India; for centuries establishing dynasties of their own race; leaving
behind them populous nations of their own blood; founding the most
warlike tribes in Hindostan; and, not content with this representative
influence in the persons of their descendants, continually renewing
their inroads from the parent hives in Affghanistan. Could such a
people, brought by our own advance into so dangerous a neighbourhood,
have been much longer neglected?

With any safety to ourselves, certainly not. At least the outline of
Lord Auckland's policy must be approved as wise and seasonable. All the
great internal enemies of Indian peace had been reduced within English
control by former governments; others had dealt, so far as circumstances
required, with the most petulant of our outlying neighbours, Nepaul and
Burmah; and sooner or later, if mischief were to be _prevented_, as well
as healed, it would be necessary to bring Affghanistan within the
general system of cautionary ties. We wanted nothing with the
independence of that country, nor with its meagre finances; but
reasonably we might desire that she herself should not wield either for
the perpetual terror of her eastern neighbours. Westwards and northwards
furnished surely an ample range for mischief; and with those quarters of
the compass we had no mission to interfere. Like Hamlet, the Affghans
would still have a limited license for going mad, viz.--when the wind
sate in particular quarters; and along a frontier of more than a
thousand miles. Still, whilst seeing the necessity of extending the
Indian network of tranquillization to the most turbulent and vigorous of
neighbouring powers, the reader will feel a jealousy, as we do, with
respect to the time chosen for this measure:--why _then_ in particular?
After which comes a far more serious question, why by that violent
machinery, that system of deposing and substituting, which Lord Auckland
chose to adopt?