where personal acquaintance with the life of the people is
needed. But of him too, like the Civil Servant, there is some suspicion
that in one sphere he holds a brief. This, indeed, may be said in favour
of the missionary's testimony, that while the Anglo-Indian identifies
the missionary's standpoint with that of the native, the native
identifies him with the Anglo-Indian, so that probably enough he
occupies the mean of impartiality and truth. The British merchant in
India may also offer as evidence, and indeed is "on the spot," and
apparently qualified by reason of his independence. But the interest of
his class is professedly limited to India's material progress; and of
his general views, we recall what Chaucer said of the politics of his
"merchant,"

"Sowninge alway th' encrees of his winning."

And finally, in increasing numbers, natives of India themselves are
claiming to pronounce upon the effect of the British connection upon
India; and yet again we feel that the proferred evidence must be
regarded with suspicion. That Indian is exceptional indeed whose
generalisations about India are based on observations and historical
knowledge. If the Civil Servant's honour is bound up with a favourable
verdict upon the question at issue, the educated native is as resolved
upon the other side. Nay, truth requires one to say that at this time
the educated Indian is virtually pledged against acknowledging any
indebtedness to Britain. For the reason why, we need not anticipate, but
it is foolish to shut one's eyes to the unpleasant fact, or to hide it
from the British public.

Where, then, is the testimony that is reliable? Is there nothing else
than the disputing, loud and long, of the six blind men of Indostan who
went to _see_ the Indian elephant and returned,

"Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!"

From preferred testimony of all kinds, from all affidavits, however
honestly sworn, we turn again to the ideas now prevailing as they
_betray_ themselves in the lives of the people and the words that fall
from their lips. Carefully studying earlier history, we ask ourselves
wherein the new ideas differ from the ideas current in India a century
ago. Then as progress appears, or is absent, the forces at work stand
approved or condemned. The exact historical comparison we may claim to
be a special feature of this book.

The writer is no