officers: Hon. P. O'Sullivan, Advocate-General; Messrs. E. F. Webster, Secretary to Government, Revenue Department; W. S. Whiteside, Collector of North Arcot; W. Logan, Collector of Malabar, and H. E. Stokes, Collector of Salem. Mr. A. W. B. Higgens, Head Assistant Collector, Cuddapah, was appointed Secretary. The Committee assembled on May Ist, and on 10th June submitted the draft of a Bill with a comprehensive Report on forest legislation in the Presidency which Brandis attaches as Appendix I to his own Report, the Committee's draft Bill being given as Appendix II. Both are of uncommon interest.

On May 15th the Government directed that the three Collectors on the Forest Bill Committee should, in communication with the Conservator and Brandis, consider the rules by which the relations of Civil and Forest Officers should in future be regulated and on that subject, as well as on matters relating to the organization of forest business connected therewith, a Joint Report was submitted to Government on 9th June (given in Appendix III, Brandis' Report). On September 9th Brandis submitted proposals for the reorganization of establishments, with a financial forecast which he incorporated in his Report, which will be briefly glanced at later. The Forest Bill was introduced into the Legislative Council on the 29th June, and after being altered in what Brandis terms "several essential points" by the Select Committee, was passed on 26th August, and received the assent of the GovernorGeneral in October. A Special Act (XXI of 1882), confirming its provisions (vide Vol. II, p. 472), was also passed in the Council of the Governor-General and received the assent of the Governor-General on the 2nd November, 1882.

The amazing energy and driving power possessed by Brandis were well known to all who had ever met or worked with him; but they could never have been exhibited in a more remarkable manner than in the settlement thus put through in a year (even if we allow that the time was ripe for such a settlement) of difficulties which had been increasing through a period of eighty years.

It is of interest to mention that after the Committee had finished its work Higgens was left with Brandis for a time to assist him with his reports and then posted to the charge of the Forests of the Cuddapah District. Higgens was succeeded by Mr. H. A. Sim, Head Assistant Collector, Kurnool, who helped Brandis in passing his Report through the press. Sim

was then posted to the charge of the Kurnool Forests. This was a wise move on the part of Brandis, as it not only added two officers to the weak Madras Forest Staff but ensured that two Civilians in the Presidency, when they achieved higher rank, should have a personal knowledge of Forest Department work. But the additions to the staff did not stop here. The Government of Madras, Brandis writes, "have justly insisted upon the organization of a strong staff of superior officers and no reasonable expense has been spared to attain this object." Three experienced officers were transferred to Madras from the Central Provinces, in which Province great progress had been made in demarcation and settlement on the lines the Inspector-General advocated for Madras. One of these was appointed Conservator in 1883 on the division of the Presidency into the Northern and Southern Circles; four professionally trained junior Assistant Conservators had joined and the old officers of the Forest Staff had received advancement by the introduction of the new scale. It was with no unnatural pride that Brandis wrote: "I have been permitted to see the new organization actually established and I leave the Presidency in the firm hope that the Madras Forest Officers will in future take a high place for professional skill and efficiency, and that they will accomplish a work of the utmost importance for the well-being of the people in South India." And events were to show that this confidence was not misplaced. But meanwhile the Department and the Collectors were faced with a gigantic task. Brandis discusses the work in Part I of his Report under the sections: General remarks on land areas, etc.; fuel for railways; charcoal for iron-smelting; the indirect influence of forests; and the organization of forest business. In Part II a section is devoted to the forests of each district he visited. It will be impossible to follow the author through the wealth of detail to be found in this part. But in some of the recommendations and reflections to be found here. Brandis was looking far ahead, and for this reason alone this portion of his work would seem to be worth perusal by presentday Forest Officers. The first part contains the InspectorGeneral's main proposals.

After discussing the direct and indirect advantages of forests to a country like Madras Brandis pointed out as the direct advantages of forest conservancy that it was of the greatest importance to produce on the smallest area the largest quantity possible of timber, wood, and other forest produce, and it was necessary to determine

the yearly quantity which, under good management, could be produced permanently on a given area. In some of the forest plantations in the Presidency the annual timber production per acre was exceptionally large. Instances were the Nilambur Teak Plantations, the Eucalyptus on the Nilgiris, the Casuarina on the coast, and the plantations of Acacia arabica and Inga dulcis in tank beds and on low ground along rivers. He thought also that the production per acre of the pods of divi-divi (Casalpinia coriaria) might under favourable conditions prove very large. In any event he maintained that it was very important to ascertain the rate of timber production per acre on the lines which Beddome had already commenced at Nilambur (Report of 1878) and Mr. D. E. Hutchins in the Nilgiri Plantations. These remarks on plantations are a preface to Brandis' consideration of the better utilization of the waste lands of the Presidency, for he held that the chief task of the forest administration was to increase the productivity of the waste and forest lands in the interest of the community. The total area of forest and waste lands at the disposal of the Government in Madras amounted to about 32,000,000 acres. A considerable extent of this area was still claimed by zemindars and other landholders in Tinnevelly, South Arcot, and other districts. These disputes were of long standing and they required early final settlement. Still the area available was enormous, and Brandis pertinently asks, What was its ultimate destination? He replies: A portion will be constituted reserved forest under the Act; extensive areas will remain grazing grounds; a large area would be available for the extension of agriculture, and this area would become the larger with the improvement of the forests and the grazing grounds. For example, in the drier parts of the Presidency the devastation of the forests had made the extension of agriculture impossible. But with strict forest conservancy in these areas the forests would improve in the course of time and with their improvement the soil conditions would also improve. Extensive tracts would have to be demarcated at the present day as Reserves. But in the future, when the soil within these areas improved, it would be possible to select areas within the Reserves for cultivation and form forest villages on these sites-in other words, extend cultivation. Brandis gave as examples the Siwalik Forest area, then forming part of the Dehra Dun School Forests in the N.W. Provinces, and areas to the east, where the policy had been laid down that forest villages would eventually be established with the improvement of the forests. Model farms, with the object of improving the system of agriculture, might be settled in this way. In answer to arguments, he said that such a policy was too bold a one for the present time as forest conservancy was new both to the Forest Officer and the people of the country, and both must first learn how to efficiently protect the forest and have an equal interest

in its protection before the forest village could be safely introduced. In connection with the question of the existence of Forest Villages in Madras the orders of the Madras Government (17th September, 1875), conveying instructions to a Committee appointed to draft a Forest Bill (which never matured), stated that an Act was required which should deal separately with forests under the head of State Forests, Communal Forests and Proprietary Forests. This was based on the statement of the Board of Revenue (Proc., August 5th, 1871) "There is scarcely a forest in the whole Presidency of Madras which is not within the limits of some village, and there is not one in which, so far as the Board can ascertain, the State asserted any rights of property until very recently. All of them, without exception, are subject to tribal or communal rights which have existed from time immemorial, and which are as difficult to define and value as they are necessary to the rural population. . . Here the forests are, and always have been, common property." These views were endorsed by the Government of Madras in a letter to the Government of India (23rd December, 1876). This opinion was no longer held. In their Report (para. 4) of 10th June, 1882, the Brandis Committee on the Forest Bill stated their deliberate opinion that there were no Communal Forests in the Presidency. On the subject of the allotment or setting apart of free grazing grounds for the use of the ryots which was being made under the Settlement going on in some districts, Brandis suggested that this step should be deferred until the selection of the Reserves had been commenced. The two questions of forests and pasture should be considered together or the selection of the Reserves might be made more difficult by the previous allotment of free grazing in any locality.

As has been shown in previous parts under the existing forest organization the greater part of the Government forests in the hills, and a portion of those in the plains, though undemarcated, were in charge of Forest Officers and subject to one set of rules; while some of the hill forests and the greater portion of the forests in the plains were in charge of the officers of the Jungle Conservancy Fund and subject to a second set of rules. Thus all the forests in the Nellore, Chinglepart, Bellary and Anantapur Districts were under the latter, whilst in Cuddapah, South Arcot and Madura were under the one or the other. In North Arcot, South Arcot and Trichinopoly the Forest Officer was in charge of both classes of forests, which were often contiguous, but each class was managed under different rules. There was nothing in the character of the two classes of lands to call for different rules and separate establishments. It was contended that the Jungle Conservancy lands were managed for the benefit of the villages, while the forests were managed for the benefit of Imperial Revenues. But this latter, during the last ten years to 1881-2, had been insignificant, the total

surplus for the ten years having amounted to only Rs.3,29,144! And even this total revenue took no account of charges for furlough allowances, pensions, etc. Brandis said quite frankly that for many years to come forest administration in Madras would require a heavy outlay and that it would be exceedingly difficult to produce sufficient revenue to cover the outlay that would have to be incurred, and that any surplus revenue could not be expected. Moreover, the villagers had not derived any special benefit from the management of the Jungle Conservancy lands; they had grazed their cattle on them and collected firewood; they had done the same on other waste lands as well as in most of the forests. There was no difference between the two classes of forests save in name and on paper. If the Jungle Conservancy Forests were to be of real benefit they must be managed by Forest Officers under the same legal protection as was to apply to the Reserved Forests. The Forest Committee had therefore urged that the administration of the two classes of forest should be amalgamated, and this had been sanctioned by Government. The receipts and charges of the Jungle Conservancy had formerly been local. The entire Forests and Jungle Conservancy revenue would henceforth be provincial. In this manner one of the most thorny problems connected with Madras forest conservancy was at length settled.

Apart from the revenue shown as derived from "Forests" and "Jungle Conservancy," there were other items of revenue obtained partly from forests and partly from other waste lands which were credited to "Land Revenue Miscellaneous," such as the tax on trees on unassessed lands, grazing tax on grass cut, rent on palmyra trees, fruit trees, etc., amounting annually to roughly Rs.3,00,000 and about Rs.2,00,000 from the cultivation of unoccupied waste and sale of waste and the trees on it; lastly, a considerable portion of the excise revenue was derived from the unoccupied waste; for rent received from the use of toddy-bearing trees and arrack-renters. The total revenue so derived in 1877-8 amounted to Rs.59,50,000, a portion of which represented produce from waste lands-about 10 lakhs. This gave a total of Rs.15,00,000 collected by these two departments. Brandis suggested that it would not be unreasonable to transfer items aggregating Rs.1,00,000 from "Land Revenue Miscellaneous" to "Forests." If this were done, assuming that out of the 32,000,000 of waste lands 10,000,000 were required for extension of agriculture, 11,000,000 for pasture, whilst 11,000,000 were supposed to be under forest conservancy, the allocation of the above sum would produce an annual income of 0.8 annas per acre for the protection and improvement of 22,000,000 acres of forests and grazing grounds.

Brandis then deals at length with the question of the Improvement of the Forests. It is unnecessary to follow him here since the lines of the advice he tenders are now well known, but his opening