stitution on "Russian Approaches to India." If any one who has read that lecture will turn to my "Russians at Merv," and to the two recent pamphlets on Merv and Herat republished at the end of this book, in the Appendix, he will agree with me, I think, that it was hardly fair, after making such extensive use of the data and reiterating so many of my views thereon-leaving the public to gather they were his own carefully compiled facts and his own opinions, instead of the writer's-to only express a curt and stultifying acknowledgment in the form of a reference to myself as a "translator"!
To be plagiarized, I am told, is the fate of all authors who reach a certain eminence, and I suppose I ought to bear the infliction meekly. But my grievance is something more than a sentimental one. I am not a military officer or a government official, who may expect a reward for his exertions in the shape of a better appointment or a knighthood; nor am I a party writer, receiving encouragement from any statesman. My works involve me in a pecuniary loss, and the only recompense I can hope for is a general reputation as a political writer. Consequently, when my books are pillaged of their contents I am not only robbed-let me hope heedlessly-of that reward, but further experience the discouragement of seeing public commendation bestowed in the wrong quarter. On this account, I cannot help registering a protest against the practice, and expressing a hope that if nameless writers resort to it, men of established reputation will at least avoid doing unto others what they themselves would be the first to cry out against, if done unto them.
GROSVENOR HOUSE, PLUMSTEAD COMMON, KENT,