I wrote to you on the 23rd October, 20th November, and the 2nd of this month; I mention this lest any of my letters miscarry; of the first letter I sent a duplicate on the 2nd, but I shall not send duplicates of the last two, or of this.  I now write chiefly to call your attention to a rabid article in the “Friend of India,” of the 6th of this month, written by Mr. Marshman, when about to proceed to England, to become, it is said, one of the writers in the London “Times.”  Of coarse, he will be engaged to write the Indian articles; and you will find him advocating the doctrines of the school mentioned in my last letter of the 2nd of this month.  I consider their doctrines to be prejudicial to the stability of our rule in India, and to the welfare of the people, which depends on it.  The Court of Directors is our only safeguard against these Machiavellian doctrines; and it may be rendered too powerless to stem them by the new arrangements for the Government of India.  The objects which they propose for attainment—­religion, commerce, &c.—­are plausible; and the false logic by which they attempt to justify the means required to attain them, however base, unjust, and cruel, is no less so.  I was asked by Dr. Duff, the editor of the “Calcutta Review,” before he went home to write some articles for that journal, to expose the fallacies, and to counteract the influences of the doctrines of this school; but I have for many years ceased to contribute to the periodical papers, and have felt bound by my position not to write for them.  Few old officers of experience, with my feelings and opinions on this subject, now remain in India; and the influence of this school is too great over the rising generation, whose hopes and aspirations they tend so much to encourage.  Mr. Elphinstone, Mr. Robertson, and George Clerk will be able to explain their danger to you.  India must look to the Court of Directors alone for safety against them, and they will require the exertion of all its wisdom and strength.

Mr. Robertson will be able to tell you that, when I was sent to Bundelcund, in 1842, the feelings of the people of that province were so strongly against us, under the operation of the doctrines of this school, that no European officer could venture, with safety, beyond the boundary of a cantonment of British troops; and their servants were obliged to disguise themselves in order to pass from one cantonment to another.  In a brief period, I created a feeling entirely different, and made the character of British officers respected and beloved.  In the Gwalior territories the same result was obtained by the same means.  However impulsive on other occasions, Lord Ellenborough behaved magnanimously after his victories over the Gwalior troops; but in sparing the State, he acted, I believe, against the feelings of his Council, amongst whom the doctrines of the absorbing, annexing, and confiscating schools prevailed; and the “Friend of India” condemned him, though the invasion was never justified,