Modes of Collecting the Revenue.

13

by Mr. Mackay, says: "No where throughout the Presidency is communication so well kept up, not only on the great lines of traffic, but between village and village; and no where, certainly, is the number of carts, 14,744, greater in proportion to the population and number of the villages. The above gives 35 to each village; and every 18 inhabitants have a cart." This certainly would shew that the existing roads are equal to the present requirements of the country; and any very great improvement in them must follow, not precede the settlement of Europeans in the districts.

The second Chapter is devoted to the consideration of the relation of the Guzerat cultivator to the soil he tills. To make this question understood, it was necessary to describe the different land tenures in the Province, which Mr. Mackay has accordingly done. As the distinctions, however, have been given in a manner somewhat confused, and not in all cases correct, we will take the liberty of describing them in a shorter and more intelligible form.

The two great classes of villages in British Guzerat are those directly managed by the officers of Government, and those managed by others more or less responsible to them. In the former may be reckoned all the Khalsa or Tulput villages, in which the State itself is the landlord; and in the latter the Jageer, Inamee, Talookdaree, Nerwa, Bhagdaree, and all other villages in which the lands are let out by others than the Government officers. In the villages directly, as well as in those indirectly, managed, the revenue is collected in different ways. In some it is by the exaction of bigotee, or money payment per beega of land, which may again be fixed according to the quality of the soil, or according to the crop raised, or both combined, or according to the case of the individual raising it in others by taking a share of the actual produce of each crop, which share is fixed but annually calculated separately for each field, either by estimate or personal inspection, or by actual reaping and division of the out-turn, which is called the Bhagwattace (division of share) system: in others by levying from each cultivator annually certain sums fixed for terms of years, according to the extent and nature of soil contained in his khata or holding, as in the "khatabundee" and "hoondabundee" tenures in others by a tax on the plough of a cultivator, whatever the quantity or quality of land he may cultivate and in others by a combination of this last tax with any money or grain the cultivator may have to pay, under the bigotee or bhugwattaee systems. These different methods of collecting the revenue may, and do prevail in the villages not directly managed by the Government Officers; the general distinction being, that the bigotee system prevails on the East, and the bhagwuttaee on the West of the Gulf of Cambay, in the peninsula of Kattiawar; but the degree of interference with their administration that can be ex

or

ercised by the State in the different descriptions of villages, is various. In the Jageer and Inamee (presented) villages, the holders have absolute power in the matter of disposing of their lands on any conditions they may choose. In the Talookdaree villages (called also in the Puranty Purgunnah of the Ahmedabad Collectorate "Mehwassee," from "Mehwas," a thick jungle), the holder is bound not to exact more than the rental fixed by the recorded village “dhara” custom; any infrigement of this rule being punishable, when complained against, by the annulment of the talookdaree lease; but no other interference with its management by Government Officers is exercised. On the other hand in the Nerwa and Bhagdaree villages the principal holders are allowed to make their own terms with their sub-tenants; but the accounts are kept as strictly as they are in villages managed directly. The following statement, which includes certain villages held under the "Oodhur Jumabunden" tenure (the payment of a fixed tribute without any further interference on the part of the State), will shew how far the influence of the Government Officers can be exercised on behalf of the ryots in the British dominions in Guzerat, and how far it can not.

In the first class, of 1838 villages, there is no obstacle to the introduction of any measures calculated to improve the condition of the ryot. In the second class, of 544 villages, although the State has the power of interfering with the rent to be exacted from the ryot, it is doubtful whether it would be politic to do so too suddenly. In the third class, it is doubtful whether the State have such a right of interference. And in the fourth, consisting of comparatively a small number of villages, there is no doubt that the right does not exist at all. In considering, therefore, the tenure on which the cultivator holds, and what that tenure ought to be in order that the wellbeing of the people may be cared for, and the resources of the country developed to their fullest extent, we will confine our remarks to the case in which the right of interference is undoubted.

The substance of Mr. Mackay's opinions on these points appears to be, that the Guzerat cultivator is a mere tenant at will, because he can be evicted from his land if his rent be raised by Government (who have unlimited power in this respect) to such an extent that he may not be able to pay it.

Land Tenures in Guzerat.

15

Here our author developes at great length, and with insidious ability, the theory which he brought out from England. We cannot afford the space to follow his foot-steps in the argument; but if our readers will look at it, carefully, we think they will say that the description we are about to give of it is not incorrect. Mr. Mackay quotes the language of Mr. Prideaux, Mr. Mountstuart Elphinstone, and Mr. Davies, the late Collector of Broach, for the purpose of showing that their definition of the nature of the ryot's interest in the land does not amount to a "fee simple." Why this technical phrase, peculiar to the English law of real property, should find its way into the discussion, we are at a loss to imagine. The very fact that the ryot has to pay rent, and may be turned out in case of default, of itself shews that there is no resemblance between his interest in the soil, and that designated, by the technical term, "fee simple"; which signifies the highest of all titles, and the most absolute interest in land that man can enjoy. The argument having arrived at this stage, then creeps on for several pages, until it settles down into another technical phrase, derived from the English law of real property, and establishes that the ryot's interest in the land is a "tenancy at will," which represents the lowest amount of interest that a man can possess in land under the English law; and having now got hold of this phrase "tenancy at will," with all its false inferences and insidious suggestions, Mr. Mackay has no longer any trouble. The rest follows as of course. "A tenant at will"-one with so uncertain and precarious a tenure-has no stimulus to enterprise or industry. He would be a fool to lay out a rupee on his land beyond what is absolutely requisite; for his occupancy may be determined to-morrow. Do any of our readers recognise in this phrase, "the tenancy at will," a veritable description of the ryot's interest in the soil? Will any one who has been in Guzerat bear out Mr. Mackay's suggestion-mark, not assertion-that the cultivators-the hereditary tenants of the land for centuries-feel insecure in their position, or that they are so in fact? The argument put into their mouths, in the 85th, 86th, and 88th pages of this work, is just as fictitious and unfaithful a representation of their real sentiments, as the artificial description given of their interest in the soil, is fallacious and practically untrue.

We have nothing to complain of in Mr. Mackay's logic. It is faultless-as far as it goes. But what then? It does not help us on our way to what, practically, is the condition of the cultivator. We have still that investigation to make. The requirements of common sense will not be satisfied with the delicate repast Mr. Mackay has provided for it. It demands a more robust and nutritious diet. For what purpose have four pages of subtle reasoning been devoted to shew that Government are the absolute owners of the land, and the

ryots mere tenants at will, unless Mr. Mackay is prepared to add that the ryots have gone through the same course of reasoning, and have arrived at the same result, and, like good logicians, feel themselves insecure? Moreover, it would be very easy to meet Mr. Mackay on his own ground, and to prove that there is, even in theory, a wide difference between the interest of the Indian ryot in the soil and that of a "tenant at will" under the law of England, and which he has altogether omitted to notice. The ryot may sell his holding, without the consent of his landlord. It is indeed often seized in execution for his debts, and sold as his property under decrees of the Civil Courts. A tenancy at will, on the other hand, is inalienable, as its term implies. Again, it has been decided by the Courts of law that Government have no power to eject the ryot so long as he pays his rent, but a tenancy at will is determinable at the mere will of the landlord, and such a thing as an hereditary tenancy at wl is unknown and obviously inconsistent with itself. Now the only insecurity the ryot is under, even in theory, is that his rent may be raised to an amount that he cannot pay, and that Government may, in consequence, eject him from the land; but as Government must raise the rent of the whole district at the same time, and must in common justice eject all the defaulters together, the actual danger to the ryot is simply that his landlord may be afflicted with insanity,-a peril which all tenants are exposed to!

Mr. Mackay seems to admit that the tenant is not substantially insecure. He does not produce a single instance of a cultivator of Government land being ejected for not having paid his rent, although liable to be so; nor, although we have had some experience in Guzerat revenue matters, can we recall one to mind. Even in the unfortunate case of Broach, so often thrown in the teeth of the Bombay Government in this Chapter, it is not alleged that a single cultivator was evicted from inability to pay his rent under Mr. Kirkland's heavy, assessment, and we may be very sure that had such an event happened, Mr. Mackay would have chronicled it in conspicuous type. The fact, stated by Mr. Mackay, that the cultivator lived upon remissions, of itself illustrates that he is in reality in no danger of being ejected from his rent being raised so high that he cannot pay it; Government has a far greater interest in keeping him in possession, in order to derive a fair revenue from his land, than in raising the rent so high that no one will cultivate it. But Mr. Mackay has asserted that the tenure is not merely a tenancy at will, but that the evils of that tenancy are vastly aggravated by there being but one instead of numerous proprietors; and he winds up the paragraph with the following words: What would be the condition of tenants at will in England, if

Land Tenures in Guzerat.

17

they had but one landlord to deal with instead of a hundred and five thousand ?" We answer without hesitation, that if that sole landlord were the State, their condition would be at least as favorable as it now is, for the State could afford to be more liberal in its dealings with its tenants than a private individual; the result of such liberality in its land revenue department would cause greater prosperity among its subjects, and thus lead to an increase of revenue in the Customs, Excise, and other departments. This argument is still more applicable to the case of the Indian Government, whose very existence may be said to depend upon the stability of its land revenue; and we maintain that the position of the Indian cultivator is far better when he holds direct from the Government, than when there are intermediate agents between him and the Officers of the State. This position is fully allowed by Mr. Mackay himself in his arguments against the Bhagdars and Nerwadars of Gazerat; but in his opinion the ryot himself should be the proprietor, with absolute power of disposal over his land, and without the liability to have his rent increased unless with his consent. Mr. Mackay's argument assumes that the Indian cultivator is as enlightened, as energetic, and as capable of understanding and caring for his own interests as the English farmer, and though probably there is about the same amount of prejudice in both, the one at any rate is capable of being shaken and instructed, the other is bound down by the iron bonds of caste and the customs of his fathers, which are his religion. But giving Mr. Mackay the benefit of his assumption, though in truth it goes to the root of his whole argument, it will not aid him in contending that the ryot of the East India Company should be placed in a better position then the tenant of the Crown lands in England? If the greater portion of the revenues of Great Britain were derived from the rent of the Crown Lands, can it be conceived for a moment that the most enlightened legislature in the world, the British Parliament, would grant their tenants such a tenure as a fee simple with absolute power of disposal over their lands, and without any security for the realization of the demands of the State, binding itself moreover never to increase those demands, however great an emergency might arise to render such a proceeding advisable? Let us see how the Crown lands, once so extensive, now so limited and unimportant as a source of public revenue, are dealt with in England at the present day.

"These demesne lands, terræ dominicales regis, being either the share reserved to the Crown at the original distribution of landed property, or such as came to it afterwards by forfeitures or other means, were antiently very large and extensive; comprising divers manors, honors, and lordships; the tenants of which had very peculiar privileges, as has been shown in a former book of these Commentaries, when we spoke of the tenure in antient demesne. At present they are contracted within a very narrow compass, having been almost entirely granted away to private subjects. This has occa

VOL. I-NO. I.

3