It may perhaps be not uninteresting to mention too that, on the afternoon of the day on which I made my speech I fell in with two native gentlemen who spoke to me about it. What I found had been particularly appreciated (and very naturally so as water is of such vital importance in India), was the firm protest I had made against the Supreme Government restricting the Mysoreans as to the use, for irrigation, of the waters of Mysore on the ground that a more extended use of them would lessen the supply to the adjacent British territory. In the course of my speech, I made a very telling point by supposing, for the sake of argument, that Mysore had, as had been originally proposed, been annexed, and made an integral part of the Madras Presidency. In that case, I asked, would the Government have limited the supply of the water to the Mysore part of the presidency in order to improve the more distant irrigated tracts in other parts of British territory? I then argued that the British Government would certainly not have done so, seeing that, to have so acted would have diminished the means available for contending with famine, for, as I fully urged, it is perfectly well known that the further the water travels the greater is the waste from percolation and evaporation, and the smaller the amount of land it can irrigate. If, then, the British Government would not have so acted had Mysore been annexed, what right, I asked, had it to interfere with Mysore regarding the use of its waters, and thereby to increase the risks of famine in that country? It was no wonder, I continued, that an English officer in the Mysore service had been heard to say that he supposed Mysore would not be allowed to plant a tree, in case it might precipitate some moisture that might otherwise pass over into British territory. I may here mention another remark which the above mentioned native gentleman made as regards my speech. "It was not so much the speech as the sense of fairness, and frankness, and sincerity which you showed that impressed us." This remark showed, as I have often found, that the common idea of natives always having recourse to flattery is a mistaken one, and it was rather interesting to find the ideas of ancient times repeated by one who could have heard hardly anything in the way of public speaking. The reader may remember how Quinctilian in effect said that there is no instrument of persuasion more powerful than an opinion of probity and honour in the person who undertakes to persuade, and how it has been pointed out that the powerful effect caused by the speaking of Pericles really lay in the confidence which the people reposed in his integrity. But it is time now to turn to the proceedings of the Assembly, which had been adjourned to Saturday, October 17th.