recommend the proposal. They also doubted whether the right of royalty after having been abandoned for a number of years could be legally revived by proclamation, and advised a reference to the legal authorities. They agreed to the other recommendations in the reports, noticing that an Agent had been already appointed to purchase timber, and they accepted the proposal that the post should be distinct from the Conservatorship.

In February, 1840, the Court of Directors reviewed the whole history of the forestry question from the date of their order of August, 1800, down to the date of Farish's Minute of April, 1839. They considered a survey unnecessary, since surveys had been carried out in Malabar and Canara in 1805-6, and though supplies of timber, reported to exist at that time, would not be applicable to 1840, yet sufficient information must have been collected to make a second survey unnecessary. The Court remarked that the Palghaut Forests in Malabar and others of considerable extent in Canara were admitted to be public property. If these were inadequate for the Government demand a properly qualified person should be deputed to select other suitable tracts of which the Government should endeavour to obtain the complete ownership. They did not approve of Farish's "royalty or forest right" proposals, as if the price of timber rose it would engender dissatisfaction among the proprietors. They considered that there would be no advantage in purchasing more land than was actually required to make provision of the Government's needs in forestry materials. The forests not required for this purpose should be left in private ownership, but they suggested that a high rate of duty should be placed on all teak felled under a certain size in order to act as a deterrent to the felling of such trees. The Court desired the Government of India to give the whole subject their early and attentive attention and to exercise their own discretion with regard to the instructions to be issued to Local Governments; but they reiterated their "anxious wish that in the prosecution of the survey, if such a measure should appear necessary, and of the ulterior operations, the utmost care may be taken to avoid any infringement of the rights or any unnecessary interference with the convenience of private persons."

This expression of opinion on the part of the Court is of high interest. Even at that distant date the Home authorities always evinced the greatest concern for the welfare of the

peoples of India, and insisted that the freedom and property of the private individual, his customs and caste prejudices, should receive the utmost consideration from officials of every degree. This has been throughout the period of British rule the guiding factor, it might be almost termed the unwritten and undeviating law, which the newly joined young official has had impressed upon him with uncompromising and unswerving directness. That the forests of the country suffered under its strict observance is unquestionable. But the damage they suffered was not due to the application of the strict letter of the law, but rather to the ignorance existing on the subject of what was the absolute minimum essential in the management of the forests to ensure their preservation. As the above Minute of the Court of Directors displays, they considered, as did the bulk of their advisors in India, that it was only necessary to make provision for the Government's requirements in timber, and that when this had been safeguarded the timber requirements of the people could be left to the forest proprietor and timber merchant. They did not recognise at that period that the interests of the Indian ryot were intimately bound up with the forestry question and the maintenance of a certain proportion of the forests, that that aspect of the question was in reality of as great importance as the provision of the timber supplies required for Government purposes.

CHAPTER VII

FOREST OPERATIONS IN THE MADRAS AND BOMBAY

O

PRESIDENCIES (continued), 1840-50

THE CONOLLY TEAK PLANTATIONS

N receipt of the Court's Despatch alluded to in the last chapter, the Government of India (April, 1840) called upon the Governments of Madras and Bombay for information regarding the Malabar

and Canara Forests.

The only new matter supplied was contained in a letter from Mr. Conolly, who was acting principal Collector of Malabar. This is Mr. Conolly's first appearance on the scene, but his name was destined to become enshrined in the chronicles of the history of the forests of India. In his letter (12th June, 1840) Conolly confirms the destruction of the private forests which had been "dilapidated by a selfish and short-sighted policy," and urgently called for some measures to put a stop to their total destruction. He approved of the policy of prohibiting the felling of teak under a certain size by the imposition of a high royalty, but disapproved of the suggestion of reasserting the Company's right of royalty by proclamation so long after its virtual relinquishment in 1823, owing to the discontent it would give rise to. He favoured the acquisition of private forests sufficient to supply the average quantity of timber required for the public service, but as the native proprietors would consider the parting with their lands as involving a loss of honour Conolly thought that the end would be "just as effectually secured by taking forests on the usual mortgage-tenure system of the country"; and by advancing nearly the value of the estate the Government could secure themselves against any intrusion, as, “ in Malabar mortgages are never foreclosed, but by a common tenure (Kooty Kunum) the proprietor in case of redemption is bound to pay for all improvements made by the mortgagee." The

proprietary right would thus become a merely seignorial one whilst the Government would secure perpetual possession. Conolly also advocated the appointment of a Sub-Conservator with a knowledge of Arboriculture to be placed under the Collector.

The Government of Madras approved of this proposal of renting the forests, and instructed Conolly to ascertain and report upon the terms upon which the proprietors would be prepared to lease their forests to Government.

Lord Auckland, Governor-General, in a Minute (August, 1840), reviewed the reports submitted by the two Governments. He approved generally of the measures which had been taken for the preservation of the Malabar Teak Forests (though these had not yet proceeded further than the recommendation stage), but objected to measures of prohibition or to duties contrived to discourage the felling of small trees, since the older woods required to be thinned at intervals to allow more room for the growing trees. He still thought apparently that the forest proprietors would safeguard their young trees and forgo the money they could obtain from them in order that their successors might reap the benefit some eighty years or so ahead. A somewhat amazing opinion in view of the evidence before him. He, however, asked for further information on the subject.

The Government of Bombay again addressed the Government of India in this matter. Farish approved of Conolly's proposal for renting the forests by mortgages, but thought that the period must be stated, otherwise, when the forests had improved wealthy timber merchants would step in and redeem the mortgages, thus securing the accrued benefit to the forests for themselves. He supported Conolly's plea for the appointment of a Sub-Conservator under the Collector and an Agent distinct from the Conservator. He added the following interesting remark:

Looking beyond Indian interests in this national question I suggested that copies of these reports should be furnished to the Admiralty Board and other Departments that take cognizance of the timber resources for the Royal Navy."

In a second letter Conolly stated that although at first the proprietors had regarded his suggestion for leasing their forests with suspicion several were now prepared to entertain the idea. He estimated the amount of timber required for the public service in the Bombay and Madras Presidencies at

6000 candies annually, supposing one Government vessel was constantly under construction in the yards at Bombay. He estimated that 260 square miles of forest land would be required to supply this quantity, as the Nilumbur Rajah obtained nearly 2500 candies from his own area of forests which extended to 130 square miles. The Government of Madras authorised the Board of Revenue to request Conolly to commence making arrangements to acquire this area of forests by mortgages as opportunity offered. The Government of India was informed of the arrangement, to which it gave approval and reported the matter to the Court of Directors in January, 1841.

In a despatch (November, 1842) received by the Government of India in January, 1843, the Court of Directors reviewed the mass of correspondence on the subject of the forests and agreed to the proposals recommended up to date and the orders issued; but they could not "refrain from expressing some astonishment at the very large extent of country, no less than 260 square miles," which it had been calculated was required for public forests, the acquisition of which had been authorised. Taking 6000 candies or about 200 trees to be the amount of timber annually required by the Government "to supply this quantity annually, as the teak tree reaches maturity in about 60 years, would require about 120,000 trees planted in succession. We will not undertake to say with any exactness how much ground each tree should occupy, but we are persuaded that it cannot be nearly so much as 6000 or 7000 square yards, which is about the space that would be allotted to each tree if the number mentioned were scattered over a tract of 260 square miles."

This is delightful. One can picture the member of the Court trotting out to his little English home woodland counting up the trees on an acre or two and arriving at the brilliant solution above described, thus convicting the Indian Government of an attempt at land-grabbing on a wholesale scale. Though, in truth, his Whitehall descendant has on occasions in the past fallen into the same trap. It was intimated to the Court that the tropical primeval forest had but little similarity to the British woodland, and that there were a hundred other species of trees for every teak growing in the Malabar Forests, and in addition areas of marshes and grass, rocky outcrops and so forth, which were treeless or unsuited for teak in any event. The Court did not foresee the development of the Indian