diately. ." The Moslems are defeated, but a Gohil Rājā of Sihūr (near Bhāonagar) threatens opposition. Then the landholders began to say to the Mahratha commander (named Kantāji), "You are our lords; to you every village will pay a tribute (salāmi) ... but if you subdue Rājā Bhāwo you will obtain a reward at Sattāra. Bhāwo caused us much annoyance . . . in many places he has seized forts." Kantāji then sends a Brahman with a peremptory message to the Rājā. "Give up Sihür or the oath of Sambu (Sivā) to you."* The Rājā would not listen. "Show me your back," he said to the Brahman, "lest I incur the sin of slaying you." Then follows the usual description of an attack; rockets (kokbān) fly and swivel guns are discharged; the fort remains untaken. The (Mahratha) Diwan said, “ Why are you vexing yourselves? Little is left either of our ammunition or our army. Listen to my advice," etc. The Mahrathas raise the siege, but Kantāji dies on the return journey, "he did not go to his Rājā; he went to the house of Yamā." Another year came round, and the Sahū (Mahratha King) summoned his chiefs (Rāwat). "Have Kantāji and Pīlājī been defeated," he asks, “that they have not returned?" The Rāwats answered, "He who goes to Java may perhaps return and bring back as much wealth as may support his children's children; but he who goes to fight with Rājā Bhāwo never returns."

Sometimes the Mahrathas find their opportunity in the dissensions of the Hindus. Abhé Singh, chief of Dantā, is at feud with his neighbours and with his own vassals (pattāwat), and he calls in Mahratha aid. Payment of "chauth" is promised, and for a time all goes well. But the Mahrātha leader soon begins to build a fort, and in so doing a quarrel arises about seizing some bamboos. "Then the eyes of the Rajputs were split . . . when the Mahratha soldiers began jabbering their ikram-tikram, ordering people here and there."†

Whenever the Gaikwär got hold of villages for his own, he did not openly. raise the revenue previously established, but added “cesses” (bābtī) and especially a levy which was called "ghas-dāna," literally grass and grain for the chief's horses.

But though there was not much ostensible alteration of the Rajput chief's estates (except what the Barodā Gaikwār seized as his own) the continual fighting and the pressure of Moslem and Mahratha forces, as well as internal feuds and quarrels, impoverished the country and must have dismembered many large estates into a number of smaller properties. Speaking of the Jhālāwār country, Col. Walker (at the beginning of the century) reported that "the cultivator went armed to the scene of his labours, and in every village a tall tree or other elevated situation-the Gazetteer tells of stone towers also-was employed as a watch-tower from which a sentinel gave instant notice of the approach of the much-dreaded predatory horse." In Kathiawār there were found to be many Rajput landlords, and a few communities of Mussulmans and some Kathi. The village system was so broken down by the dominance of petty lordships that the writer of the Gazetteer doubts whether it ever existed.‡

*

Rāsmāla, p. 417. This is a form of saying that there must be submission or a combat à l'outrance.

+ This shows that whatever the feelings of the agricultural population, the Rājput chiefs and followers hated the Mahrathas. The allusion is to the Mahratha dialect, which abounds in alliterative reduplications.

Bo. Gaz. viii., p. 3, but cf. p. 171. It is quite clear that every village has a patel and staff of artisans. But all villages are under some overlord, either the principal chief, or some grantee, who if resident substituted his own managing authority for that of the original system.

It is curious to notice that history here repeats itself as elsewhere, and we have instances of the "commendation" by which a weaker landowner puts his estate under the protection of a stronger neighbour (ending in absorption). The principal estate holder is called "grasiya," and the one who commends his land is the "mül-grasiya." Among the local chiefs partition seems to have become universal, and every member of the "bhāiad" or clan had his share of land-called "kapal-grās " (skullshare), as if the right to it was written on a son's skull at his birth.

Such was the state of confusion, of subdivision, and of partial loss of lands, which resulted from the Moslem and Mahratha conquests. Uncertainty of title and a great multiplication of petty estates all assuming independence, were the necessary fruits of such disorder. It may be mentioned at once, that in 1807 Col. Walker (Resident at the Court of Baroda) was deputed to settle the various claims to possession, as well as to fix the tribute that each estate was to pay to Baroda, or the British Crown, as the case might be. It was wisely determined that actual possession was the only practicable basis of settlement under such a condition of things. It was not however till 1822 that regular Political control was assumed; and not till 1873 that a Court of Assessors, called the Rājāsthānik (Landlords' Court) was established, as a final resort. Up to 1882 it had done a good work in settling rights both of the overlords and of the subordinate landowners.

THE POLITICAL AGENCIES AND THEIR CHIEFSHIPS.

As the remainder of our survey of landlord tenures will principally be confined to the British districts (Ahmadābād, Kaira, etc., Bharoch and Sūrāt) this will be a convenient opportunity briefly to review the condition of the "Political Estates "-those of chiefs and chiefs' families, which are outside British territory and not subject to the British land-revenue law, but under the control of the Political Agencies. I pass by entirely the independent state of Baroda; and of the State of Kacch I will only mention that the country was gradually appropriated by the "Jam" chiefs of the Jhareja tribe from Sindh, who are "Yadava" by descent. In 1537 the whole dominion was divided between two chiefs; internal troubles drove one of the two branches, somewhat later, to establish themselves in Kathiawar, where we find that the states of Gondal, Morvi, Dhrol (and others, are held by Jhareja chiefs. And this brings us to the Political Agency of KATHIĀWĀR.

Though the Mahrathas gave the peninsula of Sorath this name, it was from the trouble they had with the Kathi immigrants rather than from the number or rank of the tribe. Käthis only numbered about 30,000 (in 1881). The divisions (prānt) are Sorath, Hālār, Gohilwāṛ, and Jhālāwāṛ.

JHALAWAR contains estates of Jhālā chiefs (Dhrangadrā and others), of Jhanjuwara and (mixed caste) Rajput-Kolis. There is also (on the shores of the Ran) a Mussulman colony under chiefs called the "Maliks" or Talukdārs of Bajāna.

HĀLĀR takes its name from the local conquest of a Jharejā "Jām” named Hālā. The ancient estate of Okhamaṇḍal now belongs to Baroda.

SORATH.-The Moslem conquest left its mark in the overthrow of the ancient state of Junagarh, and the conversion of the subdued Rāv to the Mussulman faith, when he became "Nawab." The Kodinar portion was annexed by Baroda, and the island of Diū—once so celebrated in Gohil history-fell to the Portuguese.

GOHILWAR.—This tract is still largely held by chiefs of the Gohil clan, but the Gogha subdivision has come under British rule, and Dāmnagar (from the Lathi chiefship) was transferred to Baroda. It is curious to notice here one or two instances (and they are rare) in which "desais" or land-officials (of the Kunbi or agricultural caste) have become landlords; it would not have happened but that the districts were somewhat distant from the sphere of direct Mahratha control. The estates are Paṭdi, Vasawad, etc.

Putting aside the British and Baroda possessions, the whole Agency contains 193 estates of local chiefs and land-owners. The "proprietors " vary from being lords of important estates like that of the Jam of Naunagar to being "the holders of a fraction of a village, little more than a peasant, who is often hard pressed to furnish his share of the tribute."*

I am not concerned with the political status or the amount of governing power that each state possesses; in practice it must necessarily vary from a defined degree of authority, to none at all, the local administration of police, justice, etc., being managed by the Political officers. There are seven recognised classes of chiefs, and the powers of each were defined in 1863.† Some chiefs administer the territory directly; others act as local magistrates while the State jurisdiction is under the Political control. An Appendix to vol. viii. (Bombay Gazetteer) gives a curious list of the estates, the caste or clan of the holder and the tribute payable (whether to the British Crown, or one of the greater native states). The table also shows whether primogeniture prevails or at least the modified custom of giving a larger share to the eldest (locally called "mohotap "). Some 36 estates (mostly, but not all, of the first three or four classes) are governed by primogeniture; but 149 have either equal division, on the larger-share custom (these not being distinguished). The chief is, de facto at any rate, full owner of his own "darbāri" lands, and has a paramount title over the lands of his vassals and cadet-members. The immediate ownership of the grās holders (vassals, cadets, etc.) is so far restricted that they cannot alienate their lands without the superior's permission. They (and the cultivators of their home farms) are not liable to the demand for unpaid labour (veth).

But there are also many lands held under the chiefs more or less free of revenue, which are not held in ownership, and are mere assignments; such are the service-lands of the village officers, watchmen and servants, and those held locally by certain tribes, either on condition of quiet behaviour, or as a reward for service in a local militia (tribes of Mer, Mahia, Miyānā, etc., are so dealt with). These sometimes pay a "hearth tax” (chūlā-vero) *Bo. Gaz. viii., p. 6. The whole estate has to pay a lump sum by way of tribute; and the co-sharers divide the responsibility according to their ancestral (fractional) share in

the estate.

The matter may be studied in Bo. Gaz. viii. p. 309 ff and p. 318 note.

or a small rate per plough (santhi-vero) if they cultivate; or a quit-rent (sukhdi) in acknowledgment of the chief's superior ownership. Many lands are alienated for life, for the purpose of subsistence grants, to "jivāidārs "– mostly widows and other female relations. Such landowners have no jurisdiction of any kind on these lands, and cannot alienate. It is hardly necessary to add that there are many religious and charitable grantees who however are confined to realizing the revenue of the fields or villages assigned to them.

Subordinate landholders are usually liable to pay a fee on the occasion of the accession of a new chief, and so on occasions of death or marriage in the chief's family.

From the villagers, revenue is usually taken in kind (vaje) supplemented by certain money rates, calculated by area, or at so much a plough." As usual there are various "bābti" or extra cesses levied on various pretences.* The hilly country to the N.E. of Gujarāt and round to near the mouth of the Narbada valley is comprised in the Agencies of PAHLANPUR, MAHI KANTHA and REWAKANTHA.†

Of MAHI KANTHÃ, it may be said, as Ïdar has so often been mentioned, that nearly half the Agency belongs to this State. In all there are 52 States of which only 11 besides Idar are of any importance. As showing how far the Moslem conquest affected these remoter districts of the Gujarat Province, it is interesting to notice that only 4'3 p.c. of the population are Muhammadans. The Mahrāthā rule, on the other hand, enabled a considerable number of Kunbi cultivators to settle: this caste represents a total nearly double that of Brahmans and Rajputs together. A large number of the

(original) Koli and Bhil tribes have settled as labourers.

* In particular, when any extraordinary expense falls on the "talukdār,” he exacts a double rate for one or more years (dhubāk-vero); dhubāk means “jump" or sudden increase. It is also called dhumpa-"a slap in the face."

I take it that the word is kānṭhā (H.) "near or in the vicinity of," and not (as commonly written) kānṭā, meaning a spur or point.

PROCEEDINGS OF THE EAST INDIA
ASSOCIATION.

Ar a meeting of the East India Association, held at the Westminster Town Hall, on Friday, February 24, 1899, a paper was read by Lieut.-Col. R. C. Temple,* C.I.E. (Chief Commissioner, Andamans and Nicobars), on "The Development of Currency in the Far East," the Rt. Hon. Lord Reay, G.C.S.I., LL.D., in the chair. The following, amongst others, were present: Sir Lepel Griffin, K.C.S.I.; Sir William Robinson, G.C.M.G.; Sir M. M. Bhownaggree, K.C.I.E., M.P.; Sir G. S. V. Fitzgerald, K.C.I.E.; Sir Charles Roe; Mr. T. H. Thornton, c.s.I.; Col. T. A. Le Mesurier; Col. and Mrs. C. Pollock; Mrs. Temple; Mrs. Irving; Miss Fox; Mrs. and Miss Arathoon; Mrs. F. Aublet; Mr. Herbert Baynes; Mrs. Bode, PH.D., M.R.A.S.; Mr. A. K. Connell, M.A.; Miss Cozens; Mrs. Cook; Mr. H. R. Cook; Mr. Ernest A. Elliott; Miss Fitzgerald; Miss Gawthrop; Mrs. and Miss Gibbons; Mr. Matthew Macfie; Mr. J. B. Pennington; Mr. C. Powell; Mr. Lesley Probyn; Mr. E. J. Rapson; Mr. A. Rogers; Miss Sperati; Mr. John Hill Twig; Mr. P. M. Tait, F.R.G.S.; Mr. H. B. H. Turner; Mr. J. D. White; and Mr. C. W. Arathoon (Hon. Sec.).

The CHAIRMAN said that he had much pleasure in inviting them to listen to Col. Temple, the distinguished son of a distinguished father. As he would have to leave after the delivery of the lecture to attend the House of Lords, he would state before the lecture was delivered that it was one of the most erudite the Association had ever been favoured with, that it had compressed in a lucid manner in a few pages a great number of most interesting and suggestive facts which would, no doubt, give rise to much discussion among experts. Col. Temple had given the Association the fruits of many years of research in a field which required all the ingenuity of which the paper gave striking evidence.

SIR LEPEL GRIFFIN: This is a most interesting paper, and though the depths into which it has taken us have, I dare say, somewhat alarmed some of our hearers, they must recognise the great weight and authority which attaches to the utterances of the lecturer, whose name is well known to all those associated with studies of this kind. I am absolutely incompetent to express any opinion on the paper, and I would ask one or two experts present to make some observations. I notice one of the most distinguished experts in this particular branch of learning in England, Mr. Rapson of the British Museum, and I also see Mr. Lesley Probyn, who is a great financial authority, and others.

Mr. RAPSON: Col. Temple has given us a most admirable outline of a very difficult and intricate subject. For many months past learned papers of his have been coming out in the Indian Antiquary on the currency and coinage of Burmah. I am ashamed to say I have almost For Col. Temple's paper, see p. 299.