possible because, in the individual villages, there is no strong proprietary right. The actual cultivators who are residents (tháni) are practically proprietors of their holdings, just as much as the Kandh families were of their lands; but the long-continued effect of the Rájá's rule, and the encroachments of the grantees and others who took the royal share within the grant, reduced the resident cultivator to being nothing more than a permanent occupant with a hereditary right: it was no one's interest, as long as government was settled, to reduce them lower than that. In North India we have seen that as the grantee's family multiplies and divides, it produces a number of individuals or families holding each perhaps a single village as the share of the estate; and then, in time, they appear as the actual proprietary body owning the village (which then becomes a 'zamíndárí' or a 'pattídárí' village of the textbooks). § 5. Circumstances limit the growth. In Orissa the process was arrested by the fact that there were certain greater fiscal chiefs who kept the Bissais (kanúngos) subordinate to themselves; but furthermore it was arrested by the fact that when the Maráthás came, they checked the growth of these incipient landlords. Wherever we come across a tolerably settled form of Maráthá government, we shall again and again notice that the Maráthá at once did two things: he imposed a quitrent on revenue-free holdings-thus avoiding the odium of wholly resuming them; and he ignored the middleman system, went straight to the villages, and made use of the headman as the distributor of rents, holding him primarily responsible for their collection. It was only in the outlying tracts where the Maráthá rule was uncertain, that the governors granted large farms and took all they could grasp before the day of destruction. So it was in Orissa; the village heads were resorted to, with the result of greatly increasing their power: as usual, in many cases inefficient headmen were turned out and replaced by 'sarbarákárs' or managers; exactly as in the Central Provinces, a 'pátel' who did not give satisfaction was replaced by a 'málguzár' or revenue-paying manager. § 6. First British policy.-Absence of great Zamíndárs. When our rule began in 1803, no attempt was made to introduce the Permanent Settlement or its laws. I have described the chief features of the Orissa Settlement before1: I have here only to speak of the tenure of land. It is unfortunate that our reports so often speak of 'Zamíndárs,' as if Orissa had been permanently settled, and as if such an institution had existed generally. There are in fact hardly any 'Zamíndárs' in the Bengal sense. There were a few of the 'Qila's' or chiefs' estates lying on the edge of the royal demesne (which it will be remembered was the scene of our detailed Settlement), and a few of the greater fiscal officers, who had retained such a hold over the whole of the pargana, that our first administrators thought fit to acknowledge them as proprietors, and give them the benefit of a permanent revenue. Then there were a certain number of kanúngos' estates, and those of other chiefs and grantees (of which I have spoken). Of these some were regarded as subordinate to the greater estates, and others were allowed to be independent and were treated as proprietary. The larger number recognized as 'landlords' were the headmen, muqaddams' or 'sarbarákárs' of villages (in some places the local names, 'pradhán,' &c., survived.) As regards the class of large landlord estates,' the latest return I have shows only 174 such estates (permanently assessed), viz. 23 in Katák, 3 in Púri, and 148 in Bálásor3, 1 See p. 473. 'The proclamation of 1803 issued on annexation, spoke of zamíndúrs, meaning 'landholders' generally. Seo Orissa, ii. 257. The larger estates are called Zamindari in Regulation XII of 1805, and the sanads were 80 worded. I find, for instance, one of the Khandait chiefs (Sakinda estate) giving his qabúlíyat' or engagement setting forth that he while the smaller village and other estates, temporarily settled, exceed six thousand. § 7. Smaller Landlord Estates. Putting aside the few great estates called 'Zamíndári,' the bulk of estates which came under Settlement were smaller propertios,-holdings of kánúngos, chaudharís, courtiers, grantees, and revenue-free holders. They are described as 'taluq,' and are called after their origin ‘taluq chaudhari,' the estate held by the chaudharí, and so forth. These estates should not be described as 'tenures,' as the term has a special or technical sense in Bengal. I may repeat that when we speak of 'holders of tenures' in Bengal we now mean interests of the second class existing under a recognized landlord. But in Orissa the larger number of the landholders we are speaking of became Settlement-holders direct with Government. One of the results of the former rule had been a system of selling estates and villages, nominally, but not always actually, waste; and a number of those who had purchased such estates became 'proprietors' and their estates were called 'kharidadári,' 'patná,' and 'khárija' (i.e. lands outside any other recognized estate). § 8. Revenue-free Holdings. There were also many revenue-free estates. Some of these, of course, were petty rent-free holdings under other had been appointed to the service of Zamindar' in his Qila' by the Government, and that he would pay the revenue and keep the raiyats prosperous, &c. (see Statistical Account of Bengal, vol. xviii. p. 123). In Katák the old records showed that of 1779 proprietary or quasiproprietary estates, 16 only were called 'Zamindúrí' and the rest 'taluq.' Mr. Stack mentions that the claims to lákhiráj decided by Deputy Collectors amounted to 277,925 (Memorandum on Temporary Settlements, 1880, p. 580). The Maráthás im posed a.tankhí' or quit-rent on many such tenures, consisting of I tankha or rupee of the time per 'bati' of 20 mán.' The Orissa 'man' is closely equal to the English acre. A number of these tenures were settled at half rates under the British Settlement. proprietors. The rule was that such holdings, when admitted as valid, were treated as proprietary estates if they exceeded 75 acres, and as subordinate (tenure) interests if smaller. Among the smaller rent-free holdings figure many belonging to the 'páiks' or old militia; and some were called 'jágírs' or 'dográ' (literally 'stick-holder')1. § 9. Village Heads become Proprietors. In many cases the village heads, especially those who had purchased the villages, and others whose actual position demanded the step, were settled with. § 10. But artificial Landlord rights rarely created. The Orissa officers, as is amply testified by the valuable notes they have left on the land-tenures, and which Sir W. Hunter has turned to such good purpose in his Orissa, were under no necessity for creating landlords: and, as Sir W. Hunter remarks, 'putting aside very quietly the theories of distant bureaucrats, the local officers proceeded laboriously to construct a system in accordance with the actual facts. Hence the variety of estates actually recognized. But while a number of larger or smaller proprietary estates were recognized, and the owners held the Settlement, the mistake was not made of leaving undefined the power of the estate-holder, or letting the question of the rent-payments of subordinate holders be doubtful. The estate-holders' interest was strictly limited by the procedure at Settlement. The officers went direct to the villages and fixed the rents of the thání raiyats (who really were the original individual proprietors-only, as I have explained, they ceased to claim so high a position). This done, there was a fixed total rental, of The Statistical Account notes that, in 1875, sixty-five of these existed in Katák district, covering 8339 acres. which part went to Government and the rest to the 'proprietor.' § 11. Grades of interest-how provided for. But though the proprietor was one, he had often to share the profits with other persons interested-as, e. g. first the sarbarákár of the village, second a dependent taluqdár. In our Settlements, whether there was a proprietor over the village or not, the headman, muqaddam, sarbarákár, parsethi, pradhán, or whatever his local title, was allowed to collect the rents and manage the village and receive a percentage for his trouble; and so with the 'kharidadárs,'— headmen by purchase of reclaimed or new villages 1. Practically, therefore, the difference between the nominal landlord and the inferior interests is represented by the larger or smaller share of the rental fixed at Settlement. § 12. Protection of Tenants.-The Thání Ruiyat. The cultivators are, as I said, protected by rents fixed for the term of Settlement, if they are 'thání' or resident; and the Rent Law of 1859, still in force 2, protects the pahí tenants who have fulfilled its terms. The 'thání' cultivator is in fact a 'sub-proprietor' in everything but the name. 'Rooted to the soil,' wrote Mr. Sterling in 1821, he has a local habitation and a name, a character known to his neighbours, and a certain In the Statistical Account (vol. xviii. p. 307) will be found a discussion as to the origin of the 'sarbarákár' as distinct from the muqaddam or headman (the Muhammadan equivalent of barúa, pradhan, or other local names). As to the 'parsethi,' the explanation of his being a town headman (p. 134) is very unlikely: most probably he is the headman of a later colony, i. e. a village of modern foundation (see p. 310). The sarbarákár's right was the subject of judicial decision in 1859. The per contage he gets under the Settle- |