raiyatwárí type, though in certain parts there were a few 'narwá,' 'bhágdárí,' and other estates jointly held by communities connected by a tie of descent. In Guzarát, also, the immigration of martial tribes of the Rajput type, and the government by chiefs, had left traces of an 'overlord' or taluqdárí tenure over the villages; while in the Konkán, 'khots,' or revenue-farmers of the Maráthá rule, had acquired rights over the villages, of a somewhat peculiar character.

A portion of these territories had originally been settled by Malik 'Ambar, the best representative of the power of the Muhammadan kings of the South in their palmy days'. This minister had been at much pains to secure and acknowledge a proprietary right, and this tended to preserve the ancestral communities, where they existed; since ancestral holding is, in all Eastern countries, the strongest form of connection with the soil. In his time, village assessments in the lump, were apparently the rule; and although the Maráthá system had superseded that of Malik 'Ambar, and was essentially a raiyatwárí system, it had not obliterated the traces of the former system. It is therefore not wonderful that the opinion should have been advocated that, in Bombay, the existing status of the raiyatwárí villages was in many cases, if not universally, due to the decay of an earlier landlord or joint constitution, rather than inherent in the nature of the groups themselves2.

At first, indeed, the matter did not come prominently to notice, because, during the early years of our rule, the territories were provided for by the usual tentative arrangements for farming the revenues on short leases. A twenty years' experience, however, during which grievous hardships were inflicted on the districts, sufficed to make us at once, and for ever, discard the farmers, and set about finding a better plan.

IIIe also settled most of Berár. Details about the faint survival of'mirúsí' claims will be found in

Vol. III. (Bombay chapters). At best, the Dakhan mirás right was too shadowy for practical revival.

§ 31. Attempt to introduce a system of Settlement with Villages jointly.

The raiyatwárí system was then much in vogue, consequent on Sir Thomas Munro's action in Madras. But Mr. Elphinstone, the then Governor of Bombay, took the view above alluded to, about the joint system, and was anxious not only to maintain it wherever it could be found, but even to create it in the case of those communities where no landlord claims survived; securing, indeed, the rights of each cultivator by record, but establishing a joint responsibility, and settling with the original 'pátels' or headmen of the village as representatives of the body.

It is no easy thing, however, to create a joint responsibility where it does not in fact exist. Although long years of custom may have taught the cultivator to submit to an annual adjustment of his individual burdens and liabilities by the headman, it has never laid him under any responsibility in case one of his neighbours failed'.

1 The account of the Bombay system in Campbell's Modern India (1858), though giving a good description of Mr. Elphinstone's views, is now too much out of date to be otherwise useful; for the Bombay system has since been altered and perfected in a way that has completely outgrown a description penned more than thirty years ago. The account is also to some extent marred by the author's apparent prejudice in favour of the joint responsibility and village settlement with which he was familiar. His objections to the Bombay system (notably the costliness of the village officials and the rocognition of rights to rent-free holdings) affect mere accidents of the place, they do not touch the principles of the system. As a matter of fact, many of these evils have been removed or greatly mitigated. He also speaks of the joint responsibility as if it was an easy thing to introduce. But in fact it is not so. To establish it artificially over whole districts, and tell the people 'the

system is convenient to your rulers, and when you are wiser you will seo that it is also calculated to promote your own interest,' is beset with such difficulties as to make it impracticable. The people posi tively decline to undertake that the solvent members shall be responsible for the defaulting ones. What becomes of your system then? I need hardly point out the futility of comparing revenue systems in point of inherent merit, because every system may be good or the reverse according as it fits the facts. But even admitting the superior facilities which the joint-village system offers to revenue-management, the originators of the Bombay system claim for it certain counterbalancing advantages. By breaking up the land into small holdings, and allowing every occupant to keep as many of his numbers,' or give up as many, as he thinks desirable, the small farmer is enabled to contract his operations or enlargo them according to the capital and stock at his disposal. The rovenue

The plan of settling for a lump sum with the village as a body used to be advocated because it was said to facilitate revenue-management; it enabled Government to deal with fewer units. The Bombay officers do not, however, admit that there is any difficulty in dealing with thousands of separate cultivators'. The difficulty only seems great to those accustomed to deal with one or with a few revenue-payers. At any rate, if there is difficulty, it is obviated by a perfect survey, a clear and complete record of each lot or field and the revenue assessed on it, and by a thorough control over the

being fixed for a long term of years, the farmer gets all the bonefit of a long lease without its disadvantages. Nor does the Government really lose; because taking its revenue, not from one estate, but from the whole country, that revenue must, under any system, fluctuate with the circumstances of the country at large. With farmers of largo capital, the long fixed lease may answer best; but with those of small means, the risk and responsibility which have to be set off against the security of profits, are more to be considered, and such risks avoided by giving the villager the right of holding his land from year to year only, if he pleases. Provinces

are

In the North-West every village is allowed an area of waste, which it can bring under cultivation without the total assessment of the villago being increased. Under a raiyatwari system, any uncultivated number that is taken up has to be paid for; but in practice this does not interfere with the extension of cultivation; and as a matter of fact, though the NorthWest assessment does not increase when the waste of the villago is

made to yield crops, still that assessment is originally fixed after taking into consideration the capa bilities of the estate, and the probablo average yield of the whole, for the entire term.

It is also urged that the village officers collect the revenue from each separate holder just as easily as they do from a joint body, who, though together responsible, still ultimately pay separately according to known shares; and as under the Bombay system every occupant is furnished with a receipt book, which the patwari (pándya or kulkární) is bound to write up, there is no room for fraud. To any one who wishes further to study the pros and cons of both systems, and the improvements which the Bombay authorities made on the Madras system to remove objections, I cannot do better than recommend the perusal of the able' Appendix I' to the Official Correspondence on the Bombay Settlements (reprint of 1877: Bombay Government Press).

In the Bombay and Madras Presidencies the number of raiyats and average size of holdings are as follows (Govt. Ind. Statistics, 1886-7):—

Average size of holding.

village accountants and revenue-officers of small local subdivisions of districts.

It was no doubt this inherent difficulty of creating a joint responsibility where it did not, naturally or in fact, exist, that led to the abandonment of the design to make villageSettlements, and to the adoption of the separate field or 'raiyatwárí' system. As a matter of fact, a sort of joint responsibility is kept up in certain villages where the rights of co-sharers have survived to this day.

§ 32. Progress of the system in Bombay.

The defects of the survey-Settlement, as at first worked (up to 1835), acted as a warning to the authorities; and a new departure was then made. An experimental resurvey of the Indápur taluk having proved successful, the same method was followed elsewhere. In 1847 three of the ablest Settlement Superintendents met and were able to formulate the results of practical experience, in the shape of a complete scheme for the survey and assessment of village lands. It was not till 1865 that a local Act was passed specifically legalising the system. This Act has in its turn been repealed; and the whole law has now been completely revised in the Land-Revenue Code (Bombay Act V of 1879). There is but little mention of a Settlement (although the term does occur in the Code); there is really a survey and assessment only. There is no procedure like that of Upper India,-proposing a certain sum as the assessment on the whole village, discussing the matter with the village proprietary body, and perhaps making a reduction and coming to terms with the representatives, who then sign an agreement to be responsible. Under the Bombay system, every acre is assessed at rates fixed on almost scientific principles, and then the occupant must pay that assessment or relinquish the land.

833. Outline of the Bombay System.

The system will be described more in detail in the sequel, but here I may generally indicate the outlines of the procedure.

A certain convenient unit of division is selected to form the 'survey number' or 'field.'

Every field or lot is surveyed, and then the work of classification begins. The soil-classes are noted, and each field is examined and a sort of diagram of it made, which shows not only its soil, but any defects which reduce its value. It is thus ascertained for every field what is its relative value; in other words,-taking the maximum rate for the class as one whole or sixteen annas (on the Indian method of reckoning),-whether the field can be assessed at the maximum or at something less,-at fourteen annas, at twelve annas, and so on, down to a minimum. The department charged with this work becomes highly experienced in the process, so that it can be performed with the greatest accuracy and fairness. Cultivation is usually classed into wet and dry: the process just described treats land only on its dry aspect; if there is irrigation, then an additional rate may be charged, which will be higher or lower according to the goodness and value of the source of irrigation; the rate is only applied to such land as is really capable of irrigation from the source in question1.

Next, the Settlement Officer begins his work as assessor of actual rates; he has before him the facts of soil classification on its unirrigated aspect, and the details of the means of irrigation where they exist; he has to fix what are to be the full or maximum rates for dry soil, and what are to be the additional rates for irrigation. These rates he

Wet cultivation is rico land, or land that is always flooded for cultivation. A 'dry' field may have a well or other means of partial watering, that does not make it 'wet' land. Wells are not now charged for

directly, but a certain addition may be made to the rate, on account of an easy supply of subsoil water regarded as one of the qualities of the soil.