RELIEF OF INDEBTED AGRICULTURISTS. 165 



But upon this subject not only opinion but precedent are forth- 

 coming. Of the manner in which our Government, a few years ago, 

 deemed it necessary to protect the ryot we have a striking instance 

 in a clause (still unrepealed) of the Bombay Regulation of 1827. It 

 runs thus : 



Clause 2. And iu the case of a cultivator of the soil sued upon a written 

 acknowledgment executed at a place which was not at the time of such execution 

 under British jurisdiction, if the circumstances are such as to convince the Court 

 that the creditor might reasonably be expected to possess other proof of the amount 

 besides such written acknowledgment (the consideration received for the same being 

 contested), then the said writing shall not be held conclusive as to the amount, 

 whether the defendant prove a deficiency in the consideration or not, but the Court 

 shall pass a decree for only such amount as the claimant may otherwise prove to be 

 due. 



The law which preceded it, Regulation 1 of 1823, was even more 

 explicit : 



Section, 36. Whenever a cultivator of the soil is sued upon an acknowledgment 

 in writing executed by him before the territory, where it was executed, came into the 

 possession of the British Government, it shall be competent for him to plead that he 

 did not receive a full consideration for the same, whereupon the plaintiff shall be 

 required to prove his debt in the same manner as if no acknowledgment had been 

 executed ; and such sum only as in the circumstances of the case is just and equit- 

 able shall be allowed in the decree. 



The wisdom of our early legislators in thus dealing with the facts 

 around them was greater than their foresight, which led them to hope 

 that with the planting of the British flag, and the establishment of 

 ' a regular system for administering justice ' the causes would pass 

 away by which 'cultivators were easily induced to grant written 

 obligations for larger sums than were due.' 



What the Bombay Government of SIR RICHAIID TEMPLE have from 

 the first substantially advocated, and what we really need, is 

 something approaching to a restoration of this early la\v, together 

 with power to cut down unreasonable interest. The Court should 

 set itself to do substantial justice in every case which came before 

 it, instead of being satisfied with the letter of a bond, or the bald 

 assertions of either party ; and it should, of its own motion, make 

 such inquiry as it found necessary ho this end. On the one hand, 

 a simple denial of consideration should not throw the burden of proof 

 on the plaintiff, but, on the other, if the circumstances were such 

 that he ought to have clear accounts and evidence, and he failed to pro- 

 duce them voluntarily, or on the Court's requisition, the Court would 



