CHAPTER XV
STATE OF INDUSTRIES (1813-1835)
It was thus that the monopoly of the East India Company in the Eastern trade was first abolished, when their Charter was renewed in 1813. Private trade, being once admitted, increased in volume, while the Company’s trade declined. And when the time approached for renewing the Charter once more in 1833, the question arose whether the East India Company’s trade should not be abolished altogether. Public opinion in England was strong in favour of the view that trade between England and India should be left altogether in the hands of private traders without the unfair competition of a Company with territorial possessions in India, and that the duties of traders were not consistent with the duties of the rulers of an empire. This last argument was urged with increasing vehemence by the traders of London and the other large commercial centres of England, who were jealous of the unfair advantages possessed by the Company in India, and who hoped to increase their own trade if the Company could be stopped from carrying on trade at all.
Accordingly the Company’s trade was abolished altogether in 1833, and from that date they stood forth simply as administrators of India, drawing their dividends from the revenues of India.
A great deal of evidence on the trade and industries of India, and all branches of Indian administration, was recorded while the controversy was still going on in 1830, 1831, and 1832. Valuable evidence was given before the Lords’ Committee in 1830. Still more valuable and copious evidence was conveyed in the Commons’ Reports of 1830, of 1830–31, and of 1831. Fresh evidence was given before the Commons’ Committee of 1832, and was published in six ponderous volumes, containing well-nigh six thousand folio pages. ${^1}$
The portions of all this voluminous evidence which relate to trade and industries are somewhat onesided. The Lords and Commons inquired into the state of the industries carried on by British capital, or which might give employment to British capital; the industries of the people of India, and the wages and profits of the artisans of India, did not interest them much. They inquired if the abolition of the Company’s trade would increase the volume of British trade with India, and would benefit the private traders and manufacturers of England; the state of the internal trade of India, carried on by the people of that country, did not much attract their attention. To foster the indigenous trade and industries of the people of India was not the object of the inquiries made either in 1813 or in 1832, nor has this object been even seriously and steadily pursued during the seventy years which have elapsed since.
Nevertheless, we get a great deal of information from the evidence recorded, such as it is. And it will be our endeavour to condense this voluminous evidence in an intelligible form within the brief limits of this chapter.
COTTON.
Indian cotton was shorter stapled than the American, had more dirt, and there was more waste in the manufacture. It was generally used in making coarse goods, or mixed with wool in woollen fabrics. Surat cotton was considered the best, and the Dacca muslin, made in Bengal, was not equalled in England. A good quality of cotton was successfully grown in Tinnevelly from seed imported from the Isle of France. Long-stapled cotton was scarcely grown in India except near the sea, and was not required by the people for their own manufactures. All the cotton was spun by hand in India.
The exportation of the Indian cotton had fallen off from the competition of the American market. The cotton of the East India Company’s dominions was the worst that came to the British market. Between the cleaned Bombay cottons and the American upland cottons there was a difference in value of 10 to 15 per cent. The Surat cotton was generally applicable only to the coarser manufactures of England, and was also mixed in spinning the finer cottons. Attempts to improve the cotton in India had not succeeded; in some of the experiments the cotton deteriorated, in others the seeds did not come up well. Cotton was grown by the people of India, was brought to Bombay, and was purchased by Europeans. No lands producing cottons were in the hands of Europeans, and they had no share in the culture of it. The machine for cleaning cotton in India was a small hand-gin or wooden cylindrical machine, used from times immemorial. It cost 6d., was turned by hand, required no strength, and cleaned the cotton rudely. The East India Company’s Investment of cotton was procured by their Commercial Residents principally from Tinnevelly. In 1823 the Investment was 8000 bales of 250 lbs., and was sent to China. Bengal was unfit for the cultivation of cotton by Europeans, but a fine variety was grown by the people near Dacca. The best Indian cotton was grown in Gujrat and Cutch. Indian cotton was first imported into England in 1790, and American cotton in 1791. The total export of cotton from India in 1827 was 68 million lbs., valued at one million sterling. The total import of American cotton into England was 294 million lbs. A cotton mill had been started in Calcutta for spinning yarn. ¹
The Company exported cotton largely from Bengal and Bombay, and they did so from Madras till the factories were abolished. Cotton was conveyed from the interior to Calcutta in boats without sufficient protection from the weather, lying on board four or five months; it was then put into cotton screws, with a quantity of seeds screwed into it, and in a state of dampness and mouldiness it was shipped for England. It was impossible that the finest cotton could under such treatment arrive in England in a better state than Bengal cottons did. ²
SILK.
The silkworm was principally confined to Bengal; it would not flourish in Northern India, and the soil of Bombay was not suited to the mulberry. The Company’s Investment for England was provided by the agency of their Commercial Residents, who obtained it from the men who reared the cocoons, to whom advances were made. The Company had about twelve Residencies and extensive manufactories, but did not carry on the manufacture beyond reeling. In a few manufactories piece-goods were manufactured from “Putney silk.” The manufacture of finer silks had much diminished, and English silks were imported to a considerable extent. Several European residents had factories, but not so large as the Company’s, and the Company commanded the market. The defect of the Indian silk was its want of staple and want of cleanliness. The best Indian silk nearly sold as high as the best Italian silk, but the greater part of the Indian silk was inferior. The trade was in the hands of the Company, which could not exercise the strict superintendence required for production of fine quality. Very little Indian silk was sold for exportation; China silk would be preferred.¹
There were three kinds of mulberry grown in India, — the white mulberry cultivated in Europe, the dark purple mulberry cultivated in China, and the Indian mulberry. There were two kinds of worm — the country worm, and the annual worm brought from Italy or China and producing a finer silk. The cultivation of the mulberry and the production of the cocoons were left to the people, the Company making advances to them, and settling the price after the delivery of the silk or the cocoons. The Company had eleven or twelve filatures in Bengal, the machinery being on the Italian principle and very simple. The Company’s Residents were paid by a commission of 2½ per cent. on the quantity supplied, and were also allowed to purchase on their own account. They were not good judges of silk. The raw silk of Bengal had deteriorated in quality, but the quantity exported had increased owing to the opening of trade and a decrease in the duties. The shipments of raw silk to England between 1823 and 1828 had increased 35½ per cent., while the Company’s Investments had increased only 17½ per cent.²
Mulberry and castor-oil plants were applied in Bengal for the feeding of silkworms. The mulberry trees were planted in rows about six or eight inches apart, and were three feet high. The extreme rapidity of the produce was what the people aimed at, which would give them an immediate return; but the return would be greater if the method pursued in the south of Europe were adopted. Leaves were first picked about four months after the trees were planted; afterwards there was a crop every eight or ten weeks; in the first year there were four crops, in the second six. One-third of an English acre would feed 1000 worms a day. The difference in the silk depended on the season in which it was spun: the best season was the November Bund, in which the cocoons were finished spinning early in December; the worst was the rainy season. The country worms hatched four times a year, the annual only once. The Company’s Residents made advances through middlemen called Pykars, and received cocoons through them in their factories, where they were reeled by native workmen hired and paid by the factory. There were twelve Residencies; the Residents fixed the price after delivery, subject to the confirmation of the Board of Trade. The Residents were hardly such persons as a manufacturer would select to superintend his establishment. There was a steady rise in the produce of the raw silk from 1815 to 1830, and the Company increased its quantity. The Company also introduced into India the Italian method of winding. The trade was perfectly free, and persons had gone from England and built filatures, but had not succeeded; they could not compete with the Company. Italian silk was good, French silk was good, Bengal silk was also as much in demand as any other, but was not so strong as the silk of Italy, France, or Turkey. It was also coarser in quality than the Italian silk, because the people looked to the quantity rather than to the quality, and did not bestow the same care in reeling as in Italy or France. Hence the Bengal silk was more foul and uneven and “endy,” having many breaks in it.¹
The reader will perceive from the foregoing digest of evidence the change which had been effected during seventy years of the Company’s rule in Bengal in the cotton and silk industries. Production by independent Indian manufacturers had been discouraged, sometimes by positive prohibition, later on by the influence of the Company’s Residents. The weaving of fabrics had been largely discontinued. Men who had worked on their own capital, produced commodities in their own homes and villages, and obtained their own profits, were now dependent on the Company’s Residents, who supplied them with raw cotton and raw silk, and received prices which the Residents settled. They had lost their industrial and economic independence with their political independence, and obtained wages and prices for what they were told to produce. Thousands of them looked up to the Company’s factory for employment, having ceased to be independent producers for the world’s markets. The factories demanded raw produce; the people of India provided the raw produce; forgot their ancient manufacturing skill; lost the profits of manufacture. The public in England marked the increase of trade between Europe and India—the increase in the import of raw produce and the export of manufactured articles—and argued increasing prosperity in India. The Lords and Commons inquired whether this increasing trade should be in the hands of the East India Company or in the hands of private traders. None cared to inquire if this increase in exchange meant the extinction of Indian industries and the loss of industrial profits to India. None desired to inquire if it was possible to revive the weaving industry of India for the economic welfare of the people.
FOOD GRAINS.
A great deal of misconception has always existed in England about the ignorance and the careless cultivation of the Indian cultivators; but those Englishmen who have taken the trouble to study agriculture have endeavoured to dispel this unjust and untrue idea. Dr. Wallick, who was Superintendent of the East India Company’s Botanical Garden at Calcutta, gave his evidence on this subject on the 13th August 1832 before the Commons’ Committee.
“The husbandry of Bengal has in a great measure been misunderstood by the Europeans out of India. The Bengal husbandry, although in many respects extremely simple and primeval in its mode and form, yet is not quite so low as people generally suppose it to be, and I have often found that very sudden innovations in them have never led to any good results. I have known, for instance, European iron ploughs introduced into Bengal with a view of superseding the extremely tedious and superficial turning of the ground by a common Bengal plough. But what has been the result? That the soil which is extremely superficial, as I took the liberty of mentioning before, which was intended to be torn up, has generally received the admixture of the under soil, which has deteriorated it very much.”
Asked if the Indian husbandry was susceptible of any great improvement, Dr. Wallick replied: “Certainly, but not to so great an extent as is generally imagined; for instance, the rice cultivation. I should think, if we were to live for another thousand years, we should hardly see any improvement in that branch of cultivation.”¹
The export of rice from Bengal in the husk increased to 1000 tons shortly before 1830, principally owing to the invention of machinery for freeing it from the husk after its arrival in England. Formerly it used to go husked, with a great deal of dirt and much broken in the grain. After the invention, it went in the husk, and was cleaned in England, and looked as fresh and bright as the American rice. If it could be cleaned in India as it was cleaned in Carolina it would be exported in larger quantities; for in the husk it paid double freight, as it occupied double the space.
INDIGO.
Somewhat contradictory evidence was given, as might be expected, as regards the condition of the cultivators under European indigo planters. Ramsay asserted that the condition of Ryots, who laboured for European planters, was worse than that of other Ryots; that European planters compelled them to sow a larger portion of their land with indigo than they would otherwise have done; that European planters interfered with the tiller’s right to cultivate his land as he liked. Other witnesses contradicted him; but those who remember the state of things in Bengal down to 1860 are aware that the evils complained of by Ramsay prevailed in Bengal for a long period.
European planters made advances to cultivators who agreed to deliver so much weed at certain prices. If the planter was oppressive, “the Ryot had no other remedy against oppression than an appeal to the Courts where he has very little chance of having his appeal heard. Oppression is principally exercised in the lower parts of Bengal where a number of Europeans and half castes are settled.”
Some Indian planters had considerable factories, but the indigo was not as good as that manufactured by Europeans. The manufacture of indigo by Indian planters was increasing. There were between five hundred and one thousand Europeans engaged as indigo manufacturers; they generally did not bring any capital from Europe, but borrowed it at Calcutta from Indians or from the Company’s European servants or from Agency houses, and then started factories. There was no instance known of a man of capital going out to India to establish an indigo plantation.1
The importation of indigo from India commenced about 1790, and had so greatly increased in forty years as to supersede all other indigos. The cultivation was carried on from Dacca to Delhi, and the exportation was nine million lbs. The amount annually paid for rent and labour by British planters was £1,680,000; the commodity on its arrival at Calcutta was valued at £2,403,000, and realised in England £3,600,000. There were 300 or 400 factories in Bengal, chiefly in Jessor, Krishnaghar, and Tirhoot. The best soils were those subject to inundation from the Ganges. Some indigo was grown in Madras and in Bombay. Generally speaking, planters borrowed their capital from great firms in Calcutta at an interest of 10 or 12 per cent. on a mortgage of their properties. The interest was high because there was considerable risk. Indian planters had begun to imitate the European process of manufacture. The manufacture and export were certainly not begun by Europeans, for indigo as a colour had been long known and used in the East, and manufactured and exported by the natives of India.¹
The old Indian way of manufacturing indigo was imperfect; the East India Company advanced money to European planters for the production of the article, and began making large remittances to England in indigo in 1819. What caused the great and sudden prosperity of the indigo trade in Bengal was the destruction of St. Domingo, which had supplied nearly all the world with indigo previous to the French Revolution, and did not produce a single pound after the rebellion of the black population. The indigo factories were all destroyed during that rebellion.²
SUGAR.
Sugar was cultivated in various parts of the Deccan. It required irrigation. The Indian mode of manufacture was very simple, and their machinery imperfect; there was great room for improvement. The cultivation of sugar was perfectly free, like that of cotton and indigo. West Indian machinery was introduced, but did not extract so much from the cane as the simple Indian machinery, and the speculator was a loser. Two Europeans entered into speculations in Malabar, and both abandoned the project. An attempt was made to introduce the culture of sugar at Ganjam from 1796 to 1803, but the result was unsatisfactory.¹
Europeans did not engage in the culture and manufacture of sugar in the same manner as they did in the manufacture of indigo; they simply purchased it in the Bazars or from cultivators to whom advances were made. The machinery used in India was inferior to that of the West Indies, and there were no large sugar plantations in India. The Indian sugar was inferior to the West Indian sugar. In Bengal the sugarcane was as good as in the West Indies, and some superior sugar had been manufactured after undergoing a special process, but at a cost too high to make it profitable. Bengal sugar was subjected to a duty of 120 per cent. on the gross price, which was equivalent to a duty of 200 per cent. on the prime cost.²
The land fit for sugar was abundant in India, but the manufacture was ill-conducted. A more judicious selection of cane, and a more economical extraction and conversion of the juice into sugar, would increase the demand. The Company had a factory at Benares with agents to go about the country and buy sugar from the petty manufacturers; but orders had recently been issued to discontinue the import of sugar.³
TOBACCO.
Indian tobacco was not worth one-third of the American tobacco, owing to the want of skill in the grower and preparer. More attention should be paid to the selection of seed, the choice of soil, to weeding, reaping, preparing, and packing. India could not compete with America, but Indian tobacco might have an extensive demand if skill and capital were applied to it.¹
Europeans did not engage in dealings in tobacco, and were not permitted to engage in the inland trade. Tobacco was extensively cultivated in the Northern districts of Bombay, and was of a very fine quality there. One bale imported into England sold higher than any American—it sold at 6d. when the latter was 5d.—but the average of an experimental exportation was found to be defective in the curing. The importations to England from Bengal and Bombay had been failures. The tobacco lands of Gujrat were the cleanest and best farmed, and tobacco was the most valuable product at Coimbatur in Madras."
Tobacco had no Indian name, showing that it was not an indigenous produce of India, but it had been grown there from time immemorial. It was one of the smaller cultivations of India, and was only produced for domestic use. It was used in India mixed with molasses, spices, and fruits. On very rich land the produce was 160 lbs. the acre, but on average lands 80 lbs. would be considered a fair return in green leaf. Generally, Indian tobacco was bad, but very probably could be improved. The tobacco of the Northern Circars, converted into snuff at Masulipatam, was much prized in England. Some excellent Havanah tobacco was produced at Bhagalpur in Bengal.³
DYES AND SALTPETRE, COFFEE AND TEA.
Lac-dye was imported to England in considerable quantities. Stick-lac was the gum, with the insect or its egg in it, from which the dye was made. The dyeing particles were separated and made the dye, while the gum made the shellac. Lacdye was used in the dyeing of scarlet cloths, but was not adopted for the finest dyes. The lac was used as a varnish.
The cochineal insect was collected in the southern provinces of Madras, and was coarse and inferior compared to that of Mexico. The price of cochineal had fallen one-fourth since 1820, the fall being caused probably by the lacdye. No cochineal was imported from Bengal.^1
The import of saltpetre by the East India Company into England was 146,000 cwt. in 1814, but in 1832 it was only 37,300 cwt. Since the private traders began to import it, it fell to so low a price that it was bought as manure. In 1814 the price was 89s. 6d. per cwt., in 1832 it was only 37s. The import was profitable to the Company before 1814; since then it had become unprofitable.^2
Coffee was extensively cultivated only since 1823. The Government then allowed coffee planters to engage in the cultivation, permitting them to hold lands for a long series of years, a concession not made to any other description of European planters. In Bengal, 4000 acres had been laid out in coffee. The Bangalore coffee was very good, though not so good as that of Mocha, and the cultivation was spreading. The attempt to cultivate coffee in Arcot failed, and cocoa plantations in Ganjam were failures. In Bengal the sun was too powerful for coffee. The cultivation of coffee did remarkably well at Coimbatur.^3
The cultivation of tea had not yet been introduced in India, but Dr. Wallick, whose evidence in reference to rice cultivation has been quoted before, submitted a valuable paper on the possibility of introducing the cultivation of tea in the mountainous parts of Hindustān. Some extracts are given below.
“By far the most important cultivation of the plant is carried on in the provinces of the Chinese Empire, situated between the 27th and 30th parallels of north latitude, where the black teas are almost entirely produced; but it is also reared in vast quantities to the south, nearly as far as the seashore of Canton. . . .
“At Penang the late Mr. Brown, misled by the unconnected fact that the shrub stood well the climate of the island, conceived the project of cultivating it. . . . Upon the whole the plants grew remarkably well; but when the period arrived to reap the harvest of all the labour, time, and expense that had been incurred, the quality of the produce was found of a very inferior description. . . .
“In Java similar trials, made under very similar circumstances, have proved equally fruitless, and have, in consequence, been given up. I am informed that no better success has attended some experiments which were made many years since by the Dutch Government in the southern parts of Ceylon.
“About twenty years ago the cultivation of the tea plant was commenced on a large scale at Rio Janeiro. . . . The produce proved to be so bad in its flavour that the plantation has of late been nearly relinquished.
“I have had an opportunity of examining a sample of tea produced in the Brazils. . . . The taste of the infusion was exceedingly bad. . . .
“There exist territories within the British dominions in the East Indies agreeing so perfectly with those of the tea provinces, that no doubt can be entertained of their being capable of producing tea equal to the best kinds ever obtained in China. . . The provinces of Kumaon, Gurwal, and Sirmore contain situations corresponding entirely with what we know of those of China and Japan, in which the cultivation of the tea shrub is carried on to the greatest extent and perfection. . .
“I have already had occasion to observe that a species of camellia grows wild in Nepal, and in publishing an account of it in 1818, I noticed that a tea shrub was thriving vigorously in a garden at Katmandu, 10 feet in height, and producing plentiful flowers and fruits during the last four months of the year. During my visit to that capital some years afterwards I saw the shrub, and I ascertained that the seeds of it had been brought from Pekin by the return of one of the triennial embassies which are sent to China by the Gurkha Government.
“If we take all these concurring circumstances into due consideration, we may surely entertain sanguine hopes that, under a well directed management, the tea plant may, at no distant period, be an object of extensive cultivation in the Honourable East India Company’s dominions, and that we shall not long continue dependent on the will and caprice of a despotic nation for the supply of one of the greatest comforts and luxuries of civilised life.“¹
Dr. Wallick’s letter is dated 3rd February 1832, and we may in fairness consider him one of the pioneers of the tea industry in India—next after the unknown Gurkha ambassadors who introduced it in Nepal.
GOLD, IRON, AND COPPER.
Gold had been found in the Nilgiris and was collected of a pure kind, and in some quantity in the district of Wynaad, immediately below the mountains. Iron ore was abundant in most parts of India. At Ramnad it was sold at a higher price than British or Swedish iron, and was more pliable, but there was a great waste in working it. The native manufactured iron was inferior to the English owing to inferiority in the mode of manufacture. In the neighbourhood of Burdwan, in Bengal, there was some fine iron ore, but the better kind was found on the Madras coast. It could not be easily converted into steel, but when made, the steel was remarkably good. Mr. Heath had established an iron-foundry near Madras, and had established European machinery, and had the exclusive privilege of manufacture till the end of the Charter. The iron was very superior to any other Indian iron, or even to Swedish. Iron ore was found in great abundance on the frontier of Malabar, and was remarkably cheap at Coimbatur. The iron of Cutch was particularly fine; it was found principally on the surface, and was collected in baskets and burnt in charcoal. The finest steel in India was made in Cutch, and was fabricated into armour, sabres, &c. Copper had been found in the North-Western Provinces of India.¹
COAL AND TIMBER.
There were large coal mines in the Burdwan District of Bengal, worked in 1832 to the extent of 14,000 or 15,000 tons annually. The workings of the mines first began about 1814, but extensive operations began about 1825. The seam was 9 feet deep, and about 90 feet from the surface, and two or three thousand people were employed, receiving 6s. or 8s. a month. The coal was principally used for steam engines, and was sent to Singapore for that purpose, and was also used for the burning of bricks. Coal had also been found in Bundelkhand, and was found in abundance in Cutch. 1
Cutch coal had not been found good for steam engines, and at Bombay English coal had been found cheaper. The Burdwan coal was the best in India, and none other was used in Calcutta. The price was 10 Annas (1s. 3d.) per bushel. It did not cake, but burnt to a white ash. It was not so good as English coal for the manufacture of iron. The best English coal was to the best Bengal coal in the proportion of 5 to 3 in regard to strength.
Indian forests contained every description of timber in the world, or a substitute for it. The principal kinds were Saigoon, Sal, Sisoo, Toon, Jarool, and Mango. Sal was used for ship and house-building, and for military purposes. Owing to bad and extravagant management there had been a falling off in Sal, Sisoo, and Bamboo. There was an abundance of pine and oak. The timber of India might become an article of foreign trade. 2
OPIUM AND SALT.
In these articles the East India Company retained their monopoly as the India Government does to the present day, and they were an important source of revenue.
“The manufacture of opium and salt,” said Holt Mackenzie, who was one of the principal witnesses examined by the Commons’ Committee in 1832, “is conducted with a view to revenue, not trade. My opinion is that, of the suggested changes with regard to those articles, there is none that would not involve a large loss of revenue. In the salt department I do not think we could, by means of an excise, collect the same amount of net revenue as is yielded by the public sales….
“From that source also [opium] they derive a very large revenue, the excess of the sale prices beyond the first cost constituting such a tax as I would think it hopeless to get by any other device; and though, commercially speaking, there are strong objections to the system, yet we must set against that the necessity of the revenue; and my belief is, that the same amount of revenue cannot be otherwise got.“1
SUMMARY.
It will appear from the above summary that the evidence recorded between 1830 and 1832 by the Lords’ and Commons’ Committees contains the most valuable account that we possess of the industries of India at that time; as the records of Dr. Francis Buchanan contain the most valuable account of the state of industries between 1800 and 1815. Nevertheless the Parliamentary records are an incomplete account, as compared with Dr. Buchanan’s. The Lords and Commons limited their inquiries to those industries in which British capital had been employed, or could be profitably employed. The humbler industries, which gave occupation to the people of India—like bricklaying and building, stone-cutting and carpentry, boat-building and furniture, brass, iron, and copper utensils, gold and silver work, dyeing and tanning, and the declining spinning and weaving industries of India—did not interest them much.
The evidence recorded discloses that in purely agricultural pursuits England had little to teach; but in cleaning and husking the food grains, in spinning and weaving, in the manufacture of indigo, tobacco, and sugar, in the growing of coffee and tea, in the forging of iron, in coal-mining and gold-mining, in all industries which were dependent on machinery, Europe had adopted more perfect methods than India in 1830. It is possible to conceive that a Government, working with an eye to the advancement of the national industries, might have introduced these superior methods among the industrious and skilful people of India, as they have been introduced among the people of Japan within our generation. But it was hardly possible that foreign merchants and rival manufacturers, working for their own profit, should have this object in view, and the endeavour was never made. A policy the reverse of this was pursued with the object of replacing the manufactures of India, as far as possible, by British manufactures. Writing five years after the date of the Parliamentary Inquiry of 1832, Montgomery Martin described and condemned the commercial policy of the time in the severest terms.
" Since this official report [Dr. Buchanan’s economic inquiries in Northern India] was made to Government, have any effective steps been taken in England or in India to benefit the sufferers by our rapacity and selfishness? None! On the contrary, we have done everything possible to impoverish still further the miserable beings subject to the cruel selfishness of English commerce. The pages before the reader prove the number of people in the surveyed districts dependent for their chief support on their skill in weaving cotton, &c. Under the pretence of Free Trade, England has compelled the Hindus to receive the products of the steam-looms of Lancashire, Yorkshire, Glasgow, &c., at mere nominal duties; while the hand-wrought manufactures of Bengal and Behar, beautiful in fabric and durable in wear, have had heavy and almost prohibitive duties imposed on their importation to England.“¹
“In that part of India,” the Commons’ Committee asked the witness, Holt Mackenzie, “where the greatest number of British residents are found, has there been any increase among the natives in the indulgence of English tastes, fashions, and habits?”
“Judging from Calcutta,” replied Holt Mackenzie, “there has been, I think, a marked tendency among the natives to indulge in English luxuries; they have well-furnished houses, many wear watches, they are fond of carriages, and are understood to drink wines.”
A smile of grim satisfaction must have overspread the faces of the grave and reverend Commoners of England on obtaining this significant evidence of the spread of Western civilisation in India!
Footnotes
${^1}$ The six volumes are : (1) Public, (2) Finance and Trade, (3) Revenue, (4) Judicial, (5) Military, (6) Political.
¹ Evidence before the Lords’ Committee, 1830. Digest.
¹ Evidence before the Commons’ Committee, 1832. Digest.
¹ Evidence before the Commons’ Committee, 1832, vol. ii, Part I., p. 195. This is the opinion of all experts down to the present day. In 1889 Dr. Voelcker, Consulting Chemist to the Royal Agricultural Society of England, was deputed to India to make inquiries and suggest improvements, in respect of Indian agriculture. And he wrote: “On one point there can be no question, viz that the ideas generally entertained in England, and often given expression to even in India, that Indian agriculture is, as a whole, primitive and backward, and that little has been done to try and remedy it, are altogether erroneous. . . . At his best the Indian Ryot, or cultivator, is quite as good as, and in some respects the superior of, the average British farmer; whilst at his worst, it can only be said that this state is brought about largely by an absence of facilities for improvement which is probably unequalled in any other country, and that the Ryot will struggle on patiently and uncomplainingly in the face of difficulties in a way that no one else would.
“Nor need our British farmers be surprised at what I say, for it must be remembered that the natives of India were cultivators of wheat centuries before we in England were. It is not likely, therefore, that their practice should be capable of much improvement. What does, however, prevent them from growing larger crops is the limited facilities to which they have access, such as the supply of water and manure. But, to take the ordinary acts of husbandry, nowhere would one find better instances of keeping land scrupulously clean from weeds, of ingenuity in device of water-raising appliances, of knowledge of soils and their capabilities, as well as the exact time to sow and to reap, as one would in Indian agriculture, and this not at its best alone, but at its ordinary level. It is wonderful, too, how much is known of rotation, the system of mixed crops and of fallowing. Certain it is that I, at least, have never seen a more perfect picture of careful cultivation, combined with hard labour, perseverance, and fertility of resource, than I have seen in many of the halting-places in my tour.”—Report on the Improvement of Indian Agriculture.
¹ Evidence before the Lords’ Committee, 1830. Digest.
² Evidence given in the Commons’ Reports of 1830, 1830-31, and 1831. Digest.
³ Evidence before the Commons’ Committee, 1832. Digest.
^1 Evidence in the Commons’ Reports of 1830, 1830-31, and 1831. Digest.
^2 Evidence before the Commons’ Committee, 1832. Digest.
^3 Evidence before the Lords’ Committee, 1830; in the Commons’ Reports of 1830, 1830-31, and 1831; and before the Commons’ Committee, 1832. Digest.
¹ Evidence in the Commons’ Reports of 1830, 1830-31, and 1831. Digest.
1 Evidence before the Commons’ Committee, 1832, Part I, p. 26.
¹ Eastern India, by Montgomery Martin (London, 1838), vol. iii. Introduction.