area of 82,000 square miles, and a population of nearly 10,000,000; Gwalior, 29,000 square miles, and a population of 3,000,000; Mysore, 25,000 square miles, and 4,000,000. Several others have between 1,000,000 and 3,000,000 people.'

Excepting the Himalayan State of Nepál, which since 1815 has been enabled by its geographical position to maintain a constant attitude of complete but friendly isolation, no Native State within the limits of India has any real independence; but, subject to this general fact, their rulers have every degree of power and importance, from the petty chief with little or no political authority to princes with large revenues and considerable armies, with whose internal administration, under ordinary circumstances, we hardly interfere.

I am obliged to use the term 'Native State,' but this expression only signifies a State not directly administered by Englishmen. We might with as much propriety apply the term 'Foreign States' to some of the principal Native States of India, for their rulers

1 The following list shows the area and population of the principal Native States:

are as much foreigners to the people that they govern as we are ourselves. The term 'Native States' is apt to convey the idea that they are Indian nationalities existing in the midst of our great foreign dominion. This, indeed, is the popular English belief. It is assumed that in our conquest of India we imposed our rule on peoples that had previously been governed by princes of their own race, that we took the place of ancient native dynasties which we destroyed, and that, having kept for ourselves the more valuable provinces, we have, for one reason or another, allowed some portions of India to retain their Native governments. No suppositions could be more contrary to fact. When, after the death of Aurangzeb in 1707, the Moghul Empire was breaking up, a scramble ensued for the fragments, and this lasted through the greater part of the last century. The chief competitors during the latter half of the struggle were the Maráthas, the Mohammedan powers of Southern India, and the English. The larger share of the gain fell to the English, but our competitors had no better titles than our own. All alike were foreigners in the countries for which they were contending.

the truth on this subject Asiatic Studies,' to which Professor Seeley's admi

Those who desire to learn should read Sir Alfred Lyall's I have so often referred, and rable book The Expansion of England.'

'One of the popular notions in England and Europe' (I am quoting from Sir Alfred Lyall) 'regarding the establishment of the English empire in India is that our conquests absorbed nationalities, displaced long-seated dynasties, and levelled ancient nobilities. These are some of the self-accusations by which the average home-keeping Englishman justifies to himself the indulgence of sitting down and casting dust on his head whenever he looks back upon the exploits of his countrymen in India-—an

attitude which is observed by foreigners with suspicion or impatience according to their insight into English character. Yet it would be easy to prove that one important reason why the English so rapidly conquered India was this, that the countries which fell into our hands had no nationalities, no long-seated ruling dynasties, or ancient aristocracies, that they had, in fact, no solid or permanent organisation of the kind, but were, politically, treasure trove, at the disposal of the first who, having found, could keep. The best proof that in these countries the English destroyed no organised political institutions is the historical fact that in the countries which they annexed none such had been left for them to destroy. On the other hand, where indigenous political institutions of long standing still exist, it is the English who have saved them from destruction.' '

The principal Native States of India may be roughly divided into two classes. The first comprises the States possessing the largest measure of independence, and the most important of these are the Mohammedan and Marátha States which survived the struggles of the close of the last and the beginning of the present century. Their rulers are in all cases foreigners. None of these States are much older than our own dominion ; the principal officials are usually as foreign as the chiefs ; the armed force mainly consists of foreign mercenaries; and there is no closer sympathy between the people and their rulers than that which exists in the British territories. I have repeatedly pointed out how misleading are such terms as Natives of India,' 'People of India,' and other general expressions; and this warning is especially necessary in regard to the Native States.' It can never be assumed that because the chief of a Native State is a so-called 'Native of India' he has any rights differing in kind from our own. If a question arises whether our own administration or that of

1 Asiatic Studies, p. 181.

a Native ruler is to be preferred, Englishmen usually suppose that the choice must lie between giving to the people the foreign government of the English or the national government of their own countrymen. For instance, there was much discussion not long ago whether we ought to restore to the Nizam the districts of Berár which had been assigned to us, and which have been for many years under British administration. Few had any suspicion of the fact that the Mohammedan Government of Hyderabad would be as foreign as our own to the people of Berár, who are Hindus having nothing in common with their former rulers.

The Nizam holds the first place among the Native princes of India. The founder of the ruling family was one of Aurangzeb's viceroys; in 1724 he was virtually independent. Nearly the whole population is Hindu, but Hindus have no share in the administration; every thing is in the hands of Mohammedan foreigners. The army chiefly consists of foreign mercenaries. There is no part of India in which the people have less sympathy with their rulers, men of other countries and of another faith. Frequent interference by the British Government has been necessary; the misfortune is that it has not been more complete and efficacious. Excepting sometimes for a short period, no Government in India has been more shamelessly corrupt than that of the Nizam. The Hyderabad State is the chief surviving relic of Mohammedan supremacy in India. in India. With the not very important exceptions of Bhopal and Bahawalpur, the other States under Mohammedan rulers, about twenty in number, are politically insignificant. The population of the so-called Mohammedan States is altogether about 14,000,000, but of this number at least 12,000,000 are Hindus. Even in Hyderabad, where the Mohammedans

have been in power for centuries, there are less than 1,000,000 of them to 9,000,000 Hindus. Thus a very small proportion of the 50,000,000 Indian Mohammedans live under rulers of their own faith. The revenues of the Mohammedan States are estimated at about 5,000,000l., of which more than 4,000,000l. belong to Hyderabad.

The principal remnants of the Marátha power are the three States of Gwalior, Indore, and Baroda, and of these Gwalior is the most important. They all came into existence about the middle of the last century. Their chiefs are entirely foreign to the people. In the words of Sir Lepel Griffin, they are the representatives of the predatory hordes which, until crushed by British arms, turned the fertile plains of Central India into a wilderness. These Maratha dynasties have nothing in common with the people they govern. Their race is different and their language is not understood.' The population of the three Maratha States is about 6,250,000; but, except the rulers and their followers, there are no Marathas. Their aggregate revenues are about 3,500,000l. Of their governments I shall have something to say presently.

Among the Native States of which I have been speaking, there is not one the Government of which can be said to have a more legitimate or national origin than that of the British Government itself in its Indian dominions.

I come now to the second of the classes into which the Native States of India may be divided. Judged by their area and population and political importance, these States are inferior to those of the former class, but they are more numerous and far more interesting. They are the only parts of India where ancient political institutions and ancient dynasties still survive, and their