154 RELIEF OF INDEBTED AGRICULTURISTS. 



pass, bnt effectually to arrest mutual injuries. The ryot here can never, as a rule, 

 altogether dispense with the seivices of the sowkar ; for the seasons are not so 

 regular nor are the means of irr'gation so extensive as to ensure equability or 

 constancy of production. Again, the land-tax is in most cases fixed, and absorbs a 

 considerable proportion of the produce; and, again, the prices of produce fluctuate, 

 changing the incidence of the tax on the produce from year to year. In other words, 

 while the outturn of the lani is necessarily varying, the ryot has to pay a fixed and 

 considerable tax, which must come from the land. In other words, again, the 

 exchequer has to draw a constant and continuous stream out of a fitful supply. The 

 sou-kar by his interposition meets the mechanical necessity of the problem. He is 

 the receiver of the fitful supply, and enables the ryot to pay the sarkar equably. He 

 often performs another useful function, namely, he enables the ryot also to draw from 

 that fitful supply an equable subsistence for himself and family. It is thus to him 

 that both sarkar and ryot are indebted for equalising to each, their annual receipts 

 from a fluctuating source. He, therefore, fulfils very beneficial duties, and deserves 

 to be conserved as an almost indispensable part of the rural organization. At the 

 same time, we ara bound to see that he does not override the interest of the ryots. 

 Let the Civil Courts enable the soivkar to recover his just claims from the ryots. But 

 the Courts should not permit the sowkar to press the ryots to the point of crushing. 

 This point should be well defined and ever kept in view. No process of the Coi rts 

 should, without the concurrence of the revenue-officers of the sarkar, deprive the 

 ryot of his land, of his agricultural cattle and implements to the extent necessary for 

 the cultivation of that land, of his cottage, and of food and raiment according to the 

 necessity of himself and family. These should bo left to the ryot, and, as a general 

 rule, placed beyond the grasp of the sowkar. It should be understood that the first 

 demand on the produce of the land is that on account of the sarkar tax ; the next is 

 that on account of the subsistence of the ryot and his family ; and the last is that on 

 account of the debt due to the sow^ar. The surplus which may be forthcoming in 

 good seasons after meeting the first two demands may be made available to the 

 soivkar for the recovery of his advances made to or for the ryot in bad seasons. This 

 being understood, the sowkar will easily limit his advances to the prospects of such 

 recurring surplus, and will not go beyond. This principle of adjustment may be 

 expected to work well and to the advantage of all the parties concerned, provided 

 that the land-tax is not so excessive as to trench upon the subsistence of the ryot and 

 the remuneration of the sowkar in an average year. As a rule, the principle is not 

 novel in Native States, and has been long in operation, more or less. Our new Civil 

 Courts should recognize and respect it, and by no means set it aside. After what I 

 have stated, I need hardly say that our Courts should not imprison the ryot on 

 account of debts due to the soickar and consign industrious hands to idleness, unless 

 where the debtor may be fairly presumed to possess the means of payment and to 

 withhold payment from a refractory spirit. 



The Quarterly Review, in an able and interesting sketch of the 

 Deccan published last April, further truly describes the useful 

 functions of the money-lender in relation to both the State and ( 



society : 



The village banker is essential to the social system of the country. At orice the 

 purchaser of rural produce and the local agenb of tie central mercantile firms, alike 



