that, generally speaking, a thorough reform of the present system, as under various phases it is presented in different parts of the country, is imperatively required. The tendency of things has, of late years, been towards ameliorations such as we should be glad to see immediately adopted. The state of the ryot when delivered over to the zemindar and many kinds of middlemen, has, for a length of time, been exciting the anxious attention of the authorities. It is felt that under any system which withdraws him from the eye of the European functionaries, his condition must be hopelessly miserable.

"A few hours after the appearance of our last article upon this subject, we received our copy of the Bengal Hurkaru' of January 12th, in which the situation of the Bengal ryot as a tenant of the zemindar-the independent owner of the soil-is forcibly and truthfully depicted. The Hurkaru' gives a practical illustration of the ryot in the claws of the money-lender, to whom he is driven by the oppressive exactions of the zemindar. The ryot is detained in custody, or his property laid under distress. The mahajun kindly undertakes to advance the money: the offer is accepted with thanks. But interest runs at a compound heavy rate, and the ryot without any addition to his means has another claimant to satisfy. The zemindar's exactions continuing the same, however, it is seldom that he can meet the mahajun's whole demand at once, and so get clear of him. The little he is able to pay at a time goes to satisfy the interest alone; the ashul or principal remaining nearly undiminished and the same. And so the unhappy ryot is doomed to see the fruits of his toil entirely wrested from him by others, the mahajun claiming what the zemindar spared. Between two such millstones, of course, he is effectually ground to dust.' "Would the state of things differ from this were the land tax, in Madras, for example, redeemed? The usurer would advance the money. The ryot would purchase the redemption of the tax and mortgage the estates for the purchase-money. The pressure of the interest would eat up all his substance. At last, when he was incapable of paying either principal or interest, the money-lender would become the possessor of the estate, either by waiving his claim to the sum advanced, (which the interest would, in all probability, have already repaid,) or by bringing his insolvent debtor into court. The land would still continue to be tilled by ryots, but they would not hold it free of tax. The rent, instead of being what under just conditions it should be, namely, moderate, as well as fixed in amount, would vary according to the avaricious propensities of an ignorant and unfeeling proprietor.

6

6

"The writer of the series of articles containing the one from which we have quoted, is so evidently a master of his subject, that it is with great satisfaction we perceive his views of reform to be coincident with our own. The peasant proprietor,' says he, is in the most desirable situation in which a cultivator can possibly be.' This view, as regards the Indian cultivator, we have long held. We feel assured that it is the condition which for a length of time will be best suited to the ryots of this country. The distinction, however, must be drawn between a peasant and a pauper proprietor. Nor does the definition exclude an employer, even to a large extent, of labourers. By the term a peasant proprietary, is simply to be understood that the soil is owned by persons who are engaged directly in agricultural operations. There is no reason,' said Munro, in his letter to Colonel Read, to regret that farms are small,—it is better on every account, and for general wealth. It does not produce men of great fortunes and overgrown possessions, but it lessens the number of poor, and raises up everywhere a crowd of men of small but independent property, who, when they are certain that they will themselves enjoy the benefit of every extraordinary exertion of labour, work with a spirit of activity which would be in vain expected from the tenants or servants of great landholders.' When we see the legislature in Bengal bringing forward a bill which secures to the under-tenants of the great landowners there a right of occupation on the soil, we cannot but feel that Sir Thomas Munro has been more truly prophetic upon this subject than he was with regard to the Indian Press. In Bengal, the system of large holdings has entirely failed, the tenants have been reduced to the extreme of misery, and the authorities have at last come to understand that, generally, there is no class of natives fit to hold, in this country, the position which is held by great proprietors in Europe.

"We propose, accordingly,' says the writer in the Hurkaru,' that every ryot should be vested with the freehold of his farm, subject only to an invariable tribute rent-on no account to be enhanced.' That is intended, we believe, to be the effect of Mr. Currie's Bill, which, converting as it does the zemindars, who are the present owners of the soil, into mere stipendiaries, is unquestionably a revolutionary measure. Had the Government, at the time when the present tenures in Bengal were created, been sufficiently experienced in the character of the people, such a measure would never have been rendered necessary. In Madras our system was initiated by a man who had extraordinary insight into the nature of the tenure which is required for this country. That some of his views were

6

erroneous cannot be denied; and that his system has not been generally adopted is certain. But he was the first who distinctly enounced that every ryot, as long as he pays the rent of his land, shall be considered as the complete owner of the soil, and shall be at liberty to let to a tenant without any hesitation as to rent, and to sell it as he pleases.' We shall not stop here to examine the immense evils and inconveniences which, owing not to the tenure itself but to numerous inessential conditions that grew up around it, have hitherto pressed down the ryots of Madras into the lowest depths of misery.

"Were the system described by Lord Harris in the Annual Report for the years 1855-56, existing in its integrity, it would be difficult to conceive a more favourable position for an agriculturist than that of a Madras ryot. But it is vitiated by imperfect European superintendence, by native extortion, by inquisitorial interference; in a word, by every imaginable evil that is enabled to creep into a lax and inefficient system of administration. The assessment also is much too high; and although the ryot is declared the proprietor in fee simple, there is not a word about that most essential of conditions, an assessment fixed for ever, and varying only, in its money rate, according to the average prices of produce for a certain number of preceding years. The provision that a ryot may increase or diminish his holding, is the provision of a Landlord, not of a Government collecting a tax. If the land were fairly assessed, the portion of a farm given up would be saleable. So also the additional acres taken up by the ryot.

"The true method of proceeding would be to give a legal as well as a prescriptive title to the recognised proprietor of the soil. This would operate to convert the virtual titles of many millions into real titles. The extent of the actual holdings should all over the country be accurately defined and registered. All land which was not in occupation might fairly be claimed by the Government; and this, with the tax on it, they might sell for what it would fetch. All conditions incompatible with the existence of a fee simple should be swept clean away. The absurdity of annual puttahs, and the heartsickening interference they necessitate, should be made to disappear. The tax on the soil should be moderate and fixed for ever. Being nearly the whole amount of the rent, few, except industrious agriculturists, would be desirous to purchase the land. But it would be an evil day for the ryot if Government, holding out to him the bait of possessing the land free from tax, incited him to have recourse to the money-lender, who would be no less anxious than the ryot to become, under the new circumstances, a proprietor of the soil."

CHAPTER IX.

TOPIC 15TH, 16TH.

XV. Why have not British capital and enterprise invested themselves in India?-XVI. Can they be induced to do so?

"ONE Stout Englishman is as good for routing out and exposing abuses in a judge's or collector's court, as several hundred thousand natives," says Sir Charles Trevelyan. The healthy influence of the Englishman's presence is not confined to the courts. It operates like an electric shock upon every man and thing in India, with which it comes in contact. The doughty deed of the planter Venables, who retook Azimghur, has been chronicled by the author of the "Red Pamphlet." It may stand once for all as a proof of an independent Englishman's worth in India:

"On arriving at Ghazeepore, it was discovered that some of the indigo-planters and the poorer class of Christians had been left behind. As it was known that the 17th Native Infantry would return to plunder the place, great anxiety was felt on their behalf by one, at least, of those who had escaped. This was Mr. Venables, an indigo-planter residing in the neighbourhood of Azimghur, a gentleman of large property and of a very high character. Fearing for the unfortunates who had been left behind, Mr. Venables endeavoured to persuade Mr. Astell, Mr. Horne, and others, to return with him. They were most unwilling, and pleaded fear of the Commissioner's anger if they should return without his sanction. A message was instantly dispatched for that sanction; but the Commissioner, Mr. Tucker, comprehending in an instant the feeling of his subordinates, sent back a reply to the effect that he had no objection to Mr. Venables going, but the Civilians were on no account to risk their lives.'

"Thus privately and officially left to himself, this noble

hearted man determined to go alone. He started the next day, went direct to his estate at Doorie Ghat,-some two-and-twenty miles on the Goruckpore side of Azimghur,-assembled his ryots, armed them, marched at their head, and recovered Azimghur. He did more he held it; and whilst the apathetic Civilians had retired into Benares, and were allowed to continue to draw their immense salaries-Mr. Astell alone £250 per mensem-Mr. Venables, the indigo planter, remained at their proper station, did all their work, even collected the revenue which they ought to have collected, restored order where all was chaos; and whilst these men were whining over the loss of their own private property, he employed himself in restoring the power and re-asserting the prestige of Government.

"And yet he was one of those adventurers' whom the Government of India takes every opportunity of insulting. Mr. Venables held this district, reinforced only by a small detachment of native troops, for about six weeks. At the end of that time, the Civilians were most unwillingly compelled to return."

The "Times" has asserted, with much truth, that Englishmen will seek to make their fortunes in any place in the world, even in Sierra Leone, rather than in India; though the reasons which the same article assigns for an explanation of this undoubted and discreditable fact are fallacious in the extreme. As the introduction of Englishmen with capital in their pockets, and energy in their minds, is one of the most hopeful contingencies for the regeneration of India, nothing can be more important than to inquire why so very small a number of our countrymen, independent of the services, have hitherto sought this land as a scene of adventure and investment; and what is required to induce immigration, and the influx of capital.*

* With regard to the settlement of Europeans in this country, it should be observed that Mr. Ewart's Committee for inquiry as to Colonization, may perhaps do more harm than good, if it should lead people away from a real inquiry. Colonization, in its usual acceptation, may not be possible or requisite for this country. India is not fitted for the actual European labourer. The masters of labour, with money in their pockets, are the class of persons we want, and who will make their own fortunes, and regenerate the country. They may not colonize in India, inasmuch as they would be but temporary sojourners here, looking to return to England when they had