818 RESTRICTIONS ON THE ALIENATION OF LANDS. 



tural tribes between themselves, I wish to say, how can this be 

 justified ? Our sole justification for interfering with the free 

 right of sale which the Punjabi land-owner has hitherto possessed 

 is that he has proved himself incapable of making proper use of this 

 right, and that he has been unable to resist the temptation of rai- 

 sing money on his land, even to the extent of selling it, for 

 purposes of pure extravagance. If, however, we only go so far as to 

 prevent him from selling his land to the professional money-lender, 

 but still allow him to sell as he pleases to any member of any 

 agricultural tribe, what would be the result ? To my mind it would 

 certainly be this. We should, by thus partially narrowing his 

 market of free sale, depreciate the selling value of his land 

 to some extent, but not sufficiently so to discourage him from selling 

 except in cases of real necessity. He would still be tempted to 

 sell for purposes of extravagance, but whereas formerly, when he 

 wanted to raise (say) one hundred rupees, he could do so by selling 

 a couple of acres, he would now have to sell three. Would this be 

 a fair way of dealing with the small proprietor ? He would certain- 

 ly disappear under such conditions at a more rapid rate than he is 

 disappearing at present. I am not prepared to say whether the 

 accumulation of large landed properties in the Punjab is, from a 

 political point of view, desirable or not ; but I do say most 

 distinctly that it is no part of our scheme to encourage the growth 

 of large properties at the expense of the small proprietor. I 

 repeat that our main object is the preservation, not the extinction 

 of the small proprietor. This then is my objection to keeping 

 the market of free sale as wide as some desire to keep it. If, 

 however, we limit the market, as our scheme contemplates, to the 

 tribe, or, in special cases, to a group of small similar tribes, 

 then I claim that we are really narrowing the opportunities for 

 sale to an extent which will remove the temptation to sell needless- 

 ly, yet will afford a sufficient market in cases of real necessity. 

 As I have said before, it is neither possible nor desirable to pro- 

 hibit sales altogether. The individual must in some cases part with 

 his land, but under our scheme the powerful factor of sentiment 

 comes in, and the land, though lost to the individual, is preserved to 

 the tribe. If, however, in any particular case a man who is compelled 

 by necessity to sell his land is really unable to find a purchaser fof it 

 at a fair price within his tribe, the Bill provides a ready remedy. As 



