim; and when the pretence has lasted a little while, Spain will by a sudden rising relieve herself of her young foreign Ruler, and will make a clean sweep of him and his adherents, who have placed her before the world as if she was incapable of finding one among her own sons worthy to guide her destinies. Of course, just at first, sensational telegrams will represent everything as couleur de rose, and all will be said to be going on "excellently well," until a crash, as sudden and as great as that of the French Empire, reveals the true state of affairs in the Iberian Peninsula.

The carefully compiled Wreck Register and Chart lies before us, and from it we gather the distressing information that during the year 1869 no less than 2,114 wrecks and marine casualties occurred on the shores of the United Kingdom, accompanied by the loss of at least 933 lives. By various effectual means, however, 5,121 lives were preserved, the most efficient being the lifeboats which public subscriptions enable the National Life-boat Society to maintain at 223 different places; there are also 41 boats independent of the Society; and there are 282 mortar and rocket apparatus stations, which are under the care of the Coast Guard and the Board of Trade. A resumé of the chief points stated in the Register is here given.

As regards the nationalities of the vessels wrecked on our shores during the past year, 2,163 of them were British and 387 foreign ships; while the country and employment of 44 are unknown. In classifying the voyages of the vessels, it is seen that 663 British ships were foreign going; and that of the foreigners, 298 were making voyages to or from the United Kingdom; 46 were passing our shores, and 28 were employed in our coasting-trade. The remaining 1,559 ships were engaged in the coasting-trade of the United Kingdom, with the exception of those whose country and employment are unknown.

The number of collisions last year was 461; and of the 1,653 wrecks and casualties other than collisions, 606 were total wrecks, and 1,047 were disasters causing partial damage more or less serious. In the previous year (1868) there were 1,368 wrecks

and casualties other than collisions; while in 1867 the number was 1,676, or more than had been reported in any previous year

since 1858.

Taking the average for the past fourteen years, including 1869, the number is, for wrecks resulting in total losses other than collisions, 484; and for similar casualties resulting in partial damage, 719; while, as we have just said, the number for the past year is 606 for total losses, and 1,047 for partial damage irrespective of collision.

As usual, the largest number of wrecks occurred on the east coast, although the loss of life was not greatest there. The largest loss of life during the ten years ending in 1869, was in the Irish Sea and on its coasts.

We notice that of the 606 total wrecks during the past year on our shores, not counting collisions, 74 arose from defects in the ships or their equipments, such as imperfect charts, compasses, &c.,-45 of them, indeed being caused by absolute unseaworthiness-80 occurred through the fault of those on board; 71 parted their cables, or dragged their anchors, and went on shore; 57 were lost from damage to hull or the loss of masts, yards, or sails; 119 foundered, 3 capsized, and the rest were wrecked in various other ways.

We find that 571 vessels were wrecked last year that were under the command of masters who held certificates of competency; and that in 264 cases the masters held certificates of service; while the large number of 1,135 were lost which were under the command of persons who were not legally compelledas most assuredly they should have been-to possess such certificates of competency, besides 389 that had foreign masters not holding British certificates. In 235 cases it is not known whether or not the masters held certificates.

As respects cargoes, it seems that 691 were laden colliers, 183 colliers in ballast, 139 vessels having metallic ores on board, 187 with stone ores, &c., 153 were fishing smacks, and 1,241 were ships with other cargoes or in ballast.

As usual the ships of the collier-class employed in the regular carrying-trade have suffered severely; they numbered 1,200, or about half the whole body of ships to which accidents happened during the year. Thus it is, in a great measure, that so many casualties occur on our coasts, for such is the notoriously ill-found and unseaworthy manner in which these vessels are sent on their voyages, that in every gale-even if it be one of a moderate character only-it becomes a certainty that numbers of them will be destroyed, as will be seen from the fact that 844 of them were lost in 1864; 934 in 1865; 1,150 in 1866; 1,215 in 1867; 1,014 in 1868; and 1,200 in 1869-or 6,357 in six years.

It is overwhelming to contemplate the loss of life from these, in too many instances, avoidable wrecks.