viewed it in the light of _chout_ or _black mail_, a tribute to be
thrown into the one scale if a gleaming sabre lay in the other. King
Soojah levying taxes was to him a Mahratta at the least, if he was not
even a Pindarree or a Thug. Indeed it is clear that, where the
government does nothing for the people, nor pretends to do any thing,
where no courts of justice exist, no ambassadors, no police, no
defensive militia, (except for internal feuds,) title there can be none
to any but a nominal tribute, as a mere peppercorn acknowledgment of
superiority: going beyond _that_, taxation is borne only as robbery is
borne.

Under these circumstances, and having a motive so strong for reconciling
the Affghans to the new government, of all the incidents belonging to
sovereignty on our European notions, least and last should we have
suffered the Shah to exercise that of taxation. But to exercise it
ourselves, that was midsummer madness! If _he_ would have seemed a
robber in such a function, what must we have seemed? Besides, it is held
by some who have more narrowly watched the Affghan modes of thinking,
that, even where they _do_ submit to pay a tax, it is paid as a loan,
and on the understanding that the chief receiving it is bound to refund
it indirectly, by leading them at some convenient season (which many
conceive to be in every alternate year) upon a lucrative foray. But this
was exactly what we came to prevent. What we should have done is
manifestly this. How much could the Shah have levied on all
Affghanistan? A matter of L. 300,000 at most. But this was the _gross_
sum, before deducting any thing for costs of collecting, which costs
were often eighty shillings in the pound, besides counting on the
_little_ aid of our bayonets as a service wholly gratuitous. The sum
netted by the exchequer must have been laughably small; and even in that
respect the poor king must often have sighed for his quiet English