But the law of landlord and tenant is, I believe, the same in Ireland as in England, and it is quite possible that a little particular legislation, which would have given either of the parties the protection of positive law against injuries which can now be redressed only by a rude process of reprisals (one outrage balancing another until the account is squared), might have proved ultimately a benefit even to the party against which this particular legislation seemed to be, in the first instance, directed.

The planters say, we have a grievance attributable to special circumstances arising out of our relations with our ryots; unless you give us a special remedy to meet our special grievance, we fall back on our general powers as landlords.  Are we quite sure that in refusing the special remedy, we are consulting the interest of the weaker party, viz. the ryot?

Of course, this is all general.  There will remain the questions:  Is there a grievance at all?  Is it one which has any claim to a special remedy?  I quite agree that the onus of answering these questions satisfactorily rests on the advocate of special legislation.

* * * * *

    To Sir Charles Wood.

    Roorkee:  March 19, 1863.

[Sidenote:  Duty of officials in missionary matters.]

The religious question is, no doubt, a very difficult one; and I am glad that you approved of the course which I took with reference to the great missionary gathering at Lahore.  I spoke to Sir R. M——­ on the subject when I met him at Delhi.  He seemed to think that it had done more harm than good to the missionary cause, as the presence of high officials was sure to raise suspicions in the minds of the natives.  I told him that as regarded the acts of officials in such matters, my opinion was this:—­If an official says to me, ’I think that I may, with perfect propriety, in my character of official, do so and so, or take such or such a part in furtherance of an object which I believe to be right,’ I am quite ready to meet him on this ground, and to join issue with him if I differ from him on the particular point raised.  But if he says to me, ’I know that it would be wrong in me to do this as an official, but I do it in my private character,’ I can have no discussion with him; because I deny that it is possible to establish any such distinction in the East, and I am inclined to distrust either the honesty or the intelligence of the man who proposes to act upon it.

* * * * *

    To Sir Charles Wood.

    Simla:  March 19, 1863.

[Sidenote:  Financial credit.]