22.  The Thugs were suppressed because a special organization was devised and directed for the purpose, the English rules as to the admissibility of evidence being judiciously relaxed.  The ordinary law and methods of procedure are of little effect against the secret societies known as ‘criminal tribes’.  These criminal tribes number hundreds of thousands of persona, and present a problem almost unknown to European experience.  The gipsies, who are largely of Indian origin, are, perhaps, the only European example of an hereditary criminal tribe.  But they are not sheltered and abetted by the landowners as their brethren in India are.

23.  The magistrate, of course, was the author.

24.  These motives all retain their full force, and are unaffected by Police Commissions and reorganization schemes.  Some people think that the character of the police will be raised by the employment as officers of young Indians of good family.  I am sorry to say that I found these young men to be the worst offenders.  They are more daring in their misdeeds than the ordinary policeman, and no better in their morals.

25.  This is quite true; and it is also true that our police administration is the weakest part of our System.  But the fault is not entirely that of the police.  In some provinces, especially in Bengal, the action of the High Courts has almost paralysed the arm of the Executive.

26.  ’M.  Claude Maille, of Bourges.  As we shall see in Book I, chapter 18, a man of this name, who had escaped from the Dutch service, was, in the year 1652, a not very successful amateur gun-founder for Mir Jumla; he had, after his escape, set up as a surgeon to the Nawab, with an equipment consisting of a case of instruments and a box of ointments which he had stolen from M. Cheteur, the Dutch Ambassador to Golconda.  Tavernier throws no light upon his identity with this physician.’ (Tavernier, Travels, ed.  Ball, vol. i, p. 116, note).  M. Maille befriended Manucci, who mentions him several times (Irvine, Storia do Mogor, i, 92, &c.)

27.  Ball’s version of this horrible story (vol. i, p. 117) does not differ materially from that quoted in the text.  Tavernier does not mention the name of the governor, though he observes that he was ’one of the greatest nobles in India’.  Tavernier visited Allahabad in December, 1665, and then heard the story, the governor concerned being at the time in the fort.  I have no doubt that in the reign of Shah Jahan ordinary offences committed by ordinary criminals were ruthlessly punished, and to some extent suppressed.  But, under the best Asiatic Governments, great men and their dependants have usually been able to do pretty much what they pleased.  The English Government has the merit of refusing to give formal recognition to difference of rank in criminals, and of often trying to punish influential offenders, though seldom succeeding in the attempt.  From time to time a conspicuous