propitiate the officers by a bribe. Ramasawmy
Pillay having got into a difficulty
about a balance of nine shillings (which he
protested that he had already paid), was
advised by a far-seeing friend to give a sheep
to the duffadar.  The expedient was successful,
so far us the duffadar was concerned;
but, unluckily, the tosildar (who was the
duffadar's superior, and who had not been
propitiated), gave poor Pillay a slap on the
face, and ordered the duffadar to get the
money from him.  The usual process followed.

But what would one have?  The acting
agent of the governor at Ganjam— a very
strong-minded gentleman who is of opinion
that the practices which we have been describing
hardly come up to what would be
called torture — assures the Commissioners in
his report, that it seems in many cases to be
a point of honour with the ryots to hold
back their payments till the pincers are produced,
or the man is put with his head down
to his knees.

This, of course, is the feeling of a gentleman
who understands the state of India.
There is a privileged class in this country
who, on every discussion on Indian affairs
ensconce themselves behind this formulary.
I am not hardy enough to think of attempting
to attack so old and venerable a fortress,
which, for a full half century, has defended
everything which to European eyes, may appear
an anomaly.  But perhaps these depositaries
of Indian experience may deign, under
the shade of those venerable defences, to take
a thought of the suggestions of people who
have but ventured to peep through an occasional
chink or breach in the wall.  It is
certain that the Torture Commissioners, good
simple men, have reported strongly against
these practices, and are earnest in the expression
of their hope that we shall soon
see an end of them.  But we own to a
strong belief in the immobility of Indian
experience.

This agitation is no new one.  It is
now nearly half a century since the very
same abuses were discussed, and were even
made the subject of some stringent regulations
by the governor in council.  But
routine set the governor and council at
defiance.  It has thriven and flourished in
spite of them both; and, if we can trust
Indian experience, is to be reckoned among
the settled traditionary institutions of the
country.  The experienced officer quoted
above, declares that " the use of torture or
force (for it seldom amounts to torture) to
compel payment from a money-loving Hindoo,
was a lesson taught by their Mahomedan
masters, and never forgotten; it is
now part and parcel of their creed."

To us the most puzzling part of the whole
is, that, while this practice is now confessed
to have been going on for years, yet the
East India Company professes to have known
nothing about it till this moment, and
holds up its hands in disclaimer.  The
Board of Directors has its eyes shut; the
chairman of the Board turns the suggestion
into ridicule; the Commissioners themselves
acquit the entire staff of European officials of
complicity in the practice, and even, to a
great extent, of any cognisance of its existence.
Yet there are many facts, even in
the Commissioners' own book, which seem
very hard to reconcile with such a theory of
perfect innocence.  Of course it is bad enough,
even at best, that gentlemen paid to superintend
the getting of tribute should not know
how it is done.  But there are difficulties.  It
is true, that the acting joint-magistrate of
Coimbatore declares, in his report to the
Commissioners, that the statements regarding
torture are a pure fiction, at least as regards
his district.  But plain people will find it
hard to reconcile this and similar statements
with the fact that the criminal calendar of
the same district, which is published in the
Appendix, exhibits a series of cases of such
torture as having been tried before this very
magistrate, in several of which convictions
were obtained.  Again, the civil and session
judge of Chicacole reports that, during thirty
years of official life, no such case has ever
come before him; whereas, in a case tried in
the very same district before another gentleman,
the defence, or rather the plea in mitigation
of punishment set up by the accused,
was, that torturing was the universal practice
of the district.

Still more perplexing to European understandings
will it be to find that, whereas the
Commissioners report that they have seen
nothing to impress them with the belief that
the people at large entertain an idea that
their maltreatment is countenanced or tolerated
by the European officers of government;
yet, in a vast number of the cases which they
themselves report, the uniform avowal of the
aggrieved parties is, that they did not complain
to the gentlemen, — because who will
hear a poor man ?  They did not complain,
because the puttamonigars may say and do
what they please.  They did not complain,
because the tahsildar is both a magistrate
and a revenue officer; and to whom could
they complain ?  For our parts, we confess
that, whatever the Commissioners may say, it
is hard to give some of the English officers of
the Civil Service entire credit for their disclaimer
of all countenance of the cruel
practices which prevail in the revenue and
police department.  Our eyes are too open to
the fact, not only that little zeal or activity
has been displayed by them in discovering
or bringing to punishment an offence which
now proves to have been universal ; but that,
even when it has been brought formally
under European notice (in some instances even
in the shape of cruelties so aggravated as to
have caused the death of the victim), no
inquiry has been instituted, no redress has
awarded.  We see that an English