devotion of the people of India to Her Majesty's Government, unfortunately weakened this desire, and in 1883, after a period of uninterrupted peace of twenty-five years, it was no longer considered worth while making the sacrifice. Never has the loyalty of a nation been worse rewarded than in India within the last forty-two years. Proposals favour able to their material welfare have been abandoned; pledges have remained unredeemed; taxes and the public debt and military expenditure have been raised; the cultivators are more subject to famines than before; and the people of India are as far from getting any real share of control over the administration of their own concerns as they were when Her Majesty assumed the direct administration of India in 1858. To conclude our story: While the proposal of a Permanent Settlement was abandoned, the Marquis of Ripon, then Viceroy of India, made some fresh proposals to prevent the cultivators of Southern India from the harassment of frequent enhancements at recurring Settlement operations. In his despatch of the 17th October 1882, Lord Ripon laid down the principle that in districts which had once been surveyed and assessed by the Settlement Department, assessments should undergo no further revision except on the sole ground of a rise in prices. The principle was a counsel of moderation; it was a compromise between a scheme of Permanent Settlements (Zemindari or Ryotwari) and the harassing practice of frequent enhancements on vague and uncertain grounds. left the door open for an increase of the Land Revenue on the equitable ground of a rise in prices; and it gave the cultivators some security of assessments, some protection against harassing operations and unjust enhancements. Unfortunately even this moderate and equitable proposal was rejected by the Secretary of State for India in his despatch of the 8th January 1885. And thus it happens that the cultivators of Madras and Bombay, who pay the Land Revenue direct to the State, are to this day unprotected by any equitable rule against excessive enhancements and harassing settlement operations. India is a great agricultural country; but agriculture cannot flourish without some adequate protection to agriculturists; permanent improvements cannot be made without some adequate security against uncertain enhancements at recurring settlements. APPENDIX J PROPOSAL OF A PERMANENT SETTLEMENT IN [The reply of Mr Temple (afterwards Sir Richard Temple), Chief Commissioner of the Central Provinces, to Lord Canning's proposal of a Permanent Settlement in those provinces is conveyed in the following letter. Parliamentary Return, 164 (1863), pp. 175-6.] From Captain H. Mackenzie, Secretary to the Chief Commissioner, Central Provinces, to E. C. Bayley. Esq., Secretary to the Government of India (No. 532), dated Head-Quarters, Nagpore, 22nd July 1862. Your No. 2038 of the 7th October 1861, and subsequent letter, No. 1474 of the 20th March 1862, requiring the opinion of the Officiating Chief Commissioner on the question of a permanent settlement of the land revenue, discussed in paragraphs 62 to 82 of Colonel Baird Smith's Famine Report, and as to the value of a legislative sanction for settlements for terms of years where existing settlements are not of a character to be made permanent, have, up to the present time, remained unanswered. The subject was very important, and the changes in the administration of these provinces rendered it impossible to accord that attention to it which it merited. The Officiating Chief Commissioner having, however, now fully considered it, in reference to its bearing on the peculiar condition of the districts comprised in the Central Provinces, is prepared to submit his opinion, and has accordingly desired me to report as follows: 2. In the first place it may, the Officiating Chief Commissioner remarks, be superfluous to state that here, as elsewhere, a permanent settlement would affect only the land tax itself. It would fix the assessment for ever, and it should be more accurately termed the permanent and perpetual limitation of the direct State demand on the land. It would in no wise affect the fundamental right and property of the people in the land. That right and property will be fixed absolutely and immutably, whether the land tax be limited to a certain sum for ever, or not. The value and interest of such right and property will indeed be greater or less, according as the State demand is fixed for a short or a long term, or for ever. But under any circumstances, the nature and essence of the right and property itself will remain the same. 3. Here then, as elsewhere, in the above sense, the principle of a Permanent Settlement is applicable. It would have an effect altogether, beyond immediate calculation, in stimulating the industry, enterprise, and self-reliance of the agriculturists, the application of capital, the accumulation of wealth. Where the assess ments were fair it would be accepted as a great boon by the people. On the one hand, the State, no doubt, will subject itself to prospective loss by surrendering all future right to increase its land revenue. But on the other hand, such loss would be more than compensated by the gradual, if not rapid, increase of all the other branches of the revenue. These branches entirely depend on the growth of wealth in the mass of the people. A Permanent Settlement will con tribute more than any measure that could be devised to augment that wealth. It follows that a Permanent Settlement will cause all other heads of revenue, except land tax, to increase. Now in these provinces more than one-third of the total income is derived from taxes other than the land tax-the other taxes are increasing, the land tax alone remains stationary. In a fiscal point of view, then, there can be no fear for the success of a measure which would, while restricting the land tax cause all other taxes to rise. Again, it is quite true that the value of money will continue falling, and that prices of produce will rise more and more throughout these provinces. Thus the agriculturists will, in a short time, receive much more for their produce than they ever did before. On the other, the price of labour will rise, and that will greatly enhance the State expenditure. All the salaries and establishments of the lower grades, at least, will be gradually raised, and the cost of public works will be greatly enhanced. There might appear to be some risk then, if Government, while anticipating increased expenditure, were to limit the land tax, the main source of revenue. But it will, in reality, be quite safe to trust to increase of other taxes. It was declared, quite irrespectively of the Permanent Settlement, in the joint report of Colonel Elliot and Mr Temple, that "it is rather from the miscellaneous taxes than from the land tax that increase of resources is to be expected." 4. A permanent settlement, then, so far as it can be introduced, will be, firstly, good for the people, and secondly, good equally for the State. The questions remaining are: To what extent could it be applied? And When could it be introduced? Now it is to be ever remembered that in these provinces the railways, the roads, and the navigation will certainly work great changes, while similar results are not here to be expected from irrigation. But this prospect exists here, in common with the rest of India, neither more nor less. If, then, the prospect of material improvement does not. bar the concession of a permanent settlement elsewhere, |