| Description | Commencing with a discussion of the rights of wine merchants to visit vineyards, and their relationship with the 'French paysan'. William is interested to know more about this and if there is an example in Europe of a landlord being also a manufacturer and having tenants under debt to him. He suspects there may be something of this sort in Russia or among Hungarian nobles, but none of these cases compare exactly with the indigo planter and ryott in India. William considers this further, thinking he made an error in law in saying that the planter had a right to inspect crops, when he ought to have said the Zamindar has the right to set foot on any land in his estates and speak to tenants about the state of the land and crop. He has laid himself open to a charge of ignorance of the law, but in saying this he was speaking to a large crowd of ryotts and intended to check the idea that they were completely independent. They had just seen neighbouring ryotts thrashing planters and William quotes his own words, but was disgusted to see the whole of his address in the newspapers, transcribed by a planter with amendments. Grant has approved his proceedings, but noted the passage that William was supposed to have said. He outlines his actions to correct this wrong impression, saying he has decided to be more reserved in future. He will wait for his deeds to indicate that his words have been misquoted and misinterpreted. William is working hard with little sleep over the past few days, but he has written to Calcutta [Kolkata] to report he had ordered out his military police and he has slept soundly.
With an additional note by William Waterfield [2 April] saying he has delayed sending the letter on, to add the latest news from Bombay [Mumbai]. All is quiet except in the subdivision of Junghipoor [Jangipur] which should be no surprise given the indigo planters there. Leonard, the superintending engineer has reported that the newspapers had no basis for their reports from Nuddea and are full of exaggeration. No newspapers dare stand against the planters' interests and the planters can only say that 'Mr H' [William James Herschel] should be removed by promotion in acknowldgement of his zeal. His superiors speak highly of him.
Original pagination, pp.4-9, lacking the beginning and end of the letter. The conclusion is preserved in copy form as HS/3/8/9. |