644 
THE TROPICAL AGRICULTURIST. 
[January 2, 1882. 
d. Should two or more persons compete, and the 
product or products be such as to meet the general 
requirements of the reward, the Council may, with 
the consent of the Governor, apportion the whole or 
any part of tha premium mentioned in Section 10 of 
this law in such manner as to them may seem fair and 
jusit. 
The amount of premium proposed to he offered in 
this case is £1,000. The example is one that might 
be copied with great advantage in Ceylon ; hut we fear 
there is little chance at this time of the Government 
permitting the planting representative to widen the scope 
of his motion on Wednesday next. That motion has 
reference to " Mining Rights." It is extraordinary that 
the Ceylon authorities should have so long delayed to 
make their regulations known, seeing that the Madras 
rules, which they were supposed to be waiting for, were 
published some time ago. Our • Madras contemporaries 
have criticized unfavourably the local Government rides, 
pointing out that they are far less liberal than those 
drawn up by the Mysore Government. The Mail advoc- 
ates " free trade " in land for mining purposes, and 
supports its argument as follows : — 
The Madras rules first limit the extent of land 
which may be granted, to one and the same applic- 
ant for mining, to 30 acres, in one block or more, 
though they allow land adjoining to be taken up 
for buildings, works, or what not, provided it is not 
used for mining. They next fix the assessment at 
the extremely high figure of .R5 per acre on all land 
taken up, whether for mining or other purposes. 
They then provide that within three months of the 
grant, not less than five coolies per acre of the land 
granted for mining shall be regularly employed. And 
they forbid any assessment or sub-lease, without the 
consent of the Government being previously obtained. 
It is probable that the Government wish to dis- 
courage land being taken up for speculative pur- 
poses, and to prevent large areas getting into the 
hands of the same individuals. If, as in the early 
days of gold in Australia, men took up small 
pieces of land, and worked them themselves, 
washing the soil for gold, and using only the simple 
appliances each individual miner could command, and 
if there were any chance of all the available land 
being so taken up, we could understand the policy 
of limiting the area of mining grauts — only we should 
then say, the limitation did not go far enough, and 
that instead of 30 acres being granted, the grant to 
each should not exceed a few square yards. But there 
is no chance of anythiug of this sort in Inrlii ; the 
climate is against it ; everything is different We 
are beginning where they only arrived in Australia 
after years of work — with quartz-crushing on a large 
scale, which demands the best machinery, and a capital 
so considerable that it is almost a necessity that the 
mines should all be worked by Companies which, 
new that everything conies out in £1 shares, will prob- 
ably have their thousands of members. Now Com- 
panies, as a rule, want a good deal more than 30 acres; 
and if each shareholder had 30 acres it, would have 
to reckon the extent of its property by square miles. 
Though only 30 acres may be given to the same 
applicant, there is nothing, so far as we can see, to 
prevent ten men going in for ten adjoining 30 acres lots, 
and making them over to a Company in one lot of 300 
acres, except, t he rule prohibiting transfers without the 
consent of the Government, which we ihink, could 
never be enforced, and would be practically a dead 
letter. So again a man might apply for ten 3 acres 
lot*, with say 27 acres of land for other purposes 
adjoining, and when ho had sold one of these lots, 
the purchaser could, at once apply for a mining 
grant for other 27 acres, taking up the land for other 
purposes alongside. In fact whether the rule is wise 
or not, it is certain to be evaded. But we deny its 
wisdom altogether. We consider such speculation as 
it is (presumably) intended to prevent perfectly legit- 
imate ; and we look on it as only right and just 
that a man, who by superior skill, energy, or 
even luck, finds himself in the position ol the dis- 
coverer of a valuable formation, in what was supposed to 
be valueless land, should be able substantially to 
profit by the position. Suppose that one of the pioneers 
after the expenditure of much time and trouble, and 
no inconsiderable outlay of money, finds a few square 
miles of auriferous lands ; it is extremely hard that 
he shall only be able to get 30 a«re* of it, and that 
all the rest shall be given to Tom, Dick, or Harry, 
who never spent a rupee in the search, or gave a 
single thought to the subject. 
Then again, lake the assessment. The land wauttd 
for mining will be waste ; and not waste only, but 
in nine cases out of ten, unculturable, or practically 
of no value whatever for any purpose except mining. 
Land as good, or better, can be had lor cultivation 
at rates varying from As. 4 to Rl an acre ; why 
then this heavy assessment which is about the s me 
as that imposed on the best class of irrigated land? 
It may be said that with a paying mine, the assess- 
ment will be a trivial item, and will hardly 
be felt. This we grant. We go further and say, that 
with such a mine, an assessment of R5 an acre 
will, by no means, represent the share of profit which 
the State may fairly expect to derive from the venture. 
But gold mining is at present in its infancy in 
India, and it is pretty certain, that some of the 
mines will come to grief, though others may pay 
handsomely. Take the case of a non-paying mine, 
with 30 acres of mining land, and adjoining land 
taken up alongside to the extent of 1,000 acres— of 
course with the object of eventually applying for 
for further mining giants if the concern is a success. 
This land will be burdened from the start with a 
yearly payment of R5,150, and may never make a 
rupee of profits ! Surely it is unwise to handicap 
enterprize so heavily ! It is not as if Government 
wern giving up land, from which revenue could be 
drawn in any other way ; for as we have already 
pointed out, if not taken up for mining it will 
never pay a rupee to the State in the great majority 
of cases. Again, suppose this Company is making 
a profit of £100 000 a year; would the payment of 
K5, 150 be absurdly inadequate, Why then should 
not land be eiven on a very light asse?smant, say 
■ As 4 or As 8 per acre, and a royalty of, say 5 per 
cent, charged on the nett profits ? Then while the 
prosperous Company would be a source of consider- 
able revenue to the State, the struggling and unsuccess- 
ful one would not be unduly burdened. A royalty 
on nett profits would always be cheerfully paid, for 
the larger the payment to Government, the larger would 
be the profits to shareholders, and under such a rule 
as this, there would be a fair chance that all land 
giving piomise of good results, would be taken up, 
and tried. 
But bad as all this is is the labour clause 
is undoubtedly worse. Not less than five coolies 
per acre are to be regularly employed, that is 
one hundred and fifty coolies on 30 acres— re- 
presenting probably an expenditure of RS00 a 
month. It may be taken as tolerably certain, that 
if it pays to employ five coolies per acre, or double, 
treble, or ten times that number, they will be em- 
ployed, and if it does not pay, we fail to see why 
their employment should be insisted on. And the 
beauty of it is, that Government gain nothing by it. 
Had there been a royalty instead of a fixed assess- 
ment, we could have understood the condition, though 
