ferences may be mentioned, which did not involve any peculiar friction. One, the economy of public expenditure; the other, the continuance or formation of an influential upper class or aristocracy.
As to public economy, it must not be supposed that Sir Henry had any tendency to disregard it; on the contrary, his whole spirit was imbued with the desire for thrift; only, his view of the subject was broader than John's. He did not, for one point, consider that it should be restricted to the rigid idea of the necessity of making two ends meet. He held that 'in public as in private life, judicious liberality is in the end economy.' 'Money is saved by keeping men contented, preserving the peace, and getting expeditiously through work.' 'Money is gained and the revenue increased by expenditure on roads and canals.' Though the brothers differed on the theory of the subject, they were sufficiently in unison on the practical points involved to agree on the several undertakings at issue, and the result was that there was generally a surplus of income over expenditure.
The other point of difference, the general policy of fostering an influential upper class or aristocracy, was never a matter of question, because Lord Dalhousie was definitely against it, and there was no more to be said; the policy must be that laid down by the Governor-General. But Sir Henry's views may be mentioned. Broadly speaking, he desired for the Trans-Sutlej States or Punjab a class of natural and influential leaders of the people, such as had long
