ture was to be adhered to as far as possible, with an exception in favour of one detachment of the Hindostan army, sent down to assist in the operations against Nagpoor and with the addition, that the East India Company should have none of the booty.

The Duke of Wellington and Mr. Arbuthnot, of the Treasury, were, on the 22d of March, 1823, made trustees to collect the booty, and prepare a scheme of distribution on the principles so declared. Mr. Atcheson was solicitor for Sir Thomas Hislop and the staff and army of the Deccan. Having carried his point with the Lords of the Treasury, he proceeded to lay before the trustees, statements of the booty claimed for his constituents. The trustees took his information as long as he had any to give, but refused altogether to place themselves on confidential terms of intercourse, or to lend themselves to his views in contesting with the East India Company various extensive claims set up by him. The trustees seem, indeed, to have considered him as preferring claims on behalf of the Deccan army, such as no officer would ever have thought of advancing. Mr. Atcheson's statements are before the public, and the principle on which he proceeds seems to be, that all the advantage obtained by the East India Company from the war, is to be considered as military booty, and that the Company should therefore not only refund all it had obtained in cash, but, further, purchase of the army all prospective advantages, all palaces and public buildings, and even all additions to the revenue that have resulted from the war. Dismayed at these pretensions, the trustees sought to cut off all further communication with Mr. Atcheson, by opening a direct correspondence with Sir Thomas Hislop and the military men sent home as prize-agents. Mr. Atcheson

continued to address letters to the trustees, enclosing the opinions of counsel, and insisting that the trustees should communicate with him as sole law-agent for the Deccan army. The principal matter in which Mr. Atcheson required to be dealt with thus confidentially, was this: the trustees had received his statements of booty, and had submitted the statements to the law-officers of the Crown, by whose opinion they and the Treasury were resolved to be guided. Mr. Atcheson in

sisted that the opinions so given by the crown-lawyers should be communicated to him, that he might submit them to other counsel on the part of the Deccan army. The trustees refused Mr. Atcheson's request. They further expressed their opinion, that there was too much disposition shown to go to law; but offered to submit all the proceedings to Sir Thomas Hislop's inspection, or that of any number of officers of his army.

A petition was next presented to parliament from Colonel Fitz-Simon, of the Deccan army, complaining of the delays tarown in the way of the distribution, and attributing them, in plain terms, to the trustees, and their refusal to admit Mr. Atcheson to their confidence. Dr. Lushington then declared the parties to have been insulted, in a letter from the Duke of Wellington, and imputed the opposition. Mr. Atcheson had experienced to his refusal to allow a son of Mr. Arbuthnot to be nominated a joint prize-agent. The fact is undoubted, that such a nomination was in agitation, and. was given up after, if not in consequence of, the opposition made to it by the existing prize and law agent. The matter might have ended here, but for the anxiety of the military friends of the noble Duke to stand forth as his defenders. On the third day only, after the reading of Colonel Fitz-Simon's petition, another petition was produced, asserting the perfect satisfaction of the Madras army at the conduct of the trustees, and bearing the signature of Sir J. Malcolm, with that of three other officers, in respect to whom it came out, that one being in Scotland, a friend had taken upon himself to sign his name. Mr. Atcheson's bill was stated in parliament to amount, at that time, to about 17,000l.; at present, we hear it amounts to about 25 or 30,0001. And it was against proceedings calculated to increase this bill, that the trustees set their faces.

A third and a fourth petition were presented to the House of Commons on the same subject, one from Sir Evan John Murray M'Gregor, a sharer, disavowing the declaration of general satisfaction put into the mouth of the army by Sir John Malcolm; and the other from Mr. Atcheson, exculpating himself from the charge of desiring to promote litigation, and complaining of the treatment he had experienced at the hands of the trustees.

The trustees have since continued

In so far as the booty captured from the Peshwa or Bhoosla was taken in forts or camps which fell before the conquering armies, the principle of actual capture might well be applied; and if the capture were made before the dissolution of the army of the Deccan, Sir Thomas Hislop and his staff might claim the usual proportions of commander-in-chief and staff over the divisions which made the capture. But much, indeed the bulk, of the amount claimed on the part of the army, was state-prize, which fell to the civil officers of the government that succeeded the Peshwa and Bhoosla; and how was it possible to apply the principle of actual capture to such booty? Thus Baja Row Peshwa had sent the bulk of his state-jewels to be concealed in a private house in the open town of Nasik. Information of the hoard was given to Mr. Elphinstone, the civil commissioner, some time after the dissolution of the army of the Deccan, and when a few operations against the Arabs of Kandês were all that remained to complete the reduction of the country. Mr. Elphinstone sent immediate orders to his civil deputy in that part of the country, who happered to be a military man (Captain Briggs), and he proceeded with a small personal escort, borrowed from the force of Colonel M Dowall, to take possession of these jewels. Had the crown been the governing authority of India, the prize would probably have been deemed a droit, so as not to fall to the army: but the governing authority happening to be the Company, which is precluded from any right or interest in booty resulting from war, the crown has ordered the Nâsik jewels to go to the army. Upon the principle of actual capture, however, Mr. Elphinstone, who directed the operation, must be the commander-in-chief, and Captain Briggs, his civil assistant, the actual captor. Neither Sir Thomas Hislop nor his staff can have a better claim than any other indifferent person. But if there be absurdity in the principle of actual capture, as applied to these jewels, there is still greater in respect

to two other items claimed for the Deccan army, viz. ; first, a sum of money deposited by Bajee Rao, with a native banker of Bombay, and recovered from him by proceedings in the Recorder's court, conducted by the Company's Advocate-General there; and, secondly, a large quantity of jewels sent from Nagpoor for deposit at Bunares, with a merchant of that city, and for the recovery of which suits have been instituted in the native courts. of Bengal, which so far as we are informed, are still undetermined. Who, we would ask, are the actual captors in these two instances? And yet these items, as state-prize, which the Company is not entitled to, will probably be awarded to the army. The last-mentioned jewels it was intended by the Bengal government, to restore to the Raja, by whom Apa Saheb has been succeeded at Nagpoor, but the award of the Treasury Lords has deprived the Company of all power of disposing of them, and if they be now restored, it must be after re-purchase from the army. These difficulties were inherent in the case from the beginning, and suggested the recommendation of the Marquis of Hastings, that all the booty should be thrown into a general fund. They must have been fully argued by the counsel employed in support of that side, and yet, it appears, that the majority of the Treasury Lords were not convinced until the trustees, finding the difficulty of applying the principle of actual capture to their award, reported the same for further judgment. The arguments of both sides on this part of the case were again heard by the Treasury, on the 7th of January 1826, and the case now awaits the decision of that tribunal.

III. A SHORT discussion took place, before the close of the session, on the Sullers, or burning of Indian widows on the funerai pile of their deceased husbands.

This rite, which is a form of publie suicide, seems so strongly sanctioned among the Hindoos by religion and custom, that it would be difficult, if not impossible to suppress it by direct legisla tive interference,

The Hindoos maintain, that the true Suttee need not bura publicly, but erea if prohibited, will pine away and die, for the sake of joining her husband in paradise.

זי

by labour and capital. We may also take for granted, that the relative quantities of the articles consumed, will depend upon two circumstances, viz. the desire of the consumer for the article in question, and the cost of producing it; that it will be directly as the former, and inversely as the latter. Now if an equal ad valorem duty be laid upon all commodities, it is clear that their relative prices will remain unaltered; and if we suppose the relative desire of the consumer for the different commodities to remain the same, the relative consumption of each article will remain unchanged, and the tax will fall equally upon all consumers, exactly in proportion to the value of the commodities which they consume. Let us now suppose the tax upon some one commodity to be greatly increased, so as to raise its price to such a degree as greatly to diminish, or entirely prevent, its consumption. It is evident that the whole, or a great part, of the income which was for merly expended upon this article, will now be employed in the purchase of other commodities. The revenue, therefore, will not be increased in proportion to the increase of taxation; but at the same time, it will not be diminished, because these other commodities will remain taxed to the same extent as before. But since, in all countries, there are some articles which are taxed either not at all or to a very small amount, it is evident that, if the consumer should have recourse, as he probably would, to these articles, the revenue would actually be diminished by increasing the tax. It is in this way alone that an increase of taxation can be attended by a diminution of revenue. For let us put a different case. Let us suppose that an equal ad valorem duty is laid upon all commodities except one, which either is altogether exempt, or is taxed only to a small amount. If this article be now subjected to the same taxation as the rest, it is obvious that its consumption

will be probably greatly diminished, or that it may cease altogether, and that consequently the produce of the tax on this particular commodity, will be diminished to little or nothing. But since the income which was formerly expended on this untaxed article, must now be employed in the purchase of taxed commodities, it follows that the whole revenue of the state, instead of being diminished, may be increased. From these conside

rations, we think we are justified in drawing the following conclusions. First, that there is not, as is often supposed, an absolute limit to every duty, beyond which an increase of taxation necessarily occasions a loss of revenue; but that this loss is the consequence, not of high but of unequal taxation. Secondly, that even when it appears from the returns that the increase of a tax on any article has caused a diminution of revenue on that particular article, it does not necessarily follow that it has caused a loss to the revenue generally, because the loss may be made up by an increased consumption of other articles, taxed to an equal or greater amount. But whenever an increase of duty is attended by a diminution of revenue on an article more highly taxed than the average of the commodities of the country, we may generally conclude that the additional taxation has been unprofitable or pernicious. Thirdly, it appears that inequality of taxation is generally injurious in the three following ways: 1st, in causing a loss to the revenue; 2dly, in producing inconvenience to the consumer, inasmuch as it narrows his choice of the articles of consumption; 3dly, in causing injury to the producer and the merchant, by whom such articles are distributed, by compelling a transfer of their capital from one employment to another a process which can rarely be accomplish ed without both inconvenience and loss.

There is also another consideration of great importance, which would lead us to disapprove of unequal taxation; we mean the encouragement which it affords to smuggling. It is quite unnecessary to detail the injurious consequences which result from this offence, or to demonstrate the impossibility of preventing its continuance so long as the present high duties exist, as these topics are a constant subject of discussion, both in and out of parliament. It may be sufficient to remark, that its prejudicial effects to the commu