them had the enemy attempted an assault.  Whenever our soldiers endeavoured to approach near them, they disappeared; and everybody knew that they were spirits of men like Birsingh Deo and Hardaul Lala that had come to our aid, and we never lost confidence.’  It is easy to understand the devotion of men to their chiefs when they believe their progenitors to have been demigods, and to have been faithfully served by their ancestors for several generations.  We neither have, nor ever can have, servants so personally devoted to us as these men are to their chiefs, though we have soldiers who will fight under our banners with as much courage and fidelity.  They know that their grandfathers served the grandfathers of these chiefs, and they hope their grandchildren will serve their grandsons.  The one feels as much pride and pleasure in so serving, as the other in being so served; and both hope that the link which binds them may never be severed.  Our servants, on the contrary, private and public, are always in dread that some accident, some trivial fault, or some slight offence, not to be avoided, will sever for ever the link that binds them to their master.

The fidelity of the military classes of the people of India to their immediate chief, or leader, whose salt they eat, has been always very remarkable, and commonly bears little relation to his moral virtues, or conduct to his superiors.  They feel that it is their duty to serve him who feeds and protects them and their families in all situations, and under all circumstances; and the chief feels that, while he has a right to their services, it is his imperative duty so to feed and protect them and their families.  He may change sides as often as he pleases, but the relations between him and his followers remain unchanged.  About the side he chooses to take in a contest for dominion, they ask no questions, and feel no responsibility.  God has placed their destinies in dependence upon his; and to him they cling to the last.  In Malwa, Bhopal, and other parts of Central India, the Muhammadan rule could be established over that of the Rajput chief only by the annihilation of the entire race of their followers.[4] In no part of the world has the devotion of soldiers to their immediate chief been more remarkable than in India among the Rajputs; and in no part of the world bas the fidelity of these chiefs to the paramount power been more unsteady, or their devotion less to be relied upon.  The laws of Muhammad, which prescribe that the property in land be divided equally among the sons,[5] leaves no rule for succession to territorial or political dominion.  It has been justly observed by Hume:  ’The right of primogeniture was introduced with the feudal law; an institution which is hurtful by producing and maintaining an unequal division of property; but it is advantageous in another respect by accustoming the people to a preference for the eldest son, and thereby preventing a partition or disputed succession in the monarchy.’