315 



arise. But it must be borne in mind that the 

 people of India are very ignorant. The masses 

 cannot read and write. They are clearly, in 

 these matters, in a state of infancy. Of this great 

 question which so deeply concerns every man in 

 the country which has agitated Anglo-Indian, 

 and a large section of English society for the past 

 year, and been discussed in almost every English 

 Journal and Review in both Countries, not one in 

 twenty thousand of our Indian subjects has even so 

 much as heard.* Should the Zemindars, then, when 

 the time comes for Government to legislate for the 

 deficiency of revenue, disclaim all knowledge of the 

 intention of the previous law, it appears to me that 

 it would be awkward. But should the Community, 

 by that time more enlightened and independent, take 

 higher ground, and admit an acquaintance with the 

 



* It is a curious fact, that the raiyitwari Settlement of Madras 

 is a perpetual settlement, and when first made was declared to be so, 

 a declaration which has since been repeatedly re -asserted by the 

 highest authority. The Madras Board of Revenue in 1857, in pointing 

 out the erroneous impression that prevailed, regarding 1 the Bombay 

 settlement of 30 years giving a greater permanency of tenure than the 

 Ryotwari settlement of Madras, observed : " This is altogether 

 an error, for the Madras Ryot is able to retain his land in perpetuity 

 without any increase of assessment, as long as he continues to fulfil 

 fiis engagements." And the Madras Government in the same year 

 stated : " The proprietory right of a Ryot is perfect, and as long as 

 he pays the fixed assessment on his laud, he can be ousted by no one." 

 The new assessments now bein<r made, are subject to revision after 50 

 years, a modification of which the people, I should think, have no 

 awledg-e whatever. 



