Again the introduction of the English law of contract and transfer
of property, and the increase in the habit of litigation have greatly
altered the character of the money-lending business for the worse. The
debtor signs a bond sometimes not even knowing the conditions,
more often having heard them but without any clear idea of their
effect or of the consequences to himself, and as readily allows it
to be registered. When it comes into court the witnesses, who are
the moneylender's creatures, easily prove that it was a genuine and
_bona fide_ transaction, and the debtor is too ignorant and stupid
to be able to show that he did not understand the bargain or that it
was unconscionable. In any case the court has little or no power to
go behind a properly executed contract without any actual evidence of
fraud, and has no option but to decree it in terms of the deed. This
evil is likely to be remedied very shortly, as the Government of
India have announced a proposal to introduce the recent English Act
and allow the courts the discretion to go behind contracts, and to
refuse to decree exorbitant interest or other hard bargains. This
urgently needed reform will, it may be hoped, greatly improve the
character of the civil administration by encouraging the courts to
realise that it is their business to do justice between litigants,
and not merely to administer the letter of the law; and at the same
time it should have the result, as in England, of quickening the public
conscience and that of the moneylenders themselves, which has indeed
already been to some extent awakened by other Government measures,
including the example set by the Government itself as a creditor.