are the first of a series, which may be extended indefinitely by the co-operation of many labourers. The object is, to place in the hands of students brief and intelligent biographies of those great men, whose names are in everybody's mouth, and yet no one can precisely state who, and what manner of man, their hero was. Everything that savours of the unreal and mythical, is omitted, original works being consulted, and collated; the history of the real man is told briefly, and in a style suitable to the intelligence, and notions, of native readers. Each pamphlet is accompanied by a map.

The Lives of Paul the Apostle, Nanuk, Krishna, Buddha, and Mahomet, are now under preparation by the same author, and Mahmood of Ghuznee, Nowshirvan, and many others, suggest themselves, as deserving of notice. By degrees a series of lives of great men, who in past ages ruled kingdoms, introduced ideas, and swayed the minds of their contemporaries, will be formed, and being translated from language to language will occupy the same position in Eastern literature, that Plutarch's Lives have so long maintained in the West. It is of no use dashing our feet against adamantine truth, and ignoring the great men who have gone before us : lot uś make use of them, and influence the character of Moderns, by well drawn Biographies of the Ancients.

о

Literary Remains, consisting of Lectures and Tracts on Political Economy of the late Rev. Richard Jones, formerly Professor of Political Economy at the East India College, Haileybury; and Member of the Tithe and Charity Commissions. Edited with a Prefatory Notice, by the Rev. William. Whewell, D. D., Master of Trinity College, Cambridge. London, John Murray, 1859.

RICHARD JONES, whose Literary Remains the Master of Trinity has edited in the volume before us, was one of the most popular Professors who ever filled a chair in Haileybury. Now that that College is numbered with the things that were, not the least pleasant of the recollections of the men whom it sent forth to fight the battle of civilisation in India, are connected with a man who was always personally respected and loved, and whose instructions in Political Economy and the Philosophy of History were valued perhaps more those of any other Professor in any other branch of study. Regarding him many a tradition still lingers in the coteries of old Civilians who sat at his feet as their Gamaliel. Many a one has he befriended when, but for the extra mark or two added to the Examination papers, he would have been 'plucked,' and not a few were his friendly counsels the moans of recalling to the path of duty and morality, when in the

thoughtlessness of youth both seemed to have been forgotten. And many look back upon his class room as the place when they were first introduced to a set of new ideas, and felt stealing over them the beginning of higher aspirations, as listening to his lectures they learned how high was their calling, and how great their responsibility as the future rulers of Asiatics in our Eastern empire. While with the laughter-loving spirit of the student they enjoyed the jokes of and the jokes about “Old Bulbul,”* as the Haileybury men invariably called him, they recognised in him and his prelections the best of guides to a wide yet thorough knowledge of that science which is the sine qua non of every statesman, ruler and administrator. The incidents in the life of Richard Jones, as given by Dr. Whewell, are very few. He was born at Tunbridge Wells in 1790. His father was a Solicitor, and he himself would have studied for the Bar, but that his childhood was sickly. He entered Caius College, Cambridge in October 1812, and by his intelligence, wit and knowledge of the world, made him self a favourite with all his fellows. He had around him men such as Herschel, Whewell, Babbage, the late Dr. Peacock, and Sir Edward Ryan, and there laid the foundation of that eminence which he afterwards attained in the pursuit of Political Science. He entered the Church in 1816, and though he was not well fitted for the duties of a quiet country parish, yet by his kindliness of disposition, his knowledge of the peasantry, and his love for agricultura pursuits, he recommended himself to his various parishioners. He had several charges successively in Sussex. In 1831 he issued his first work on Rent, in which he especially attacked the doctrines of the then reigning school of Ricardo. He was appointed Professor of Political Economy in King's College on its establishment in 1833, and in 1835 succeeded Mr. Malthus in Haileybury College, receiving his appointment from Mr. St. George Tucker, at that time Chairman of the Court of Directors. That office he continued to hold for twenty years, almost till his death in 1855. There it was that he promulgated his doctrines to his students, which are embodied in a course of lectures on Labour and Capital, a course on population, and a general course of seven lectures on Political Economy generally, forming his Text Book. The work contains also an Introductory Lecture on Political Economy delivered at King's College, an Article on Primitive Political Economy contributed to the Edinburgh Review, an account of the Anglo-Indian Revenue Systems, a Tract on the Incidence of Taxes on Commodities that are consumed by the labourer, and several detached Notes and Remarks. In a lecture on the distribution of wealth he gives the following clear description of Hereditary Occupiers of land who produce their own

*He was so termed from the circumstance that, having lost his teeth, when he spoke his lips quivered as the throat of the nightingale does when she sings. Though very stout and very heavy, Jones was a capital fox-hunter,

wages, as distinguished from those who are maintained by the revenue of their employers-namely menial servants and artizans, and those who are maintained by the capital of their employers. The class of peasant cultivators he divides into 1st, proprietors; 2nd, tenants of an individual landholder; 3rd, tenants of the Sovereign or State; 4th, Hereditary Occupiers :

OF HEREDITARY OCCUPIERS.

These laborers have always constituted the largest portion of the agricultural population of Asia. Of our Indian subjects they form a large majority. They are, in fact, the inevitable offspring of the mutual necessities of governments and peoples situated as those of Asia have been. The form of their government led to the claims and exactions of the Sovereign, while his obvious interests led to the practical rights of the occupiers to an hereditary interest.

It is a common and indeed obvious remark, that among bodies of cultivators of simple habits and inhabiting a warm climate, the indirect taxes which are so productive in our own country cannot be levied to any great extent. Spirituous liquors, malt, sugar, tobacco, tea, coffee, and wines produce in England many millions to the State. It would be vain to expect even a reduced shadow of such a revenue from a body of Asiatics consuming little or nothing but what they themselves produce from the land they occupy. Yet, during the long series of ages through which we can trace them, powerful governments and, indeed, large empires have existed on the soil of Asia. They have likewise been luxurious and warlike, eminent, too, in the fine and domestic arts, and expensive as to their armies.

For these things, in large States, large revenues are required, and there existed one only, but apparently a sufficient, source of such revenues. The land divided among cultivating peasants produces more than they consume in cultivation and in the maintenance of their families, and leaves, in fact, a surplus which may be appropriated by the State. Hence there arises a government revenue which, when extracted from a wide extent of country, may be large without being burthensome, and may support the magnificent expenditure of an oriental monarchy, without supposing the people to be individually rich. The influence of the distribution of that revenue on other classes we shall observe by and by. At present we are concerned only with the cultivators—with those who pay a revenue to the Crown,-not those who receive revenues from it. Looking to them and to the Sovereign, we have clearly before us two classes, to the existence of one of which the possession of land is necessary, and to the support of the other a share in the produce of that land. In this state of things a habit of hereditary occupation soon springs up and becomes a modified right. We need not puzzle ourselves about the religious or other sanctions to such rights which may sometimes be traced. It is enough that the habit is deeply rooted in the necessities of one party and the wants, almost amounting to necessities, of the other.

Whenever the occupiers of the land in such countries are laborers producing their own subsistence, there exists no class of capitalists able and willing to advance wages to them. In their case, if, on the death of the father, the family ceased to have any claim to the occupation of the soil, they must perish. No large population deprived of every other resource would submit to this without a struggle. But so far from wishing to deprive them of the right of succession, the State has an obvious interest in retaining them on the land, and even in enforcing their retention of it, if force were at all necessary for that purpose. Such was the origin of serfdom, and of the numerous. bodies of men who, during the later days of the Roman empire, existed in its provinces, under an indefinite variety of names-not slaves, nor freemen, but cultivating the land as a condition of existence, and occupying it hereditarily; partly, too, for the profit of other classes, who, unless they shared in the wealth produced by this labouring population, would have no revenues at all.

A body of occupiers under the State, when it is tolerably well ordered, are ordinarily in a better condition than those who labor for subordinate landholders. It is true the State has an apparent interest in reducing the wages of their labor (that is, what they are allowed to retain of the produce), to the lowest possible point, and too often the pressure becomes painful and mischievous. But experience soon proves that the laws of nature oppose an impassable barrier to the progress JUNE, 1859.

h

of the exactions that can be made under such circumstances. The cultivator must be allowed enough to continue his industry and maintain himself while he labors, or cultivation must fail altogether, and with it the revenue it produces for the State. But something more than this is necessary, if the revenue of the State is to be continuous. When the cultivator dies, he must leave a successor, and these successors must be the children of the class. He must therefore, while he lives, be able to rear up a family which will supply such successors. Now the death of half the children born before they arrive at years of maturity, may be assumed as a low average proportion. To keep up a nation of cultivators, they must have incomes which will enable them to support at least a family of four children, where two of them are to die before years of maturity. If less income were left them, an increase in the rate of mortality would ensue, and a gradual decrease in the number of cultivators must be the inevitable result. But such ultimate results are seldom brought about insensibly and quietly. As the peasants become sensible of the pressure, and feel the existence of themselves and their families at stake, desertion and resistance are their usual resource—and struggles between tyranny and desperation begin, which disfigure the story of such States, and ensure their poverty and weakness.

:

Such a condition of things involves that mutual dependence of Rent and Wages on each other which has been before alluded to. In a certain stage of society, our own for instance, the amount of Rent depends on the quantity of Profits made on a given spot of land, which is in excess of what the same capital would realize in other employments. The capitalist undertakes all the expenses of cultivation, the maintenance of the laborers among the rest. He must have a rational prospect of making as much Profit as he could make in any other occupation, or he would not hire the land; and he will not long continue to make more, for the competition of other capitalists would prevent him from so doing and in this way the Rents of a country so circumstanced come to be adjusted. But this is not an early, nor is it a wide-spread, state of things. At the birth-time of agriculture, no capitalists exist to take possession of cultivation. At the outset, it is the earth and their own labor which are the sole resources of the cultivators. Some small capital must no doubt be employed in the shape of seed and implements; but, if we observe the wide surface of the earth occupied by such cultivators, we shall see that the capital they use is distinguished by an important characteristic from that belonging to the capitalists in our own country. It cannot be moved from the task of cultivation to any other occupation, for no such other occupation is open to the laborer. He must find land to produce food, or he must starve. In this state of things, it is obvious enough that the returns to his slender capital are so mixed up with the wages of his labor that, in practice, we cannot separate them. We are conscious of the presence of two elements, but we cannot argue upon the supposition of what would happen if the capital were moved to some different employment. It is impossible it should be moved, for if it were, its owner must starve; and so far as the agricultural laborer is concerned, there must be an end at once both to the Wages of Labor and the Rent of land."

The great claim of Jones to honour as a Political Economist rests on this fact. He was the first to apply the inductive method of Bacon to the Science; and, as necessarily flowing from this, he ever illustrates his laws by the facts of history, making them easy of practical application or of being tested as to their correctness. This led him to shew that Ricardo, Malthus and his predecessors were wrong in their deductive method, for they set out with data that were true of England and Belgium alone, and consequently the laws and principles resulting from these were inapplicable to any other country on the face of the globe. But as the teacher of youths who were to rule millions of Asiatics, Jones was led to the study of the phenomena of the wealth, labour, and social and economic position of the East, of Russia and of France as well as of England, and

to frame a body of doctrines which are applicable not only to this country or that, but constitute the Political Economy of Nations.

Professor Jones was not merely a thinker, but led a busy life as a public man. When in King's College, the Archbishop of Canterbury was led to consult him both as a Clergyman and a Political Economist on the subject of the Commutation of Tithes, which was then beginning to engage the attention of Parliament. In conjunction with Drinkwater Bethune he drew up a Bill which was subsequently passed into law. He was appointed one of the Commissioners for carrying it into effect, and when the Commission had finished its labours, he was so highly appreciated by the statesmen of the day, that he was made one of the Charity Commissioners for England and Wales.

Twelve Years of a` Soldier's Life in India: being Extracts from the Letters of the Late Major W. S. R. Hodson, B. A., Trinity College, Cambridge; First Bengal European Fusiliers, Commandant of Hodson's Horse. Including a Personal Narrative of the Siege of Delhi and Capture of the King and Princes. Edited by his Brother, the Rev. George H. Hodson, M. A., Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. London: John W. Parker and Son. 1859.

IN the late vote of thanks to our Indian pacificators, when the orator's thoughts turned to those whom death had taken out of the reach of human praise, the name of Hodson was joined with the names of Lawrence and Jacob. Why, with those two men whom some would rank first among our Indian rulers of men and all-now that they are dead-delight to honour, the third name should be that of a Brevet Major who died at 36, the book before us may claim to show. The editor has rightly judged that to show by what steps his brother grew to such a stature, is a worthy object; worthier than any 'personal narrative' of the siege of Delhi, to which he might have restricted the book,-any 'contribution' to its history, valuable only in proportion to the writer's opportunities of seeing and doing, in the crisis of the mutiny. Yet, Hodson's part in the siege is so distinctly the work up to which his whole previous life had been leading, that the book naturally divides itself into two halves: the first part consisting of skilfully selected and arranged glimpses of his eleven years' training; the second part exhibiting on an extended scale the man as the diverse influences of those years had fashioned him, when the event had at length "brought him to the ring," and for ten brilliant months he let the world "see how he could dance." Hodson was singularly fortunate in his "Schools and School Masters." To have been at Rugby under Dr. Arnold is a gift which even the