plains and forests of Scythia, or Germany, it would have more probably attached the invaders to their possessions, than have sent them forth in such swarms to seek for new settlements.

And thirdly, it is at variance with all we know from authentic records of the laws and manners of the ancient Germans. We are, therefore, naturally led to enquire whence the Celtic kings or leaders could possibly derive such a power over property generally. It is true that kings, and military kings in particular, are apt to fancy themselves possessed of paramount rights, and to forget that all their power must either be derived from the people, or exercised with their consent; but a Celtic leader could be under no such mistake. Nothing in history is better authenticated than that the earliest Germans possessed no such power in their primitive abodes; and when they settled themselves in the Roman provinces, the conquered lands being partitioned by lot among the victors, the king or leader only received his allotted share. Neither could they have derived this power from any Roman usage. It is true that the Romans were habituated, from the commencement of their conquests, to allot parts of the conquered territory to a number of Roman citizens, on which towns were built, or colonies placed for the defence

and preservation of the province. Whole legions with their tribunes, centurions, and subordinate officers were placed in these colonies, and tilled the lands committed to them

for their support. The Romans, indeed, never considered a nation completely subdued until they had established among the natives Roman arts, customs, and laws. But the right of property in absolute dominion was one of them; and it is not likely the Romans would interfere with this right in the provinces they subdued, except in as far as regards the lands, which, as conquerors, they would naturally seize for their own support. When the Northern hordes, therefore, established themselves in the Roman provinces, they found the principle of allodiality every where prevalent. Neither was it changed by them or their successors, for a period of about 400 years. may, therefore, be assured that allodiality was the original character of landed property in Europe, as it is found to be to this day in India - military service for the defence of the community being a law equally imposed on allodial proprietors in both countries. Feudal tenures properly so called, must, therefore, be admitted to have arisen out of predisposing events and causes, at a much later period, and to be exclusively

We may,

of European birth. It is, perhaps, no slight confirmation of this argument, that in all other respects but the fief, the character of landed property in Europe, is, as we have seen, exactly paralleled by the usages of the East, in the corresponding stages of their respective civilization; whilst a more exact counterpart of an allodial Hindoo proprietor cannot be given, than in the picture above copied from Adam Smith, of the barons of England under the Saxon regime, or from the end of the 8th century, to the Norman conquest, A. D. 1066.

It is not, however, intended in drawing this parallel, to infer that the usages of one country are derived from the other. The parallel is of most use to shew that similar states of society will produce similarity of usages, and condition, among nations far removed, and holding no intercourse with each other. Dr. Robertson quotes a profound remark, on this head, by a philosopher* " that the charac"ters of nations depend on the state of soIciety in which they live, and on the poli"tical institutions established among them; "and that the human mind, whenever it is placed in the same situation, will, in ages "the most distant, and in countries the most

66

* Rob. Char. V. vol. i. p. 263.

"remote, assume the same form, and be distinguished by the same manners."

The assertors of Hindoo incapacity, would do well to reflect on this remark. If the political state, and social institutions of this people be advisedly weighed-if the darkness and despotism, of which they have been the victims for so many centuries, be fairly estimated-if the facts contained in this treatise, be contrasted with the stationary, and at times retrograde state of Europe, during the middle ages, and from the same causes-and if it be also considered that human improvement must be rooted in the mind, and that man can neither advance his condition, nor moral qualifications, unless the soul within him be moved to expansion by the circumstances in which he is placed, we shall not only perceive the force of the parallel, but be enabled more satisfactorily, and more rationally, to account for the observed torpor of Indians, than by ascribing it to so vague and undefinable a cause as immutability of caste, or natural imbecility of character.

SECTION XIX.

Further points of resemblance between Hindoos and ancient Germans. Metayer system of Europe compared with that of India. Laws of inheritance alike in both quarters.

BESIDES the points of resemblance above adverted to, between the Hindoos and ancient Germans, there are others which may be briefly noticed. Such is the practice of human sacrifices ;* their modes of administering justice; trials by ordeal; and compensation by fines for all descriptions of private wrongst the custom of approaching chieftains, and persons of consequence, with valuable presents. Tacitus mentions one usage of the ancient Germans, which is very remarkable, and as regards India is, I believe, peculiar to the Nayrs of Malabar. " With

some (he says) the relation of the sister's children to their maternal uncle, is held

The Gonds, and other wild tribes of the interior of India, offer human sacrifices to their gods to the present day. Whether these tribes are really of Hindoo origin is doubtful; but they also have features of resemblance to the Germans of the days of Tacitus.

+ Compare Murphy's Tacitus, vol. iv. p. 24, and the note referred to, with the laws of Menu, as translated by Sir W. Jones, on the subject of composition for crimes and injuries.