Page images

Civil Service,-true to the instincts of the privileged Bengalee official, quarrels with the existing state of things, and takes up the cudgels for the natives against his own countrymen. Thus he confesses that "two per cent. is allowed to the European and native functionaries on all products sold in Holland, which has caused the neglect of rice culture, and juggled the natives into famine; " that there is "suppressed discontent, to be turned into fury, despair, and frenzy;" that "the Europeans have corrupted the natives" (this is strange, when we know that all good comes from Europe); that "the oppressions of the people should be put an end to;" and, with many other commendable measures, "his Excellency (the Governor-General of Netherlands India) has sanctified the system of abuse of power, of plunder and murder, by which the poor Javanese suffer."

This Dutchman seems to have dressed himself in a sarong (native shawl) and his wife in a kabayu (native gown), which accounts for the tenor of his sympathies. Yet a Dutchman's taxes are as four to one of the Javanese! But the former says he is a freeman, while the latter calls himself a slave! When will differences of opinion end? There are so many kinds of slavery and so many shades of thought in it, that the warfare of sentiment will continue as long as there are temperate and tropical regions. The symbol of slavery at home is a Scotch Cameronian of strict principles, having a whip in his hands lashing his "niggers." Out of this symbol comes all the intense feeling against it; and properly so in this case, as a strict Cameronian, besides being very avaricious, is so energetic that his blood boils to see a "nigger," or any one else, working lazily. His idea of God is also very inhumane; for to that Being, as Burns informs us, he ascribes the propensity of sending "one to heaven and ten to hell a' for His glory."

Thus savage notions are inculcated in his breast from his youth upwards, for even his mamma tells him, in going out to the world, to "mak siller if he can honestly -bit at a' risks to mak siller." It is a righteous thing that slavery, under such instruments, should be abolished. But it is not to be concealed that the worst effects of the institution are on the whites themselves, as it deteriorates their moral status and instils decay and corruption into their own hearthsides. Yet may we ask, does not the home slavery that surrounds us and which we do not see, because it is so close, also effect the same degradation ? For instance, what end comes of working delicate female servants and drudges from 4 a.m. to 12 p.m.-which I have witnessed to my mortification-the keeping of little boys starving on the quays on a winter's cold night, to watch the ship's gig while the skipper is at his cups with boon companions in a warm alehouse? There are many harshnesses in the home country that slaves would not stand in the tropics. Then we have the slavery which bad propensities entail on us, such as fornication, open, disgraceful, and of enormous proportions, in all our principal cities; lying, stealing, barefaced mendicancy, maligning, habitual pauperism, etc., etc. Not to look abroad at social sores peculiar to the climate, here is an extensive internal field for efforts of reformation. Between nations and peoples differently circumstanced, socially, politically, and by variation of climate and genius, there will always be a difference of opinion on this subject, and one retorts on the others by exposing their peculiar weaknesses, the intermeddlings by either being respectively called officiousness. But the stronger overcomes the weaker; that is, the sword rules, and might is right. The healing of the sores of tropical nations appears to be a luxury which England can specially afford in this century-so be it; let her do as much good as she can

but an equal quantity of bad will counterbalance this somewhere else. For instance, look at the increased horrors of the slave ships. In the holy warfare against slavery carried into the very heart of Africa by the philanthropic Baker I see, by late accounts, that he shot one-half of an army opposing him.* Happy Baker, to commit such a paradox! Sir James Brooke, with the same benevolent views, on being opposed by people believing in different principles, was equally happy by the squashing of 2000 human beings in one fell swoop! How perverse is nature, that it will not conform to the measures of enthusiasts pursuing a righteous cause!

Taking an outside view of the case of slavery, as handled by the Anglo-Saxon races of Europe and America, we cannot but be struck with the fact that throughout their measures have been selfish, though a philanthropic aspect has been given them by Wilberforce and others. First, in Britain no fault was found with slavery till we lost the slave states of America; and again, America found no fault with slavery till it interfered with the interests of Irish labour and the Roundheads versus Cavaliers, or, in other words, the paramount importance of the New Englanders. Ignorant people, at the same time, blame the white man for creating and perpetuating the institution. Nothing is more absurd than this. Not to quote Scripture in regard to the curse of Ham, let us take the latest accounts of a great antislavist-Sir Samuel Baker. He tells us that a negro will sell ten wives for one cow-so who is to blame for creating and perpetuating slavery but the negro himself ?—and this will always be, and of it adjacent nations which have little circulation within themselves, trade, or national organization, will always avail themselves, it being in accordance with their religious, and suitable to their

* See his letter to Sir R. Murchison.

social, systems. But slavery, in contact with the white man, as I have already shown, has deleterious effects. It has stealthy enmity towards the status and privileges of white women; it disorganizes the internal economy of families that is, it rearranges society on a new basis, and one most repulsive to our English home notions.

To obtain an intelligent idea of the subject under the present heading, we require to understand the habits of the labouring population; and as an article on the Bengal Ryot has opportunely appeared in Blackwood's (February, 1873), written by one apparently well-informed, I cannot do better than quote from the same. The writer says, that the laws of Menu fix the State's interest in the land at one-sixth the produce, but that the Emperor Akbar fixed the same at one-third; the assessment being struck upon an average of the produce. By-and-by, the Government, immersed in war and intrigues, placed the land revenue in the hands of zemindars or "landsmen," as long as they paid the sum required into the Moorshibad Treasury. On the whole, the ryots preferred these zemindars, as they belonged to their own race. All the evidence now available tends to show that when Bengal fell into the hands of the British, the majority of the zemindars were no mere middlemen, but persons possessed of an actual stake in the properties, and whose rights rested rather upon prescription and sufferance than documentary evidence. The permanent settlement of 1793, by which Lord Cornwallis evoked order out of chaos, conferred upon the zemindars a legal title to their lands. It also guaranteed fixity of tenure to the Khud Khasht ryots, whose occupancy dated before 1781. But the fairest estates in Bengal changed hands, lapsing from the old Hindoo aristocracy to Calcutta capitalists.

The quarrels between landlord and ryots, in which


witnesses would be freely suborned by both parties, were generally fostered by native land agents and the underlings of the courts, for the sake of the fees, which flowed in upon them from both sides-the results of which were disastrous and interminable, one order being passed against the landlord one day and rescinded the next, and vice versa.

Then the ryot was constitutionally improvident, never looking further than from hand to mouth, running into debt with the native banniahs, and ultimately becoming their bond slave-all the profits of his industry going to fill his patrons' pockets; he selling his crops at a fixed price and taking the whole in advance, on which he makes merry as long as the money lasts, and soon assigning over the next crop at terms barely sufficient to cover the cost of production. The ryot is thus, by his own improvidence or short-sightedness, reduced to the position of a steward to the money-lender. On arguing with the ryot on these matters, he will tell you that we are all in the hands of God, and straightway go off and hypothecate his next aumon crop. As yet the science of political economy commands no respect among the Indian masses.

The writer adds that the framers of Act 10, who so loudly complained that the permanent settlement had only made useless middlemen of the zemindars, must have been very short-sighted not to see that the permanency of tenure would soon have the same effect upon the ryot, subletting having since been carried out on an extravagant scale in Bengal. Now the landlord, on the one part, only enjoys a small part of the real value of his property, while the actual cultivators, whose holdings are very small, forbidding the introduction of scientific agriculture, are rack-rented.

The estates owned by English landlords, who are

« PreviousContinue »