prietor in perpetuity, at a small rent, as Mr. Mackay proposes? What incentive will then be at hand to induce him to improve his condition, which the liberality of the new system does not at present offer? The doubt thrown out, that Government have a lurking suspicion that the rents demanded under the new Survey are still too high, is unworthy for Mr. Mackay must have known from his enquiries in those districts in which he found the system in operation, that the rent was, in fact, exceedingly light. But it was thought that the general indebtedness of the agricultural population, at the time of the introduction of the Survey, and their improvident habits, might disable them from paying even a very light rent in bad seasons. Again, Mr. Mackay says:-" an objection of considerable gravity "to the details of the new Survey is, that it does not get rid of the ne"cessity of annual inspections"-the objection being, that the Native Officers, on whom the duty devolves, have thereby opportunities of extorting from the ryot, or defrauding the Government. The annual inspections under the old system, no doubt, afforded these opportunities, but they will not exist under the new. The only object of annual inspections now (to use the words of Mr. Mackay,) is "to protect Government from being defrauded by parties throw"ing up fields, and then, whilst they remain unoccupied," (nominally)" making a surreptitious use of them." Considering that to be the object, it is not easy to discover how annual inspections constitute an objection of great gravity to the scheme. It is impossible to avoid them. Those fields only that have been thrown up, are inspected. Those which the cultivators keep on, are not; and what opportunities can there be of extorting money from Rama, the acknowledged cultivator of one field, by taking measures to ascertain that Hurree makes no use of another field which he has nominally thrown up? Mr. Mackay admits that the new tenure has been productive of good, and that it is an improvement, as far as it goes, but he condemns it as a half-measure that fails to confer any proprietory right in the soil on the cultivator. We have pointed out that in England the Crown lands cannot be leased for a longer period than 30 years; and it has yet to be established that there is any peculiarity attaching to Government land in India which renders it desirable to grant a longer term to the Hindoo. Mr. Mackay truly says, that at the end of the 30 years "Government will again find itself in a posi"tion to exact what rent it pleases." But it does not follow, as one might fancy from the last four words of the above sentence being italicized, that the rent will infallibly be raised, or, if raised, be unreasonably increased. We have already noticed, that in all probability it will be lowered in some districts, and that a change of circumstances in others may justly allow of its being raised in the The new Revenue Survey and Assessment. 39 course of a revision of the whole assessment. He has illustrated this, himself, with the greatest success in pp. 312 to 315 of his work, and has there convincingly shewn that a permanent settlement of the land revenue, in such a manner as to bar for ever the way to its readjustment, would be one of the greatest evils that could occur to a country in a transition state. But in truth, our author, whilst ostensibly examining the merits and the demerits of the new tenure, is really engaged in another and very different occupation which alone has his real attention, and which he is elaborately working out under cover of the first. His design plainly is, by accumulating discredit on a system of letting out the Government lands-generally approved of, and not altogether condemned even by himself to gain assent to that favorite theory which he so fondly cherishes, which appears never to be absent from his mind, and to be indeed, the main purpose of his work. He says— "One course was open to the Government, which, however, in all its financial experiments, it seemed studiously to have avoided, viz. a permanent settlement on the basis of a peasant proprietorship." After alluding to the failure of the permanent settlements hitherto, he adds, * * * "The experiment which remains to be tried is that of Government abdicating its proprietory claims in favor not of a few great landlords, but of the actual holders and cultivators of the soil. Such a measure would put the cultivator in his proper relation towards the land. He would be in a position which would enlist his best energies in the cultivation and improvement of his farm. It would further stimulate agricultural improvement and the development of agricultural wealth, by placing the proprietory right in the hands of those who not only could acquit themselves of proprietory duties, but whose interest it would be to do so." There does appear to us to be something singularly visionary and mistaken in these views; and if we analyse them, we shall see how many things are needed to give success to the scheme as propounded. It assumes that the Hindoo ryot, if converted into a peasant proprietor, will at once change his character, and from being slothful, stupid, and prejudiced, become an energetic, intelligent, and provident farmer, industriously devoting himself and his savings to agricultural improvement. It is suggested that the scheme would fail, as the permanent settlements in Bengal and Madras have done, if Government were to abdicate their rights in favor of any other persons than the actual cultivators of the soil. To create a class of landlords over them-more intelligent, better educated, less prejudiced and more wealthy-will not do. This being the plan, it depends for its success on "the proprietorship" in the land remaining with the "peasant" class to whom it is to be made over. Government are to make a large concession of revenue, and to abandon all ownership in the soil to effect one single object, namely, to place the cultivator in his proper position. All depends on his being able to maintain it. Should any untoward circumstances transfer "the proprietorship" to another class of landlords, so as to occasion him to fall back to his former condition of a day laborer, the sacrifice in his favor will have been made in vain. If the peasant should become improvident in his money matters, marry his children expensively, either have his land sold in execution of a decree against him, or be obliged to sell it to the village Banian, this great scheme to regenerate agriculture will shrivel up and die. Now, Mr. Mackay in giving the cost of cultivating cotton in Guzerat, at p. 168 of the work, adds an item for interest on money borrowed, and thus assumes that every ryot is cultivating with borrowed money. This is certainly not true in Guzerat, nor perhaps anywhere else though the general poverty and indebtedness of the agricultural population cannot be denied. In the Southern Mahratta country, where the new tenure under the Revenue Survey was first introduced, many of the holdings, as Mr. Mackay himself tells us, have passed into the hands of traders who have bought them with a view to subletting. He must also be well aware, that many of the cultivators are really but the labourers of the village, Banians, and other money-lenders, with whose capital and agricultural stock they till the soil; and we may safely affirm, that if his scheme were carried into effect, the greater part of the land would very soon pass into the hands of those whom he does not wish to see as landlords. The regeneration of India, nay the improvement even of the Cotton trade, is not to be accomplished by so feeble a panacea. We think that there was great practical wisdom in that part of the scheme of the Revenue Survey which reserved to the tenant the right from year to year of giving up his lease if he deemed it expedient. It was a measure suggested by an intimate knowledge of the state of the agricultural population, and was justly conceived to be the most effective mode of improving their condition, and of opening a way to the gradual rise of a class of farmers from amongst the most provident and intelligent of them. There must in every country be a laboring population able to earn but a bare subsistence, and many holdings under the new tenure will pass into the hands of the money-lenders. These, Government are under no express or implied obligation to renew at the end of the 30 years' lease, and the opportunity will thus, periodically, occur of strengthening and invigorating the agricultural class. The Here, though the subject is far from exhausted, we must conclude our notice of that part of the work which relates to Guzerat. second part, containing the Report on the Southern Mahratta country, we must reserve for a future opportunity. 41 1. 2. ART. II.-THACKERAY'S NOVELS. Vanity Fair, a Novel without a Hero. By WILLIAM MAKE- The History of Pendennis. By WILLIAM MAKEPEACE THAC- 3. The History of Henry Esmond, Esq. a Colonel in the service of Her Majesty Queen Anne. Written by himself. London, 1853. THE art of writing fiction does not seem to preserve the repute which it once had in England. Not that there is any dearth of Novels. London is inundated every Spring with scores of well got up 3 vol. post 8vo. tales, calculated, as one might suppose, to suit every taste. We have naval and military novels, sporting novels, political, fashionable, and even religious novels. There must needs be good natured readers, who can laugh and cry over these productions (at the rate of thirty-one shillings and sixpence each), or we may be sure Mr. Colburn and his brethren would spare their hot pressed paper and irreproachable printing. But, if we may say so without offence, these are not exactly the kind of readers to which "Tom Jones" and "Humphry Clinker" were addressed. Fielding, Smollett, Burney, and Goldsmith, commanded the laughter and the tears of the greatest wits and statesmen of the Empire. Ministers of the King were not ashamed to be found poring over "Cecilia." Dr. Johnson could not put down "Evelina," and he read "Amelia" through without stopping. Lady Mary Wortley Montague, herself the idol of her age, went into raptures over Henry Fielding's great Comedy of Manners: "Tom Jones was not to be surpassed," she said. "Ne plus ultra" Gibbon, from his Olympus, nodded in approbation of the same. Smollett's "Peregrine Pickle" is more of a classic than his continuation of Hume; Goldsmith's "Vicar of Wakefield" than his History of Rome. Scott's Waverley will be read when his Life of Napoleon is forgotten. But how many of our " novels of the season' are ever found on the study table of a scholar or a man of the world? How many will ever find a place on the shelves of a standard library? Does the very best fiction of the year divide with his portfolio the attention of Mr. Gladstone? or allure the Dean of Christ Church from the proof sheets of the "Etymologicon Magnum"? We suppose not; and indeed the gentlemen and ladies who write the tales seem conscious that they are not adding anything very durable or useful to the literature of their country. They acquiesce easily in the notion that novel reading is a waste of time, and take a strange pleasure in showing the worthless fashionable woman of the piece, with her feet upon a sofa, languishing over the last new VOL. I.-NO. I 6 production of their craft the trash to be sure of some other novelist. Sensible people, who encourage their children to read Scott, lay a ban on the equally decorous performances of modern days. And yet Gray likened novel reading to Paradise, and Burke could shed tears over Clarissa Harlowe. It is easy, but as we are persuaded unjust, to sneer at the incapacity of our writers. For the most part they wield their pens with ease if not with grace; they generally have spirit and some power of description. In taste they are far above the best writers of the last century. They are decently well informed, moreover, and can preserve an amount of accuracy in "costume" quite unknown even to the best of our classical novelists. We think on the whole that they are skilful workmen, but that they waste their powers and work on a false plan. In one word, much used of late with an emphatic and almost technical significance, they want "reality." We can illustrate our meaning by the present state of another art. Those of our readers who have had the happiness of living in England during the last twelve years, and who take pleasure in visiting the annual exhibitions of living painters, must needs have had their attention attracted by a class of pictures which do not readily fall under the usual heads of division-poetical, historical, landscape, and still life. The critics elude the difficulty by applying to them the rather unmeaning term of " genre." The painters of these works profess to represent real life and manners, though for the sake of picturesque accessories they mostly relate to a bygone age. Their subjects are drawn from modern history and our classical novels. As the gentlemen who like a large canvass are always finding the body of Harold, toasting cakes with Alfred, and signing the great Charter at Runnymede-these smaller-minded men love to sit at meat with Gil Blas and Sancho Panza; wander in the galleries of Whitehall amidst the lace and periwigs of Charles the Second's court; flirt with the Miss Flamboroughs, or take their chair in the Kitkat Club by the side of my Lord Halifax. They attempt to shew us the living men and women of no long time since, surrounded by the furniture and dressed from the wardrobes" of the period." As far as relates to the furniture and wardrobes, they are perfect. They portray with patient enthusiasm the ebony cabinets, the carved mantelpieces, the brass fire dogs, the quaint China, the Venice glass, the great silver flagons, the tapestry hangings, the picturesque oriels, and high-backed chairs of a former generation. They revel in a skilful portraiture of satin and damask, lace ruffles, voluminous periwigs, broad-skirted velvet coats, silken farthingales, and quilted petticoats. But alas! Hamlet is left out of the play, or rather, all the players are gone away, and their parts are performed by marionettes. exhausted his skill on the still-life of his picture, The artist has and has no energy |