provinces were limited for ever, by what is called the permanent settlement. Consequently, by the law of India, all the uncultivated land (which is, according to Mr. Colebrooke, "one-half, and about half of which is capable of "cultivation, the other half irreclaimable, or in rivers " and lakes") of the whole of the three provinces still remains the property of government; for without an express equivalent and specification of revenue, there existed no power legally capable of giving them away, by any lawful deed of conveyance or any legal mode whatsoever.

Nor, in equity, can these lands be deemed to have been given away, because no equitable value was put upon them by either party to the permanent settlement. It was the productive land, the rent-paying land, that was the subject matter of settlement between the parties; and that rent-paying land consisted of "villages;" for all the land of the country resolves itself into the land of such or such a village. There are larger and smaller divisions; but this is the most definite and best known, and, therefore, I follow the native registers in adopting it.

The quantity of land belonging to every village is stated in beegahs: the boundaries perhaps specified, but probably not well defined. One of the contracting parties, at least, (the zumeendar), was therefore bargaining for a specific quantity of land. This quantity of land was the land in cultivation, and must have been so. The zumeendar had no capital to enable him to offer a rent to government for land that was not immediately productive; nor could government have believed that he had, without entertaining the most extravagant fancy. I say, therefore, that

* Remarks on Bengal.

not

not only the law, but even the equity of the case, is against the alienation of the uncultivated land.

But the discussions which took place on the occasion of the permanent settlement, do not lead us to suppose that government intended to give away the uncultivated lands. Mr. Shore, in his minute of 8th December 1789, speaking of waste land, says, "the limits of the villages are left "undetermined by any marked bounderies. The quantity “of land in each, though stated in beegahs, is confessedly "unascertained (by us, for otherwise this is a gratuitous "confession); the proprietors may therefore extend their

66

possessions and encroach upon the present waste lands. "The boundaries of villages ought to be, and may be "ascertained; and I think the government ought to know "what it gives, and the proprietor what he receives. Mr. "Law says that the boundaries of cultivated villages are well ascertained: if so let them be marked and recorded. "If the plan (the permanent settlement) should be attend"ed with the improvement expected, the limits of estates "will then become very important; and, some time or "other, there will be a necessity for defining them."

From this it is evident, that Mr. Shore, the only member of the government of that day who displays an accurate knowledge of the subject discussed, did not intend to convey to the proprietor of the village more than the land ascertained to belong to that village; which ascertainment was "by beegahs" (whether measured or by computation matters nothing), to which the jumma, or money-rent, had reference.

Lord Cornwallis, indeed, in his minute, February 3d 1790, gives us reason to think that his lordship designed

to

to be more liberal than his colleague; for he says, "the rents of an estate can only be raised (to the profit of "its proprietor), by inducing the ryots to cultivate the "more valuable articles of produce, and to clear the extensive "tracts of waste land, which are to be found in almost "every zumeendarry in Bengal." But his lordship, in the preceding paragraph, has just told us, in answer to an argument of Mr. Shore, "neither is prohibiting the "landholder to impose new abuabs, or taxes, on the lands "in cultivation, tantamount to saying to him he shall not "raise the rents of his estate." But his lordship has not told us, if a landholder may not raise the rents of his lands in cultivation, what profit he is to derive from lands paying money rent (or a specific quantity of grain named), by “inducing ryots to cultivate the more valuable articles of pro"duce." And did his lordship intend giving away, for nothing, the whole of the "extensive tracts of waste land " in Bengal?" This is not understood by the government, nor by any one; and, therefore, we may fairly mark this as a most inconsistent paragraph of his lordship's, conveying no meaning whatsoever.

66

The act, under the authority of which the permanent settlement was made, gave no power to grant waste land. It is the 24th George III., chap. 25, sect. 39. By this section, the Court of Directors were required to give orders for settling and establishing, "upon principles of "moderation and justice, according to the laws and consti"tution of India, the permanent rules by which the tri"bute, rents, and services of the rajahs, zumeendars, "polygars, talookdars, and other native landholders, "should be in future rendered and paid to the United Company."

66

Here

Here there is no authority to give away waste land, or uncultivated land, or indeed land at all; nothing in the most remote sense authorizing the giving any permanent right to land of any kind. It is "to fix permanent rules "for the payment of rents, tributes, and services due "from native landholders," such as rajahs, zumeendars, polygars, talookdars, to the Company; affording a presumption, indeed, in direct opposition to the idea of property in the soil existing in any of the classes of persons mentioned. And these "rules for paying rents" were ordered to be fixed "according to the law and constitution "of India;" which debars, even the Emperor himself, from giving away one inch of waste, or any other land, without an equivalent.

CHAP. III.

On Taxation and Revenue under a Moohummudan
Government.

I NOW come to the sources of revenue available, and taxes leviable by law, under a Moohummudan government in treating of which I shall endeavour, also,' to state what imposts, de facto, existed under the Moohummudan government of India. It must, however, be previously remarked, that as the Moohummudan law was framed for a people, nine-tenths of whom were Moohummudans, when it came to be applied to a people, as in India, of whom nine-tenths were not Moslems, it could scarcely be hoped that a very literal adherence to it was practicable, or will now be found. The general principles of the law, however, were no doubt observed; and to shew this must suffice.

By the Moohummudan revenue laws a distinction is made between the Moslem and the Zimmee, or non-Moslem subject, to which it is necessary to attend. This distinction is great with respect to the land revenue; but it is applicable, only, to the land of Arabia proper, and to conquered provinces, when the lands are divided among the conquerors. There the Moslem pays the ooshr, or tithe of his crop; the Zimmee, the heavier impost of khurauj, which by law may amount to, but cannot exceed, half the produce, i. e. five tithes. But, on the other hand, the Moslem is liable to several annual and occasional