| Description | His father's last letter was weighty, encouraging William to venture further in describing Indian life. He considers father's opinions correct even if based upon false information. He states that the acquisition of land in India is not subject to favour and is impartial. He describes different types of land tenure, rent paid to the Zamindar, and the insecurity of Indian tenants. The employment of capital is discouraged by the system he believes, but applies equally to Europeans. It is rare for a European planter or others to be ousted from a lease once he has taken possession. Zamanidaris are rarely sold however, and fetch high prices, taking too much of a planter's capital. Ryotts in Bengal are the most secure, but a Zamindar's tenure depends completely on rent being deposited in the Collector's hands in cash. If a planter cannot get a Zaminder right, in order to guarantee tenure of the land on which to build a factory, they may become a ryott, but this is often opposed by the Zamindar. Few Indian ryotts know their rights, or are able to assert them. William discusses the changing demographic of ryotts, and the lack of contracts in evidence of their right, one of the principal provisions of the law. There are those Zamindars whom he compares to slave-holders in the United States. He concludes by stating that the government is not to blame for Europeans not obtaining tenure, therefore. William moves to the case of Rajah Gopal Chunder Singh who obtained the putnee of a neighbouring land and enters into a long explanation of the history of its rental payments. Gopal Singh was highly regular in his payments, but a bribe was attempted on the agent paying these to the Collector, to make it appear that he was paying a short amount. The Zamindar paid the balance of the rent due in order to put the putnee up for sale. This was advertised, but an intervention was staged by the Commissioner to prevent the Rajah being cheated. William turns to family matters, congratulating 'our brave little scholar' [John Herschel?] in gaining a scholarship and expressing concern about his health. He encloses an account of [Frederick] Browning and says that he must face the anger of every man of the railways now. If William had decided according to the truth he 'should have committed Mr. B. to the Sessions for torture'. He relays Nicholas Stewart's view of the case. William had been pestered by Browning in private about the case and had gone so far as to advise him that his best plan was to admit the assault and plead justification. When it was denied in court then William could only decide as he did. He notes [Arthur] Pigou's decision and actions in the matter, which make it appear as if William 'had refused credit to the word of an English gentleman'. |