fact that when Tippoo Sahib took possession of the Province of Malabar, in exercise of his rights as conqueror, he annihilated private rights in the forests and created a monopoly in the forests, working them himself. From Tippoo's own statement it appeared that by this measure he gained a revenue of Rs.90,000 annually, exclusive of charges. "He, however, so far recognised the right of the proprietors as to make them an allowance of two fanams per tree of 10 inches diameter." Tippoo appeared to have first assumed the royalty of the forest in 1784-5, and Underwood argued that on the cession of the country by him the Company's Government acquired the same rights. The monopoly was re-established by the Conservator in 1806 and by the proclamation of the Madras Government of 25th April, 1807, when the Sovereignty of the Forests was assumed, and continued to 1822-3, the Conservatorship being then abolished. The forests, he argued, therefore "belonged so far to Government that their destruction cannot be permitted, as this would be an infringement of this right; and, on the other hand, they are bona fide the property of individuals who are entitled to the entire profits to be derived from the timber: this right has been freely exercised so as nearly to extinguish the right of Government, and it is high time that they should take prompt and immediate measures to preserve their interests from destruction by the exhaustion of the forests." On the subject of the Conservator Underwood added one fresh item of importance, namely, “that he could not discover any record that any of the Conservators had taken any steps to perpetuate the forests, as he could not discover that any of them had planted a single tree." The result of the reopening of the forests to timber traders, on the abolishment of the Conservatorship, was the reckless and ruinous exploitation of the forests which followed, though very different results were anticipated, as was evidenced in the Minute of Sir Thomas Munro (the Governor who had abolished the Conservatorship). In this Minute Sir Thomas said that the merchants and agriculturists were "too good traders not to cultivate teak or whatever wood is likely to yield a profit. They are so fond of planting. . . . To encourage them no regulation is wanted, but a free market. Restore the liberty of trade in private wood: let the public be guarded by its ancient protector, not a stranger, but the Collector and Magistrate of the country, and we shall get all the wood the country can yield more certainly than by any restrictive measures.

Private timber will be increased by good prices, and trade and agriculture will be free from vexation." This pious hope showed a complete ignorance of the point of view of the private proprietors of forests and of timber merchants and their methods of working, and sounded the death-knell of hundreds of thousands of acres of fine teak forests.

Underwood's measures for protection were :

Firstly, revival of the Company's right of Royalty in the forest by proclamation.

Secondly, the revival of the Conservatorship with abridged powers, the Collector to be an ex officio Conservator.

Thirdly, the purchase of tracts in exhausted forests with a view to their replantation.

Fourthly, that Government should work their own forests, cutting down all timber but teak, in order to replant them with teak.

Fifthly, the appointment of a joint Agent by the Government of Bombay and Madras for the purchase of timber, the Agent to be separate and distinct from the Conservator.

To obtain timber supplies Underwood suggested three methods:

(a) To purchase in the market.

(b) To make large contracts, and

(c) To purchase forests either in perpetuity or for a series of years, and so obtain exclusive rights of felling upon payment of the stipulated amount.

He advocated the last method. Underwood added, that some proprietors were already beginning to complain of the felling methods of contractors, by which young trees were cut down, and he thought that the proprietors would welcome the re-establishment of the Conservatorship.

Underwood's report is full of interest, and shows a considerable insight into the position of the Malabar Forests, and was a decided advance on the views held by his predecessor.

In reviewing Farish's first Minute and Underwood's Report the Madras Board of Revenue (November, 1839) objected to the survey of the forests as being a work of useless labour and expense, since the Government could only obtain the proprietary rights in three forests in Palghaut; on the subject of the purchase of all tracts of forest land in which teak had been totally exhausted in order to replant them the Board thought that further experience was required before they could

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 pro-J prietor 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

Ο

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