Графични страници
PDF файл
ePub
[blocks in formation]

VIII.

principles of landlord and tenant. But substance is more LECTURE important than forms. If the propositions of the Collectors for correcting the prevailing abuses be examined, they will be found defective; and the regulations which our experience has enabled us to establish will, when considered, appear indefinite, where they ought to have the utmost precision. Orders which should be positive are tempered by cautious conditions, nor am I ashamed to distrust my own knowledge, since I have frequent proofs that new enquiries lead to new information. Notwithstanding repeated prohibitions against the introduction of new taxes, we still find that many have been established of late years. The idea of the imposition of taxes by a landlord upon his tenant implies an inconsistency; and the prohibition in spirit is an encroachment upon proprietary right, for it is saying to the landlord you shall not raise the rents of your estate. But without expatiating on this part of the argument, I shall only here observe that, with an exception of an arbitrary limitation in favour of the khode and khaust ryots, the regulations for the new settlement virtually confirm all these taxes, without our possessing any records of them, and without knowing how far they are burthensome or otherwise. In some cases a knowledge of those impositions has been followed by the abolition of them, in others it may be equally necessary; wherever it takes place there is a risk that the assessment will suffer a proportionate diminution. At present they are in many places so numerous and complicated that after having obtained an enumeration of the whole, the amount of the ausil with the proportionate rates of the several abwabs, it requires an accountant of some ability to calculate what a ryot is to pay, and the calculation may

VIII.

.

[blocks in formation]

LECTURE be presumed beyond the ability of most tenants. The pottah rarely expresses the sum total of the rents, and it is difficult to determine what is extortion."

He speaks of the persons settled with as "those whom we acknowledge to be the proprietors of the soil;"" and is therefore of opinion that Government ought not to authorise their permanent dispossession on account of their refusing to agree to the settlement.?

In answer to this minute, Lord Cornwallis,3 on the 3rd February 1790, refers to the alleged incapacity of the zemindars, which is relied upon by Mr. Shore as an objection to a permanent settlement with them. Lord Cornwallis considers that this arose from the state of tutelage in which they were kept, being forbidden to borrow money or dispose of their lands without the knowledge of Government. With reference to the inconsistency alleged by Mr. Shore, in refusing to allow the zemindars to raise the rent of the ryots by imposing fresh taxes, he remarks that such impositions violate the rights of the ryots, since every beegah of land possessed by the ryots "must have been cultivated under an express or implied agreement that a certain sum should be paid for each beegah of produce." The right of occupancy by the ryots he also considers not to be inconsistent with the rights of the zemindars: he says "neither is the privilege which the ryots in many parts of Bengal enjoy of holding possession of the spots

"5

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

VIII.

of land which they cultivate so long as they pay the LECTURE revenue assessed upon them by any means incompatible with the proprietary rights of the zemindars. Whoever cultivates the lands, the zemindars can receive no more than the established rent, which in most places is fully equal to what the cultivator can afford to pay. To permit him to dispossess one cultivator for the sole purpose of giving the land to another would be vesting him with a power to commit a wanton act of oppression from which he could derive no benefit. The practice that prevailed under the Moghul Government of uniting many districts into one zemindary, and thereby subjecting a large body of people to the control of one principal zemindar, rendered some restriction of this nature absolutely necessary. The zemindar, however, may sell the land, and the cultivators must pay the rent to the purchaser."

dars.

He considers that the talookdars have in general the The talooksame right in the soil as the zemindars, being merely smaller proprietors paying their revenue through the larger proprietors, the zemindars. He was accordingly desirous

"that all proprietors of land, whether zemindars, talookdars, or chowdries, should pay their revenue direct." With Proprietary rights. regard to proprietary rights he says:-" the question that has been so much agitated in this country, whether the zemindars and talookdars are the actual proprietors of the soil or only officers of Government, has always appeared to me to be very uninteresting to them, whilst their claim to a certain percentage upon the rents of their lands has been admitted, and the right of Government to fix the

Fifth Report, Vol. I, 617. 2 Ib., 620.

LECTURE
VIII.

Result of the discussion.

[blocks in formation]

amount of those rents at its own discretion has never been denied or disputed. Under the former practice of annual settlement, zemindars who have either refused to agree to pay the rents that have been required, or who have been thought unworthy of being entrusted with the management, have, since our acquisition of the Dewanny, been dispossessed in numberless instances, and their land held khas or let to a farmer; and when it is recollected that pecuniary allowances have not always been given to dispossessed zemindars in Bengal, I conceive that a more nugatory or delusive species of property could hardly exist. On the other hand, the grant of these lands at a fixed assessment will stamp a value upon them hitherto unknown, and by the facility which it will create of raising money upon them either by mortgage or sale will provide a certain fund for the liquidation of public or private demands, or prove an incitement to exertion and industry by securing the fruits of those qualities in the tenure to the proprietors' own benefit." But he adds-" I admit the proprietary rights of the zemindars.”1

These extracts show in what light the zemindars were regarded before the Decennial Settlement, and that the question was considered mainly with reference to the matter then in hand-a more or less permanent settlement for the revenue. The conclusion arrived at was that the zemindars in Bengal were the proper persons to be settled with, inasmuch as they had long enjoyed the right to such settlement; and had acquired, if they did not originally possess, a proprietary right in the land, the extent of which it was unnecessary to discuss further than to ascertain that it

[blocks in formation]

OPINION OF THE COURT OF DIRECTORS.

283

justified a permanent settlement with them as the nearest approach to an English holder in fee simple, and as the most likely class to develop into the English landlord.

This view appears to me to be confirmed by the final expression of opinion of the Court of Directors in their letter, dated 19th September 1792, upon the question of making the settlement perpetual. They say :- "In former despatches we have, on different occasions, conveyed to you our sentiments on that point; though we have also stated that we felt the materials before us to be insufficient for forming a decisive opinion. On the fullest consideration, we are inclined to think that, whatever doubts may exist with respect to their original character, whether as proprietors of land or collectors of revenue, or with respect to the changes which may in process of time have taken place in their situation, there can at least be little difference of opinion as to the actual condition of the zemindars under the Moghul Government. Custom generally gave them a certain species of hereditary occupancy; but the sovereign nowhere appears to have bound himself by any law or compact not to deprive them of it: and the rents to be paid by them remained always to be fixed by his arbitrary will and pleasure, which were constantly exercised upon this object. If considered therefore as a right of property it was very imperfect and very precarious; having not at all, or but in a very small degree, those qualities that confer independence and value upon the landed property of Europe. Though such be our ultimate view of this question, our originating a system of fixed equitable taxation will sufficiently show that our intention has

Harington's Analysis, Vol. III, 359.

LECTURE
VIII.

« ПредишнаНапред »