invincible is this evil in India, that a villager can scarcely bring a basket of fruit for sale into Calcutta, without being mulcted by the police-officers on the stations surrounding the city; (we state this as a notorious fact ;) and when such cruel oppression takes place, almost under the very eyes of our Supreme British Court of Justice, what are we to expect of the Company's Courts in the interior, where extortion may flourish with so much greater security? It would present a scene of iniquity too dreadful to be contemplated, too monstrous to be allowed, if the suppression of all public discussion did not envelop it in thick darkness; so that the wretched sufferers may gnash their teeth unseen and unpitied.

The Bengal customs, including those of the ceded territory, yield a gross produce of upwards of eighty lacs of rupees annually, and those of Madras four or five lacs; the charges of collection being, in the former case, about twelve or thirteen, and, in the latter, as high as thirty per cent.,—a rate which is quite enormous. The natural fertility of Bengal enables its inhabitants to exist under their galling load; but the Madras territory, with its starving population, exhibits the Company's system in all the perfection of its miserable consequences.

We should have proceeded to the consideration of the land revenue; but we reserve this for a future Number, as it forms an essential part of another subject,-the Ryotwarry and Zumeendarry systems, which we mean to discuss. We shall at present, therefore, conclude by observing, that after minutely considering every part of Mr. Tucker's work, which is put forth avowedly for the purpose of proving the flourishing state of the Company's finances, we find in it the clearest evidences that they are, and have been, in a state of continual dilapidation; and that the mode in which they are recruited, while it degrades and impoverishes the people, must, if persevered in, ultimately exhaust the country, fertile and productive as it might be made under a better system of government than that which now oppresses it.

Sismondi, in the Revue Encyclopedique,' says, we sweep the entire net produce of the earth into our coffers. The admirable author of • Colonial Policy, as applicable to British India,' pronounces the same opinion. Colebrooke and Lambert admit the same thing; so does Buchanan, Wilks, Munro, and all the Madras and village-system-mongers, and those who would have no intermediate hand between themselves and the cultivator, to intercept one fraction of the rent extorted from the miserable métayer on produce. But we are not content with taking all that remains after wages of labour, expense of seed and tillage, culture and collection, have been defrayed: we force them also to purchase of us, and at our own prices, articles of primary necessity-even salt itself-at 800 or 1000 per cent. on the price of production!! Opium we also monopolize at even a higher rate, and cant about its being an intoxicating drug, while we smuggle it into China; nay, we are so jealous about the little outlets of our monopoly, that we have forced our allies in central India, -Sindiah, Holkar, and, we believe, the Nizam-to give us the monopoly of all the opium made in their lands, and so to intercept the profits of the owners and tillers of the ground, and of the little capitalists of Gualior, Oujein, Indore, and the Deccan. The history of the salt monopoly is a monstrous record of avarice and hypocrisy, and it is fit the public should know its details and history, which it soon shall do, if we live. Our

Mohammedan predecessors, whose " rapacious," hard-hearted "tyranny we are so ready to condemn, only took a very trifling tax on salt ;-(see Colebrooke and Lambert ;) but we have brought it to what it now is, after going to war-the dreadful one of 1764-with Cossim Ally, the Nabob of Bengal, because he would not continue this light tax on his Native subjects; while the English, trading under their dustuck, were exempt from it, and so monopolized the internal commerce. We may talk with flattering self-complacency of the enlightened and liberal principles of European policy; but Mr. Russell, late Resident at Hyderabad, gives a very different account of the comparative oppressiveness of the two systems. For ourselves, judging by what has now and then come to light, after some dreadful convulsion, we believe, that in many, very many of our provinces, the oppression, extortion, and exaction, from even the poorest Natives, committed by the Native dependents of our English gentlemen, too high in station, too inaccessible, to pry into the misma nagement of those about them, at least equal, perhaps exceed, the extor tions of the Mohammedan subordinate officers who went before us. From the poor cultivator, who wrings from the earth only a bare subsistence, who can take more than all? One only good there is in our system which was not in that of the Mohammedans, that the connexion with England, when the debasing and demoralizing Charter shall expire, may ultimately pour into the country good principles, capital, industry, and talent; in short, civilization. Meanwhile that good is yet to come, and now India is overgrown with an accumulation of laws which, when, as in this case, uncodified and undigested, in time become so vast and so rooted as to be beyond improvement, or purification, or method; while the grand object of the Company and its servants, instead of their views being principally directed, as those of all rulers ought to be, to the amelioration of their subjects, is to invent new modes of draining off their wealth, not for the legitimate charges of Government, but to swell the amount of iniquitous tribute called surplus revenue.

TYRTEAN AIRS.

NO. III.

See the hateful blight that falls, &c.

SEE the hateful blight that falls
Round dungeon and round palace walls,
Where man a wretched reptile crawls
Beneath the foot of Tyranny!

The softest rays from beauty shed,
The bays that wreathe the poet's head,
The honour won in battle red

Beneath the wings of Victory;

All, all their sweetest savour lose ;
And, worthless as the cankered rose,

Nor sweeten life, nor grace its close:

Such is the curse of Slavery!

ON THE CHARACTER OF MARCUS BRUTUS.

Seize then, my soul! from freedom's trophied dome
The harp which, hanging high between the shields
Of BRUTUS and LEONIDAS, oft gives

A fitful music to the breezy touch

Of patriot spirits that demand their fame.

SOUTHEY'S JOAN OF ARC.

Marcus Brutus . . . . . étoit le plus grand Républicain que l'on vit jamais.

BAYLE.

THE mind that feels itself drawn, by any strong attraction, towards virtue, naturally looks abroad among its contemporaries, and among the personages of history, to discover, if possible, some great character, approximating in tone and qualities to itself. When it imagines it has found such a character, a glow of feeling something resembling friendship arises, and seems ever after to subsist, and to be strengthened perpetually by a secret recurrence to the illustrious name. There is something, indeed, extremely noble in the intercourse of our imaginations with the manes of the dead, which purifies the soul from all the meaner passions, and much more surely nerves and fortifies it against suffering, than most of those actual connexions which obtain the name of friendship in the world. The reason is very plain: a man, when he has all the great of the past world before him, will hardly choose to place his admiration upon a common character; for, as we all have a good opinion of ourselves, he would not think that such a character resembled himself in the least. His choice will rather be directed towards a man, who, resembling him in small matters, possessed, moreover, very great qualities, and whose character, therefore, must always remain a fine subject for imitation. Young men who read Plutarch very early are sure to find a favourite amongst his heroes; for his work is a kind of banqueting-room, in which you sit down to table with the most illustrious men of all ages: some of these guests, however, are bad men, some good, and some range about the " golden mean," being neither bad nor good. For our part, we felt, as soon as we were acquainted with Plutarch, a strong predilection for Marcus Brutus; and although we have since heard a good deal said against him, it has not been of a nature to make us change our opinion. We flatter ourselves, therefore, that our notions of this old Roman's character will not be unacceptable to the reader, although they should appear singular, and somewhat tinged with the rust of antiquity. It has always appeared to us that the popular institutions of Greece and Rome were very favourable to the development of personal greatness, being a kind of rich soil in which humanity shot up, like a cedar on Lebanon, into the very heights of heaven. There was not, in fact, any thing, in those states, between man and God; the sense of sovereignty and power circulated like his blood through the veins of the citizen; it was present to his mind upon all occasions; and Xenophon adduces it to the ten thousand as a reason why they should beat the Persians, that they did not, like them, acknowledge any earthly master. In looking back upon antiquity, however, we should recollect that all was not like what remains; but every thing that was perishable having been

laid waste by the tide of time, the few forms which still survive, and which we discover by the light of history standing above the reach of its waves, like the vast idols of Egypt towering over the waters of the inundation, are such as will be co-lasting with the world. They are become a part of nature, and must be imperishable, like her. The time, therefore, which we spend in making ourselves familiar with these ancient characters, is very far from being misemployed, as they seem to shed around them an odour of virtue that refreshes the mind.

The history of Marcus Brutus is much too well known to render it necessary for us to enter into any detail of his actions: our object is, to look at his character. If this could be done without referring at all to what he did, there would be no temptation to relate any thing after Plutarch, which must render a man liable to be made the subject of a disadvantageous comparison. But, except through his actions, we have no means of knowing him; and, on this account, must refer perpetually to matters of history, which the reader will of course remember well enough, but which we must sometimes repeat, in order that we may not appear to give imperfect views of things.

There are strong reasons for believing that Marcus Brutus was descended from that Brutus who expelled the kings from Rome. Dionysius of Halicarnassus endeavours, it is true, to prove that he could not be descended from him, and adduces this reason, amongst others that the younger Brutus was a plebeian, and Lucius Junius a patrician. But this is not decisive, as there were many examples of patrician families becoming plebeian. Suetonius instances, amongst others, the Octavian family. The reason generally was, that such families desired the possession of the tribuneship, which could not be held by a patrician. However this may be and it is not of much consequence-it was the opinion of Cicero, and of the Roman people in general, that Marcus Brutus derived his race from the old Junian stock. To confute the vulgar notion that he was Cæsar's son, it will be sufficient to mention that Cæsar was only fifteen years old when he was born, and did not become acquainted with his mother, Servilia, until many years afterwards. His father, whose name also was Marcus Junius Brutus, having been put to death by Pompey, he was left, at a very early age, to the care of his uncle Cato, who provided him masters to instruct him in learning and philosophy. His attachment to the Stoic sect arose, very probably, from this connexion with his uncle; but he did not entirely embrace the doctrines of Zeno: his philosophy was a mixture of the system of the Old Academy with that of the Portico. His love of knowledge was intense, he studied the doctrines of all the philosophers, and understood them thoroughly; he was fond, also, of oratory, and entertained in his house not only philosophers, but orators, as well as some young men who had studied rhetoric with him. He married the daughter of Appius Pulcher, when he was very young, but their union appears to have been unhappy: for when Cato's daughter, Portia, became a widow, he made use of the facilities afforded by the laws of his country, to obtain a divorce, was separated from his first wife, and married his cousin. Portia appears to have been a wife worthy of him; a similar education had fitted them for each other, and the happiness they enjoyed, when at length united, is a strong testimony in favour of the law of divorce, as it existed amongst the Romans.

It was not, however, for domestic happiness, or a life of study, that Brutus had been born: the republic was verging towards its dissolution, and that field of honour and renown, in which he was preparing himselt to gather those laurels that are only to be gained in a free state, was rapidly devastated by the most terrible civil wars. Cæsar and Pompey were now drawing the forces of the commonwealth into two parts; and the soldiers, on whichever side they stood, appeared to forget the republic, in their attachment to their chiefs. But Pompey was certainly the general of the state, and Cæsar a rebel; and for this reason, Brutus experienced no difficulty in determining to join Pompey, although he was his private enemy, while Caesar was known to entertain a strong friendship for him. This action is an index to his whole character. Pompey had killed his father, on which account there was the most deadly hatred between them, Brutus shunning and showing his aversion for him on all occasions. Cæsar loved him exceedingly, and was, in return, beloved by him; yet, when these two men came to make war upon each other-when they came to stand up, one for their common country, the other for himself, private affection had no weight with Brutus, he joined his enemy against his friend, because his enemy's cause was the more just. If any man's whole soul was ever absorbed by patriotism, it was Brutus's upon this occasion.

When Brutus came to join Pompey in his camp in Macedonia, the latter was so overjoyed at the unexpected event, " that he rose to embrace him in the presence of his guards, and treated him with as much respect as if he had been his superior." The camp was necessarily a scene of much confusion; as they were preparing for the battle of Pharsalia, and as every heart was agitated by musing on the uncertainty of the event: the season of the year, also, was summer, and the heat excessive; yet Brutus calmly pursued his studies, and, on the very evening before the battle, employed himself in abridging Polybius. The event of this action, the escape of Brutus from the camp when Cæsar was storming it after the battle, his hiding in a marsh among the reeds, his flight to Larissa, and subsequent reconciliation with Cæsar, the reader will remember from Plutarch: but there is a circumstance connected with this reconciliation which must be noticed, as it is one of those things for which Brutus has been blamed. It appears, when Pompey had fled towards the sea, and escaped with his fleet, that various opinions were entertained by Cæsar's friends concerning the country in which it was probable he would take refuge, some conjecturing one route, and some another. Things standing thus, Cæsar went out of his tent with Brutus, and, as they walked about the camp, contrived to discover his opinion on the subject: finding that he supposed Egypt would be the country, Cæsar slighted the conjectures of his other friends, and prepared to lead his forces in that direction. Now, it has been pretended, that in disclosing to Cæsar his suspicions regarding the retreat of Pompey, Brutus was guilty of a serious fault. We think he has been completely exculpated by Bayle. "In the first place," says that author, " Pompey had not confided to him in any manner the secret of his retreat; secondly, it was not possible for him to conceive how he could render worse the unhappy destiny of the fugitive by communicating his conjectures to Cæsar; besides, it is likely that he looked upon Egypt to be an asylum of such strength as would deter the conqueror from going thither to attack the great Pompey." : Oriental Herald, Vol. 6.

D