either as carrying with it the right to the soil or as evidence of such a right. With regard to the claim on behalf of the sovereign, on the ground that he can take all the profit of the cultivator, if he pleases, two answers may be made. The first is, that although he may do so by might, he cannot do so by right. We have seen that there are limits to his taking the produce, both in express law and custom. The second answer is, that whatever his rights may have been, he never claimed any right to the soil itself as part of his share, nor ever exercised a right to anything beyond the natural or accidental produce of the soil. As to the zemindar, we have seen that he derived his right from the sovereign on the one hand and the cultivator on the other. But it is said a zemindary is a hereditary and alienable proprietary right in land. Such a right does not however carry with it as a matter of course all the rights not possessed by anybody else: or the rights of an English landlord. The khoodkasht's right was hereditary, as were even offices in the Hindoo system; it was also a proprietary right; and the alienability of a right, even if it were not, as in the present case, of modern growth, does not determine anything as to the extent of the right, but only as to the power over that right enjoyed by the possessor. And the account which I have given of the zemindar tends I think to show that he was in no x Patton's Asiatic Monarchies, 106, 110 note g., 128. › Rouse's Dissertations, 20. Harington's Analysis, Vol. III, 354. • Fifth Report, Vol. II, 702 to 704. See Rickards' History of India, Vol. II, 236. VI. sense the absolute proprietor so as to be the proprietor of LECTURE the soil itself.' tor's claim to On behalf of the cultivator is alleged one of the strong- The cultivaest grounds-actual possession of the soil; from which, in the soil. the case of a khoodkasht, he cannot be ousted; and the khoodkasht's right is hereditary, and a proprietary right.* The permanent possession of the soil, if accompanied with the assertion or exercise of an absolute right to it, might create, and at any rate would be strong evidence of, such a right; but we have seen how far this is from having been the case: and the mere fact that a proprietary right is permanent and hereditary does not give us any clue to the extent of that right. If indeed it were absolutely necessary to import English ideas into the matter, and to conclude that one of these claimants must be held to possess this right, and that the right could not remain in the community undisposed of, like the right to light and air and feræ naturæ, the cultivator would seem to have as good a right as any of the competitors; but there does not seem to be any necessity for introducing such considerations; and even if we did introduce them, it is doubtful whether the question could be decided in the absence of all claim to or exercise of such rights. That the proprietor, whoever 'See Great Rent Case, B. L. R., Supp. Vol., 246. Directions for Revenue Officers, 4 to 7, 48. 2 Fifth Report, Vol. II, 77, 78, 303, 479, 703. Evidence of Mr. Warden before the Select Committee of the House of Lords (1830), 1961, 1964. Evidence of Mr. Sullivan before the Select Committee of the House of Commons (1832), 19, 20. Evidence of Mr. Holt Mackenzie before the same Committee, 2574, 2575. Rickards' History of India, Vol. II, 269, 270. Fifth Report, Vol. II, 81, 120, 303, 305, 440, 479. • Ib., 120, 303. Evidence of Mr. Fortescue before the Select Committee of the House of Commons (1832), 2239, 2240. LECTURE he may have been, had not the full English proprietary right is shown, amongst other evidence, by the fact that the English rules as to things attached to the soil do not apply in India. Thus things annexed to the land do not in India necessarily pass with the land, but remain the property of him who put them there; as with the tree on the waste,' huts, and the like. Campbell's Cobden Club Essay, 164, 211. Evidence of Mr. Newnham before the Select Committee of the House of Commons (1832), 2756. 3 In the matter of Thakoor Chunder Paramanick, B. L. R., Supp. Vol. 594; 6 W. R., 228 s. c. Beni Madhub Banerjee v. Jai Krishna Mookerjee, 7 B. L. R., 152, Durgaprasad Misser v. Brindabun Sookul., Ib., 159. Doyalchund Laha v. Bhoyrubnath Khettry, Coryton's Rep., 117. Sowdaminee Debee v. Suroop Chunder Roy, 15 W. R., 363. Parbutty Bewah v. Woomatara Dabee, 14 B. L. R., 201. LECTURE VII. THE ENGLISH REVENUE SYSTEM UP TO THE PERMA- Early connexion of the English with Bengal-Acquisition of the Twenty-four Pergunnahs-Acquisition of Calcutta-Acquisition of Burdwan, Midnapore, and Chittagong-Accession to the Dewanny-Fiscal machinery-Instructions to the Supervisors-Khamar lands-The zemindars-Protection for the ryotsThe hustabood-Direct management of the revenue by the English-Revenue farmed for five years-Abwabs and cesses prohibited-Revenue administered from the Presidency-Review of revenue administration-Preparations for a permanent revenue system-Enquiries set on foot-Annual settlementsA permanent plan again contemplated-Settlement for 1188-Register of revenue-free land-Rules for resumption-Settlements for 1191, 1192 and 1193-Centralisation-Instructions for decennial settlement-Settlement for 1194-Regulations for the conduct of the Collectors-Regulations of 25th April 1787-Legislation of 1790-Summary-Power of alienation restrictedProprietary rights-The fiscal machinery. We have now reached the period of British rule. connexion of the English with Bengal appears to The Early conhave English with begun in 1640, when the trade with Bengal was first opened under the protection of the Emperor Shah Jehan, who granted the English considerable privileges. In 1698 they were allowed by Azeem-oo-Shan, the grandson of Aurungzebe, and then Soubahdar of Bengal, Behar, and Orissa, to purchase the talookdary right in Calcutta and the adjacent villages of Sootanootty and Govindpore subject to a revenue of Rs. 1,195. In 1707 Calcutta was declared to be a Presidency, accountable only to the Directors in England. For a long time the English continued to trade without acquiring any further territorial rights; but in 1757 considerable progress was made in the acquisition of rights Harington's Analysis, Vol. I, 2. nexion of the Bengal. in the land. In February 1757 they had been allowed to fortify Calcutta, and to place themselves in an almost independent position; and after the battle of Plassey, which was fought on the 23rd of June of that year, they obtained from Meer Jaffier, whom they had raised to the position of Nawab Nazim, the grant of the zemindary of the Twentyfour Pergunnahs in the neighbourhood of Calcutta. It is of course not my intention to trace the progress of English conquest, but it will throw some light upon our present subject to notice the main steps in the acquisition of the Twenty-four Pergunnahs and of Calcutta. The first grant of the Twenty-four Pergunnahs by Meer Jaffier was made by a perwanneh or order, directed to the officials of every kind within the pergunnahs and also to the ryots, announcing the formation of the pergunnahs into a zemindary in favor of the East India Company, and commanding obedience to the Company as zemindar. This being only a preliminary step to the formation of the zemindary, it was followed in 1758 by a formal dewanny sunnud under the seal and signature of the Provincial Dewan Meer Mahomed Sadoc. This contained the usual representation that the inhabitants were not satisfied to pay their rents to the new zemindar, until they could be assured by a sunnud of the authority of the Company to exercise the functions of zemindar. The sunnud then followed the usual form with which we are already acquainted, and contained particulars of the lands included in the sunnud, and of the jumma to be paid for them, which amounted to Sicca Rs. 2,22,958. See the perwanneh in Aitchison's Treaties, Vol. 1, 15. |