collector's office, either alone or with others, to make a revenue settlement on the part of his brethren of the village community to which he belongs; he signs the engagements entered into on behalf of the community; A. or B. is put down in the collector's book according to our revenue vocabulary, as proprietor, having no greater title to that designation than any of his brother zemindars or biswahdars of the village. If more than one attend the collector, the settlement is said, for brevity, to be made with A. or B. and others. The addition of others in time falls into disuse, and A. or B. remains as recorded proprietor, or perhaps two or three names are inserted instead of one. A new collector arrives, and finding certain names in a column headed by the word "proprietors," supposes the persons named to be what they are termed, and considers them also as contractors for the Government revenue. The revenue falls in arrear, and the village is sold as the estate of the one or few individuals whose names are recorded as those of the proprietors, and purchased by some one, who accordingly becomes sole proprietor, to the destruction of the right of the village zemindars or biswahdars. From that time arises insuperable embarrassment respecting the relative rights in the land of the assumed proprietor and the real village landholders. The law makes the former sole proprietor, but the latter are the real occupants, and it becomes impossible to reconcile the conflicting rights of the two parties; all the difficulty and confusion proceeding from our dubbing as proprietors persons who have no pretensions to that character, from our using English terms which convey ideas of things different from those to which they are applied, from our converting into contractors those who are properly representatives of communities, and from our selling as their property what does not belong to them.

The gentlemen of the detached Board observe-" That if no such persons as proprietors exist, they cannot understand to what class of people the proceedings of the Special Commission were intended to refer." I suppose the Special Commission to have been instituted for the purpose of reinstating the village landholders in their rights, of which they had been deprived by fraudulent means. I have no objection to the village landholders being called proprietors if it be thought right to confer that appellation on them;

although, perhaps, it would have been better if the expression had never been used. My objection is to their rights being taken from them, and bestowed, with the title of proprietor, on some one who has no right to either the one or the other.

But whoever may be called proprietor, the right of the Government to its revenue remains the same; and if it choose to levy it through the medium of a permanent field assessment, there is no state of property in land in our unsettled provinces, more than in the Madras provinces, that can interfere with the exercise of that right.

It is not necessary to enter into the details by which a permanent field assessment might be made the basis of a settlement with village communities for a term of years, if it were considered desirable to connect the two plans, because there is no proposition to that effect in agitation, the present discussion having reference solely to the opinion expressed by the Board of the impracticability of introducing what is commonly called the ryotwar settlement under this presidency, owing to a state of property in land different from that existing where that settlement has been introduced, which opinion I thought it necessary to combat. But if the project should be entertained of uniting a permanent field assessment with periodical settlements with village communities, I shall always be ready to answer to the best of my ability any doubts that may be suggested on the subject; and I content myself at present with expressing my belief that such an union is far from impracticable.

I cannot agree with the Board in their description of either Sir Thomas Munro's system of settlements or that which they consider to be necessary under this presidency, or the differences between the two; I allude to the description given in the 7th and 8th paragraphs of their letter of the 7th December, 1830.

They say that as Sir Thomas Munro's was mere assessment of lands, without reference to proprietary rights, he had only to distribute a fixed sum, which a village in its existing state of productiveness might be thought capable of easily yielding on the several classes according to which the lands surveyed by his ameens were arranged." I should say that the order of proceeding was the

reverse of this, and that instead of distributing a fixed sum to be paid by a village on the several classes of lands, he must first have ascertained what each portiou of land would yield, and thus have found the aggregate sum to be yielded by the village.

say

They say, again, that "we have to ascertain from putwarees' accounts, or to fix by the best data that we can obtain, the rent paid for each field, as it appears in the survey accounts, and to regulate our demands on those who are entitled to engage for the revenue by the aggregate rent derivable from the whole." I should that we have to ascertain not the rent paid for each field but the Government share or revenue payable from each field, as Sir Thomas Munro would have done; and having thus ascertained the aggregate sum payable by the village, we may relinquish as much or as little as we deem expedient to the village managers, or those whom we call proprietors. If the nominal proprietors and the real landowners are the same, good will be done by all that we relinquish, and no other harm than loss of revenue, mitigated perhaps by prospective increase; but if the pretended proprietors are neither landowners, nor landholders, nor cultivators, but the fictitious creatures conceived by our regulations, and ushered into existence by our iniquitous sales, then what we relinquish of the Government right is purely loss of revenue without any benefit.

The Board say that "the two modes of settlement described by them are perfectly distinct in principle, the one beginning where the other ends." I should say that the difference is unnecessary and erroneous; that the principle of both is properly the same; and that wherever they may end, both must begin at the same point; in other words, that no correct settlement can be made unless ours begin precisely where Sir Thomas Munro's did.

The Board say that they "cannot see how it would be possible, in the Munro system of settlement, to allot to individuals any benefit in estates besides that which they may derive from the occupancy of land tilled by themselves." I do not see why we should invent a class of individuals, in order to allot benefit to them in what we choose to call estates, in which they have no proper interest, either as owners, or holders, or tillers of land. But in fact, under the system adopted by Sir Thomas Munro, an individual may take any

quantity of land, have it tilled by any hands that he can employ, and, having a permanent revenue to pay, derive from it by improvement the profit of an estate. This is more like an estate than anything under our revenue system in our unsettled provinces, and is an estate fairly acquired without loss of revenue to Government or injury to the rights of individuals.

The Board say that no person can more entirely approve of Sir Thomas Munro's system of settlement than themselves," where none but cultivating interests in land exist." I should say that in our unsettled provinces none but cultivating interests do properly exist; or rather, that there are generally no proprietary interests in land unconnected with the cultivating interests. All else is of our own invention, to no good purpose, neither well defined nor well understood, but tending to confusion and injustice, the injury of the Government, and the injury of the real landowners.

Reverting to the call for information, the answer to which commenced the present discussion, it is observed by the Board that settlements of the nature required by Regulation VII. of 1822 can hardly be said to be in progress. This information is alike surprising and unsatisfactory. What, then, are the settlements effected by Mr. Glyn, in the Meerut District? What are those conducted under the superintendence of Mr. Newnham, and other gentlemen? These were all meant to be according to Regulation VII. of 1822; and if they are not so in the estimation of the Board, the officers employed and the members of the Board must construe that Regulation differently. If such a difference exists, it is desirable that the grounds of it, on both sides, should be known to Government. If it does not, the settlements have been for some years past in progress, although the progress has been slow and inadequate; and the first object of the call on the Board was to ascertain what that progress actually had been; information which still remains to be furnished, but I conclude will now be soon supplied.

No. IV.

LETTER FROM THE GOVERNOR-GENERAL, TO THE SUDDER BOARD OF REVENUE ON DEPUTATION, DATED CAMP, PINJORE, 7TH APRIL, 1831.

GENTLEMEN,-I am directed by the Right Honourable the Governor-General to forward to you, for your consideration, the subjoined remarks relative to the existing mode of conducting revenue settlements, and to request that, after communicating with the local authorities in these provinces, you will furnish your sentiments on the points hereinafter adverted to, at as early a date as may be

convenient.

2. The long time that has elapsed since the enactment of Regulation VII. of 1822, and the little progress that has been made towards effecting settlements in the manner therein prescribed, seem to render it worthy of consideration whether some other course of proceeding cannot be adopted, both with the view of equalizing the public burdens, and communicating a character of greater permanency to the possessions of individuals.

3. It seems now quite evident that the settlement of the country under Regulation VII. of 1822 cannot proceed with sufficient rapidity to answer all the purposes contemplated by Government.

4. It was hoped, His Lordship believes, that one of the results (though not the most important) of the revised settlement would be an increase of revenue, and there seems no reason why the attainment of this should be postponed, if the means of securing its immediate attainment should be calculated to promote the general agricultural interests, and should not operate to frustrate or retard the attainment of the other important objects contemplated by the detailed settlement.

5. The most obvious mode of providing against the mischievous consequences which the delay is calculated to produce, would be to renew, on a summary revision, existing engagements at an enhanced jumma, and for protracted periods.