by any declaration in the Regulations or proceedings relative to the Decennial Settlement of an intention to confer any proprietary right upon the zemindars which they did not otherwise possess, save the exemption from alterations in the assessment, it seems to me, with the utmost submission to the authorities which have been referred to, that there is no necessity for enlarging the meaning of the term beyond the actual proprietary right which did exist, especially when, as we have seen, the terms used do not mean that every person actually settled with is an actual proprietor in any sense except that of being actual possessor. It is further to be observed that in the proclamation of the Permanent Settlement, at a time when the rights of the "actual proprietors" were put as high as they could be put, the language used is somewhat different. The enumeration omits chowdries and inverts the order of the sentence, which runs "all zemindars, independent talookdars, and other actual proprietors;" thus abstaining from any definition of the rights of the zemindars, &c., and reducing, according to the ordinary rules of construction, the other actual proprietors" to persons in a similar position to that of the zemindars, whatever that was.' LECTURE not made proprietors. The result seems to me to be that even if the zemindars The zemindars were thought to be absolute proprietors, they are not absolute declared to be so, but the contrary; and that the term "actual proprietors of the soil" does not mean absolute proprietors of the soil as against the ryots; and that consequently, as the Government do not declare any intention of giving up to the zemindars anything but the right to alter the assessment, there is nothing to show that the terms used are See Oolagappa Chetty v. Arbuthnot, 14 B. L. R., 115. VIII. LECTURE meant to render the zemindars absolute proprietors as regards the Government, except in the matter of permanency of revenue. They were to take the Government share of the produce as their own, yielding a fixed assessment to the Government in exchange; but, as I venture to submit, no other alteration was made in their position by the Permanent Settlement. Of course a great practical change was made; because the rights of the zemindars were recognized and secured, while those of the ryots were left to take care of themselves: moreover, the zemindar having acquired the Government right in the revenue in perpetuity, was in an advantageous position for absorbing all other rights. Perhaps the questions now discussed may be long before they acquire any practical importance. I have pointed out that for a long time land had practically no commercial value in India: the value which it has now acquired has been due, as Sir Henry Maine observes, to "the peace which the British have kept, and the moderation of their fiscal demands," and, it may perhaps be added, to the ideas of competition which have been introduced, mainly from the West. And by the time that the soil itself acquires a value distinct from the right to occupy and cultivate it, long user and prescription may have confirmed the right to it in some one or more of the parties. It is not necessary to pursue the consideration of that subject, but it seems essential to endeavour to ascertain what was the real effect of the Permanent Settlement. The aurungs of Beerbhoom. In illustration of the view I have taken, I may refer to a case which was decided in 1811 with reference to certain Village Communities, 180. aurungs, or iron manufactories, in Beerbhoom. The suit was one to recover the possession of those manufactories, and also to recover the proprietary dues levied on the iron ores there manufactured. It appeared on the first hearing that the aurungs were situated in pergunnah Mullarpore in the zemindary of Beerbhoom; that the sums derived by the former zemindar of Beerbhoom from the iron ore had always been collected separately, and kept distinct from the collections for the land, and formed a distinct branch of the zemindar's revenue under the name of the loha mehal; on account of which he had also paid a separate jumma, the accounts of this jumma being kept distinct in the Collector's books. The zemindary of Beerbhoom came afterwards under the management of Government, and the loha mehal was then farmed separately. The late zemindar had sold to the defendant the zemindary, specifying in the instrument the mehals sold and the rights conveyed, but not mentioning the loha mehal; and the Government had conveyed the loha mehal to the plaintiff at a specified jumma. The question was decided in the first instance in favour of the plaintiff. A further enquiry was then directed as to the nature of the plaintiff's rights, when it appeared that the ore was purchased by dealers from the persons who dug or collected it, but it did not appear who those persons were. The ore was then sold to the manufacturers, who paid certain dues at the aurungs on the quantity manufactured. Dues were also levied on the ore when dug, and these dues were paid to the holder of the loha mehal; and the zemindar as such had no right to interfere with the working or manufacture. The Court, upon the whole of the facts, declared the plaintiff entitled LECTURE VIII. LECTURE VIII. Extension of cultivation. to the exclusive right to receive the dues paid at the aurungs as well as on the ore dug; as also to require the ore to be manufactured at his aurungs. It was further declared that the defendants were not entitled to establish aurungs or to interfere with the digging or manufacture of the ore; but, on the other hand, that the plaintiff could not establish new aurungs without the license of the possessor of the land: but that he might open new mines, making full compensation for the injury to the surface. It was further declared that these rights could only be exercised in the customary way.' This case shows that in practice the right to the soil itself is found separated from the right to the cultivation. The separation in this case does not seem to have originated with the zemindar, but to have been all along insisted upon by the Government: and the Permanent Settlement does not seem to have been considered to entitle the zemindar to the minerals as part of the soil for which he was settled with as actual proprietor. It is true the settlement for the minerals had been made with the zemindar, the convenience of such a course being obvious; but the separate assessment and separate conveyance of the loha mehal were considered sufficient to show that the loha mehal was held in a different right from the zemindary. The Permanent Settlement led to a great extension of cultivation; the waste which is said to have been one-third or one-half being much reduced: the cultivation of waste land was one of the cbjects of the Settlement.3 1 Gooroopershad Bose v. Bisnoochurn Heyra, 1 Sel. Rep., 337. * Rajah Lelanund Sing Bahadoor v. The Bengal Government, 6 Moore's I. A., 114. LECTURE IX. CHANGES IN THE POSITION OF THE ZEMINDAR, INTER- freed from interference. The zemindars freed from Government interference-Changes in the zemindar's position-The sayer collections taken away-Regulation IX of 1825, s. 9— Resumption-Remission of revenue-Accounts-Contumacy-Preserving the peace-Exactions and oppression-Cesses-Proportion taken by the StateDisqualified proprietors-Julkur, bunkur, phulkur-General effect of the Permanent Settlement upon the zemindar's position-Position of the zemindar's tenants-Pottahs-Cabooleuts-Dependent talookdars-Separation of independent talooks-Assessment of talooks excluded from the Permanent Settlement-Enhancement-Enhancement by auction-purchasers-Putteedars-Intermediate permanent tenures-Khoodkasht ryots-Mokurreree tenures-Istemrari and mouroosee tenures-Statutory mokurreree tenures of ryots-Mokurreree intermediate tenures-Mokurreree istemrari-Such tenures proved by long possession-Right of occupancy-Acquisition of the right. We have seen that the policy of the Permanent Settlement The zemindars was to secure to the zemindars and other proprietors settled Government with the enjoyment and free disposition of their holdings under certain restrictions. The interference of Government with the zemindars was reduced as much as possible, and on the other hand the State resumed the functions which it had hitherto performed through the zemindar, with the exception of those functions which were originally performed by the zemindar as an officer of the State in connexion with the assessment and realisation of the revenue paid by the cultivators. These were considered, as no doubt they had to a great extent come to be, part of the proprietary right of the zemindar. He was therefore permitted to assess the under-tenants, as we may now call them, within his zemindary without interference by the Government in its executive capacity. Even the record of |