Governor-General, and directed its modification in a future Proclamation. But to indulge in eloquent platitudes was one of Lord Ellenborough's weaknesses; and this was an opportunity which his lordship was not likely to miss. In April 1858 he indicted his celebrated letter to Lord Canning.

"Suddenly, the people [of Oudh] saw their King taken from amongst them, and our administration substituted for his, which, however bad, was at least native; and this sudden change of government was immediately followed by a summary settlement of the revenue, which, in a very considerable portion of the Province, deprived the most influential landholders of what they deemed to be their property, of what certainly have long given wealth, and distinction, and power to their families.

"We must admit that, under the circumstances, the hostilities which have been carried on in Oudh have rather the character of legitimate war than that of rebellion, and that the people of Oudh should rather be regarded with indulgent consideration than made the objects of a penalty exceeding in extent and in severity almost any which has been recorded in history as inflicted upon a subdued nation.

"Other conquerors, when they have succeeded in overcoming resistance, have excepted a few persons as still deserving of punishment, but have, with a generous policy, extended their clemency to the great body of the people.

"You have acted upon a different principle; you have reserved a few as deserving of special favour, and you have struck, with what they will feel as the severest of punishment, the mass of the inhabitants of the country.

"Government cannot long be maintained by any force in a country where the whole population is rendered hostile by a sense of wrong; and if it were possible so to maintain it, it would not be a consummation to be desired." 1

Every sentence in this rebuke is just. But it was hard

1 Letter of the Secret Committee of the Court of Directors to the Governor-General of India, dated April 19, 1858, paragraphs 13, 14, 15, 16, and 20.

on Lord Canning, who had borne the continued strain of the most serious disaster that has ever befallen British rule in India, who had struggled manfully against it and had triumphed over it, and who had restrained the fierce passions of his own countrymen and extended clemency to his opponents-it was hard on him to be censured for one serious mistake, more in the wording than in the object of his Oudh Proclamation.

The censure of Lord Ellenborough was a serious matter. He was a member of the British Cabinet; and his disapproval, publicly endorsed by the British Ministry and telegraphed to India, weakened the authority of Lord Canning when he required support and encouragement. Englishmen felt this. They did not desire it to appear that the saviour of the Indian Empire had received a censure from the British Cabinet. The difficulty of the situation was removed when Lord Ellenborough resigned his seat in the Cabinet.

In India, thoughtful and responsible men had perceived Lord Canning's mistake. Sir James Outram, then Chief Commissioner of Oudh, had induced Lord Canning to add a clause that the Government would view liberally the claims of those Oudh landlords who would promptly return to obedience. Sir John Lawrence, then Chief Commissioner of the Punjab, declared that "to tell men that all their lands and property were confiscated, to allow them no locus penitentie, was to drive them to despair." Lord Ellenborough's censure certainly had the effect of completely rectifying the mistake. The right of property in Oudh was recognised. The Talukdars, returning to obedience, were restored to their lands. The mistake which had been made in the Punjab in 1849, and in Oudh in 1856, of levelling down the leaders of the people, was not repeated. The first regular Settlement of lands was commenced in 1860, and completed in 1878. The Settlement was for thirty years.

1 Bosworth Smith's Life of Lord Lawrence (1885), vol. ii. p. 179.

It was reserved for Sir John Lawrence to extend to the cultivators of Oudh something of the same protection which Lord Canning had extended to the cultivators of Bengal. The first Oudh Rent Act (Act xix. of 1868) was passed when the first Settlement was still in progress. Without creating new rights, or recognising occupancy tenants, it gave fixity of tenure to ex-proprietary tenants; and it prohibited the enhancement of rents in respect of their holdings except by order of a court of law and equity.1

NORTH-WEST PROVINCES.

The Land Settlement of the country known as the North-Western Provinces under the able direction of Robert Merttins Bird, the Directions for Revenue Officers issued by Thomason, and the final decision of Lord Dalhousie in 1855 to reduce the State-demand to one-half the rental, have been narrated in a preceding chapter. The only important change made during the subsequent period, which is the subject of the present chapter, was the passing of the Land Revenue Act (Act xix. of 1873) under the administration of Lord Northbrook. It simplified the law by repealing or modifying over fifty preceding Regulations and Acts; and the revised Settlement was concluded under the provisions of this new Act. older methods of survey were replaced by a cadastral survey; the rental of each estate was revised and corrected by Settlement Officers after local inquiry; and between 45 and 55 per cent. of the rental thus fixed was demanded as the Government Land Revenue.

The

The reader will notice the importance of the changes thus introduced. The earlier method of assessment, followed by Bird and Thomason, was to proceed from aggregate to detail; the revenue of a fiscal circle was fixed at

1 Later legislation has extended tenant rights in Oudh.

first, and was then distributed to the villages situated within the circle. The later method, introduced by rules framed under Act xix. of 1873, was to proceed from detail to aggregate; the rental of each estate was corrected and fixed by inquiry; and the Government Revenue, assessed on the revised rentals of estates within a fiscal circle, was the revenue of that circle. In other words, the revenue demand in a fiscal circle was fixed by guess-work under the old system; it was fixed on the basis of the revised rentals under the new system.

Nevertheless, the method, under which the actual rentals were fixed, was wrong in principle, and oppressive in practice. If a landlord was supposed to be lenient, the Settlement Officer might, by revising the rental of £1000, bring it up to £1200, and fix the Government Revenue at £600. Such a proceeding taught the landlord to be severe where he was inclined to be lenient; and it inspired him with a motive to screw up his rents which it is the first object of British Administration to prevent.

Another violation of the Half-Rental Rule was introduced when Local Cesses were multiplied under Lord Mayo's Decentralisation Scheme of 1870. The Half-Rental Rule was laid down by Lord Dalhousie's Government with the clear and unmistakable object of leaving to the landed classes one-half of the income from their estates, and the Land Revenue was limited to the other half. But when, in 1871, Local Cesses of 10 per cent. of the Land Revenue were imposed on estates in addition to the Land Revenue, the object of the Half-Rental Rule was defeated. The new scheme virtually added to the tax on land; it removed the clear limit which Lord Dalhousie had fixed; and it gave to Provincial Governments indefinite powers to add to the State-demand from the soil. All provinces of India suffered alike from the multiplication of Local Cesses on the land in 1871.

PUNJAB.

Sir John Lawrence made a valiant and successful endeavour to secure the Punjab cultivators in their tenantrights. When the time came for a revised Settlement, many landlords, who had failed to register themselves as such at the Settlement of 1853, put forward their claims. To recognise them as landlords would be to degrade those who held under them to the position of tenants-at-will. And it was estimated that in Amritsar District, out of 60,000 heads of families, no less than 46,000 would be so degraded by a recognition of the claims of the landlords. A Tenant Bill was accordingly introduced to protect the cultivators; and on October 18, 1868, a great debate took place at Simla on this Bill. Sir Henry Maine gave it his hearty support in a memorable speech; and Sir John Lawrence desired it to become law. The opposition collapsed; and the Tenant Act (Act xxvii. of 1868) saved the cultivators of the Punjab, while recognising the claims of the landlords.

"The Act regulated and defined the position of tenants with rights of occupancy; it protected them against enhancement except under peculiar conditions; it recognised their power to alienate tenures; it limited the privilege of the pre-emption and gave the option to the landlord; and, with almost prophetic apprehension of the points at issue in Ireland, it defined the improvements which might be made by the tenant, and specified the compensation which he might look to receive."1

It is only necessary to add that three years after the Tenant Act was enacted, the Punjab Land Revenue Act (Act xxxiii. of 1871) was passed during the rule of Lord Mayo; and Settlements in the Punjab were made according to rules framed under this Act.

1 W. S. Seton Karr, quoted in Bosworth Smith's Life of Lord Lawrence (1885), vol. ii. p. 423.