populated country mostly forest and waste, but famous for the large quantities of sandal wood, Hardwickia binata, and black wood (Dalbergia latifolia), found in it. The sandal wood, it may be noted, does not grow in dense forest but on open lands, coming up in the midst of thorny bushes and so forth. The Government decided that as the royalty or monopoly in sandal wood had been deliberately abandoned in 1824 they had no rights over it and that demarcation of Reserves elsewhere should wait till a Forest Act was passed. The Government of India pointed out that the selection and demarcation of such areas as the Government might wish to create Reserves could be proceeded with without waiting for special forest legislation. But nothing was done; and other districts in the Presidency were in much the same condition.

The fourth case, that of the South Kanara District, brought matters to a head, and may be said to have had as its ultimate outcome the placing of forest conservancy in the Southern Presidency on a proper basis. This case is discussed at great length in the report, but can only be briefly summarized here. It will be remembered that in the district of Malabar, which adjoins Kanara on the south, the whole land including the forests had been recognized as private property in the early years of the century, Sir Thomas Munro having abolished the existing Conservatorship and with it the claim to the royalty in teak and consequently the ownership of Government in the forests (save in one of two instances) in that district (cf. Vol. I, pp. 71, 84, 86). In this connection the Court of Directors, in their Despatch of February, 1840 (I, p. 86), in reviewing the chaotic position of the forestry question from 1800 onwards wrote that "the Palghat Forest in Malabar and others of considerable extent in Kanara were admitted to be the property of Government." The Government ownership of the Forests of both North and South Kanara (the North was now included in the Bombay Presidency), with the exception of parts of the forests in the southermost taluk (Bekal of South Kanara) was never in dispute. Even Sir Thomas Munro had acknowledged (26th November, 1822) the existence of public forests in Kanara and wrote: "In order to protect the property of the public and of individuals in the forests, their limits must first be ascertained and this can only be done by a survey." Moreover, this view of the case seems to be borne out by several remarks made by the famous. traveller, Buchanan, on his journey into Mysore, Kanara and

Malabar in 1801. Of the Haiga country (comprising the greater part of South Kanara) he wrote "the hills and forests belong to Government," and he said the same with reference to Honawar, the southernmost taluka of North Kanara. The suggested survey had never been undertaken up to the period in question. This brief excursion into the past is necessary since statements and orders of Munro issued in 1800, when he was Collector of the districts in question, were brought up and various interpretations given to the meanings he intended to convey by the use of the word "land," in such expressions as "all land is private property," "the only land in Kanara that can in any way come under the description of Sirkar land is unclaimed waste," and so forth. Sir William Robinson, a Member of the Board of Revenue, when the question of the ownership of the forests in South Kanara came before the Board, disagreed with the assumptions of the Collector and Conservator that the forests belonged to Government. He carried out researches back to the early days of the British Government in Madras and submitted a Minute which was dealt with by the Board in their Proceedings of March, 1871. Robinson held that when Munro used the word "land" he meant it to include all the primeval forests adjoining the cultivation existing in 1800 (although at that time the forests were regarded both by the Government and the people as valueless), and that therefore the present claims of the Wargdars (landowners) to all the forests were justified, and he sought to establish his point by declarations of succeeding Collectors, and maintained that these claims should be accepted even though in many, if not most, cases no sanad or other document conferring the proprietary right could be produced. The Board demurred and thought that the claims of the people would be found to be far more limited than Robinson supposed. They, however, directed the Collector to call for a register, after due enquiry, of all titles to landed property and report on them. The Orders of the Government of Madras (of which Robinson had now become a member), dated 23rd October, 1874, disagreed with the Board. They wrote: "It is abundantly evident that the attention which has been given of late years to forest-lands, and the anxiety to enforce proper conservancy, has led to a misapprehension regarding the proprietary rights of landholders or Wargdars of Kanara, similar or even exceeding that which arose between 1815 and 1822." They thought that the proposal to call for

and register all titles was wrong in principle and hard on the people and that there seemed no sufficient ground for declining to accept in its literal sense the statement of Sir Thomas Munro that "the only land in Kanara that can in any way come under the description of Sirkar land is unclaimed waste." They recommended, however, that the demarcation of valuable forests, admittedly the property of Government, should be at once taken in hand.

This work was started by the Collector, Mr. Webster, and his successor, Mr. Horsfall, and the Forest Officer, Mr. Cherry. Repeated references to the Board were, however, necessary during the course of the work, and as might be expected claims to extensive forest tracts, never previously put forward, made their appearance. In January, 1876, Beddome, the Conservator, addressed the Madras Government regarding the results of the enquiry and made the statement that, in his opinion," the result of the enquiry and settlement, if carried out as it has been commenced, will leave Government without an acre of forest in South Kanara, either in the plains or in the Ghâts."

In April, 1876, the Collector, Mr. Horsfall, in a letter to the Board, felt constrained to ask for the decision of the Board in the case of the Parappa Forest, as it was one example of numerous similar cases which would have to be decided because Government teak plantations had been established in the areas by the Forest Department and teak had been uninterruptedly conserved since the year 1861. Kristna Puttaraya had purchased certain houses and cultivated land in 1854 from the then Wargdars and he now claimed all the forest situated round and in the neighbourhood of the arable plots including the teak plantations (for which he declined to pay the cost of formation and subsequent upkeep) and also to be exempt from any further assessment when new land was brought under cultivation. The Collector was unable to agree on the justice of the claim. He quoted Munro's statement: "the only land in Kanara that can in any way, etc.," and said it was important to determine what Munro meant by "land." Horsfall said that if Munro's statement was read in conjunction with the instructions he gave to his Assistant, dated 9th December, 1800, it would seem that Munro did not include such forest lands as were now under reference. For whilst insisting throughout on the right of private property in Kanara, Munro directed that extra rent should be charged upon such waste

land as might be brought under cultivation. Had the right of private property extended to the adjoining forest lands, Horsfall contended that Munro would not have directed the levy of rent upon any additional portion brought under cultivation. Robinson did not agree upon this interpretation and the Government of Madras curtly declined to reopen the matter and directed the Collector to proceed with the settlement.

Illustrations of this kind run throughout the history of the British administration in India, and though, as in this case, a wrong decision based on a supersensitiveness on the question of rights of property would have been to the serious detriment of the community at large, yet they furnish a direct answer to those who maintain that the rule of the British in India has had for its main object the exploitation of the country.

The Government of India was aware, from the Proceedings of the Madras Government, that the enquiry was in progress and had already displayed some anxiety upon the course the proceedings were taking. On reading the above recorded expression of the Conservator's opinion in the Proceedings they at once wrote to Madras (No. 684, dated 31st July, 1876) asking for papers explaining fully the existing position of the enquiry. These papers were received by the Government of India in September, 1876. They at once telegraphed to Madras to stay all further proceedings in regard to the South Kanara Forests and in a letter of 14th October drew attention to the grave consequences of the Madras Government's action. The reason for this drastic step was the following: Certain Wargdars in North Kanara (in the Bombay Presidency) had instituted a suit in 1870 against the Bombay Government claiming a large extent of forests whose ownership by Government had never previously been disputed. These forests were claimed, first, by virtue of certain sanads, alleged to have been granted by Tippoo Sultan, second, by virtue of the claimants having exercised the right of cutting trees, gathering forest produce and cultivating Kumri, and having paid assessment for the Kumri cut by them, and taxes for the collection of forest produce. The judgment of March, 1872, in the District Court was against the claimants, but they had appealed to the High Court and the case was still under decision. This being the position the Government of India felt sure (in their letter) that the Government of Madras would see the imperative reason for suspending their decision in the analogous case in

the adjoining district, though their enquiry might be proceeded with; "but until the decision of the High Court of Bombay has been made known it is desirable that no irrevocable step should be taken by the Madras Government as regards any of its forest rights."

In December, 1876, Webster, who had returned to Kanara as Collector, addressed the Board, pointing out that as a result of the Government order of 23rd October, 1874, extensive Kumri (shifting cultivation) clearings were being carried on in the taluks of Kassergode (Behal) and Upperangadi, and large quantities of sandal wood were reported to have been cut out from jungles which, before the passing of the order, were understood and treated as Government Forests. He asked whether the Government of India's telegram directing the suspension of the order of 1874 was to be taken as requiring the prosecution of parties for cutting Kumri or felling timber without the 100 yards Kumaki limit. He added: "I trust not, and think that if a claim of proprietary right is set up a prosecution should not be instituted." The reply (3rd February, 1877) of the Madras Government was: " His Grace the Governor in Council is of opinion that Kumri cultivation should not be interfered with." A word of explanation is necessary as to the term " Kumaki." Kumaki land was analogous to what was termed "Rab" land in the Konkan in the Bombay Presidency and was used for grazing, but chiefly to provide branch loppings and leaves (forest litter) which were spread over the paddy fields (rice) and burnt to serve as manure. This form of cultivation will be described in greater detail under the Bombay Forests, in the following chapter. The extent of the Kumaki lands was doubtful; but it had generally been supposed that the rights of user of the Wargdars for this purpose extended over a belt of forest 100 yards wide, adjoining the arable land.

During the early months of 1877 the Government of India received the whole of the papers with reference to the Kanara enquiry from the Madras Government accompanied by urgent requests that they should be allowed to pass definite orders in the matter. In spite of the fact that this matter of the settlement of Government and private rights to the land had been left undecided for a period of over seventy years, although for the past fifteen the Government of India had repeatedly urged that such settlement should be taken in hand, the Madras Government now contended " that the rights of the State are being fully and satisfactorily asserted and that no good can