Revenue proposed, and the Governor-General in Council approved the proposition, that the zemindars should be continued in their leases "so long as they paid the revenue with regularity, and otherwise conducted themselves to the satisfaction of Government." And this proviso was inserted in their amilnamahs.1 It may be observed that a reaction against the original sweeping dispossession of the zemindars was in progress; and the authorities in India seem to have been in advance of the Home Government in the desire to restore the zemindars. This reaction ultimately produced the Permanent Settlement. When the plan of a registry of lands held without payment of revenue was drawn up for Bengal, it was stated that there was for Behar a full register of the lands within the scope of that plan already existing. However, on the 29th June 1784, a complete plan was approved of for a registry of jageer and other revenue-free lands in Behar, upon a proposition by Mr. Shore. The jageers in Behar appear to have been chiefly of the unconditional kind.” LECTURE The settlement for 1785 (1192) was similar to that of the Centralisation. previousy ear, being made with the zemindars, unless disqualified; and this settlement was renewed for 1786 (1193).5 The plan of centralising the administration of the revenue does not appear to have been a successful one. This plan, as we have seen, had been contemplated as early as the 23rd November 1773, when the Provincial Councils were established as a preliminary measure; and it was carried into LECTURE effect by the scheme of the 20th February 1781, which created the Committee of Revenue. This Committee reported on the 29th March 1781 that they considered it best “in general to leave the lands with the zemindars, making the settlement with them;" and they pointed out the difficulty of direct management, and recommended that such districts as were then under khas management should be let to farmers.' In consequence of these recommendations the new settlements for that year were generally made with the zemindars, and the reaction in favor of the zemindars' rights acquired further strength. Later, in 1782, Mr. Shore exposed the impracticability of the existing system, declaring that although one object of the institution of the Committee of Revenue, of which he was a member, was to bring the revenue without agency to the Presidency, and all local control was removed with respect to the renters who paid at Calcutta, or what was called huzoory, yet that the Committee were necessarily ignorant of the real state of any district; that they were and must be entirely in the hands of their dewan; and that all parties interested combined to deceive them. He asserts that one result of this system was that "the real state of the districts is now less known, and the revenues less understood, than in 1774;" and concludes by saying that "the universal opinion, strengthened by experience, has pronounced the system fundamentally wrong and inapplicable to any good purpose." I have quoted these remarks because, although the revenue machinery does not in all respects strictly concern us, yet these observations show that the effect of the changes in that 'Harington's Analysis, Vol. II, 41. VII. machinery, and of the helpless position of the English LECture administrators, was to throw the whole management into the hands of the zemindars; and thus, as during Mahomedan rule, and for the same reasons, the helplessness of the Government was the opportunity of the zemindar. It is true the Government long struggled against this result; and, on the 7th April 1786, the Board of Revenue directed the appointment of servants of the Company as Collectors throughout the huzoory mehals, who were to realise the revenue, and "to preserve the ryots and other inferior tenants from the oppression and exactions to which they are in this country so peculiarly liable from the superior landholders and renters." The Collectors were directed to obtain, amongst other particulars, all possible information as to what land was held free of revenue." The native provincial dewans were abolished; thus completing the reversal of the policy of the 14th May 1772 and 23rd November 1773. At the same time "the ancient constitu tional check of the canoongoes' department' was revived and the two head canoongoes were to reside at the khalsa in the Presidency. With respect to the revival of this office, the Governor-General in Council, on the 19th July 1786, expresses the opinion that, in order to remedy the confusion that had grown up, the officers of the canoongoes' department must be placed "upon their ancient footing, altogether independent of the zemindars;" and he 'Colebrooke's Supplement, 243. See the details of Collectorships, ib., 246, 247. * Ib., 250. 3 Ib., 245. 4 • Ib., 246. 262 PREPARATION FOR THE DECENNIAL SETTLEMENT. LECTURE appoints Mr. Grant sheristadar, as a step towards the restoration of the old system.1 VII. Instructions for Decennial On the 12th June 1786 the Committee of Revenue was abolished, and a Board of Revenue substituted under orders from the Directors, dated 21st September 1785.2 Lord Cornwallis arrived on the 12th September 1786. In 1784 the statute 24 Geo. III, c. 25, for the better regulation and management of the affairs of the East India Company and of the British possessions in India, had directed, by s. 39, that orders should be given "for settling and establishing, upon principles of moderation and justice, according to the laws and constitution of India, the permanent rules by which the tributes, rents, and services of the rajahs, zemindars, polygars, talookdars, and other native landholders, should be in future rendered and paid;" and Lord Cornwallis brought with him a letter dated 12th April 1786, of the following purport:-With a view to carry into effect the intention of the Legislature, who further directed an inquiry into, and eventual redress of, the grievances alleged to have been sustained by many of the native landholders within the British territories in India, stated to have been unjustly deprived of, or compelled to abandon and relinquish, their respective lands, jurisdictions, rights, and privileges, the Court of Directors issued orders for a full investigation of the truth and extent of such grievances; and also for ascertaining, as correctly as the nature of the subject would admit, "what were the real jurisdictions, rights, and 1 Colebrooke's Supplement, 251 to 253. * Ib., 247. Harington's Analysis, Vol. II, 48. Fifth Report, Vol. I, 15. Fifth Report, Vol. I, 14. PREPARATION FOR THE DECENNIAL SETTLEMENT. 263 privileges of zemindars, talookdars, and jageerdars under the constitution and customs of the Mahomedan or Hindoo government, and what were the tributes, rents, and services which they were bound to render or perform to the sovereign power; and in like manner those from the talookdars to their immediate liege lord, the zemindar; and by what rule or standard they were or ought severally to be regulated." The Court at the same time were of opinion that the spirit of the Act would be best observed by fixing a permanent revenue on a review of the assessment and actual collections of former years; and by forming a settlement, in every practicable instance, with the landholders; establishing at the same time such rules as might be requisite for maintaining the rights of all descriptions of persons under the established usages of the country, and the clause in the Act of Parliament above referred to, which the Governor-General in Council was desired to consider with minute and scrupulous attention, "taking especial care that all the measures adopted in the administration of the revenues be consonant to the sense and spirit thereof." Presuming therefore that the assets of the land must be sufficiently known without any new scrutinies under the various attempts made to ascertain them since the year 1765, and wishing to fix a moderate assessment upon the estates of the several landholders, such as the latter might pay without having a plea for harassing their tenants, the Court of Directors gave instructions for the formation of a settlement to be regulated by these principles on a revision of the jumma and collections of past years; and to be concluded for a period of ten years. In fixing this specific period the Court expressed their apprehension that "the frequency of change had LECTURE |