If we turn farther to the east, to Assam--which we have absorbed--to Birmà, and even to Siam, we find the same causes in operation. We recognized in Yunnan the Panthay Sultan of Talifoo; we have always striven to treat the kings of Birmà and Siam as independent princes, whereas they are only Chinese vassals; and we are believed to have carried on intrigues with the Shans and other tribes beyond the Assamese frontier. These steps may be prudent or they may not for other reasons; but they certainly are imprudent for the reason that they offend the Chinese. As a policy intended to conciliate the Chinese, our frontier policy on the north and the east has been the worst possible, and a tissue of blunders from beginning to end; and the result is that for the last half-century we have lived on the very worst terms with the Chinese. We should have conciliated them, but we aroused instead all their latent suspicion and dislike. We should have become friendly neighbours, and, on the contrary, we are neighbours who, if not decidedly hostile to each other, shun each other's presence. And the real base of our sentiment towards the Chinese is to be seen in the fact that one of the first articles in the creed of Indian state policy is "to keep China as far off as possible." That precept, which may have been very useful, has served its turn, and it is time that our Indo-Chinese policy should be set upon a new basis. With China once more supreme upon our whole northern frontier, and with her presenting ultimatums at Bangkok, and coercing the ruler of Mandalay as she esteems fit, it is high time for us, apart from the Central Asian question altogether, to set our house in order with the Chinese. The mistakes we made in championing the Ghoorkas, in acknowledging the Panthays, and in a general policy of indifference to Chinese opinion, have all tended to bring about the present deadlock in our relations with China. Our acknowledgment of the Athalik Ghazi cannot have conduced to the creation of any very friendly sentiment among the Chinese towards us, and, therefore, at the present moment we must assume that the state of feeling existing among the Chinese in Tibet and Yunnan towards us exists in Kashgaria also; and that feeling is a veiled hostility. Therefore, while the Chinese are beginning to regard Russia with the hostile feelings that once were reserved for England, they have by no means altered their old sentiments towards us. We have done nothing whatever to induce them to do so. We have not helped them in any way to regain Kashgar, and on the whole English opinion may be said to have been more adverse to, than in favour of, their claims. They have found in the arsenals of Kashgar and Yarkand many proofs of England's alliance with, and friendship for, Yakoob Beg; and, on the other hand, they certainly owe much to the assistance of Russian merchants, and the forbearance of the Russian government. Nor should we for an instant delude ourselves