rsonal_
interest; and, in that sense, to be controversial is to be partial. Now
we, who take our station in the centre, and deliver our shot all round
the horizon, by intervals damaging every order of men concerned as
parties to the Affghan affair, whether by action, by sanction, by
counsel, or by subsequent opinion, may claim to be indifferent censors.
We _have_ political attachments: we do not deny it; but our own party is
hardly touched by the sting of the case.

We therefore can be neutral, and we shall pursue our enquiry
thus:--_First_, What was the original motive for the Affghan expedition?
We insist upon it, that the motive generally assumed and reasoned upon
was absurd, in a double sense puerile, as arguing a danger not possible,
and (if it had been possible) not existing, and yet, after all, not open
to much condemnation from most of those who _did_ condemn it. They might
object to the particular mode of execution, but they were pledged to the
principle of a war in that direction.

_Secondly_, When the amended form was put forward, a rational form and
the true form of the motive for this expedition, in what respect was
that open to criticism? Far enough are we from going along with the
views of the Auckland cabinet at this juncture; but these two things we
are sure of--that those views were unsound, not by any vice which has
yet been exposed, and that the vice alleged argues gross ignorance of
every thing oriental. Lord Auckland might err, as heavily we believe him
to have done, in his estimate of Affghanistan and the Affghan condition:
he had untrue notions of what the Affghans needed, and what it was that
they could bear: but his critics, Indian and domestic, were not in error
by default merely of philosophic views as to the state of society in
Affghanistan; they erred by want of familiarity with the most prominent
usages of eastern economy. Lord Auckland was wrong, only as whole masses
of politicians are wrong in Europe; viz. by applying European principles
to communities under feelings and prejudices systematically different.
But his antagonists were wrong as to palpable facts.

_Thirdly_, If we pass from the motive to the execution of the motive,
from the purpose to the means of effecting it, we are compelled to say
that Lord Auckland's government adopted for its primary means the most
extravagant that could have been devised; viz. the making itself a party
to the financial torture of the land.

_Four