232 



most valuable part was in the hands of Government, and has 

 since, by the permanent settlement, been made over to new 

 Zemindars of our own creation. As in these provinces no 

 fixed assessment has been introduced, nor the rights of the 

 ryots been defined, the ryots can never become land-holders 

 nor their lands acquire such a value as to make them saleable. 

 It may be said that they have a right to be assessed only 

 according to ancient usage, and that this right will secure 

 them from undue exaction, and give them the same facilities 

 as the ryots of the Government districts of rendering their 

 land a valuable property ; but many causes combine to prevent 

 this. The ancient usage was different in every little district 

 or even village. It is not recorded or defined, and is very 

 little known to us. It is, I believe, in the Northern Circars 

 very generally so high as to leave the ryot no more than the 

 bare recompense of his labour and stock, and thus to preclude 

 his ever obtaining any portion of a land-lord's rent. Even sup- 

 posing that usage did leave to the ryot some surplus as land- 

 lord's rent, the Zemindar might not permit him to enjoy it. 

 He migfht raise the assessment. If he were an old Zemindar 

 or hill Rajah, the fear of violence would deter him (the ryot) 

 from complaining. If he were a new Zemindar, the ryot 

 would, nine times in ten, submit quietly to the loss, not from 

 fear of personal injury, but from the well founded fear of 

 losing his cause in Court. He knows that the influence of 

 the Zemindar would easily procure witnesses to swear falsely 

 on the question of ancient usage, and that they would be 

 supported by the fabricated accounts of the kurnam, who is 

 entirely under the authority of the Zemindar, and that if he 

 even gained his cause, it would be of no advantage to him, 

 as the Zemindar, without transgressing any law, would be 

 able to harass him in many ways and make his situation 

 unco mf or table . ' ' 



Notwithstanding these drawbacks, the rights of the ryots 

 in this Presidency, do not appear to have suflTered quite to 

 the same extent as in Bengal for three reasons ; viz., first, 

 that it was all along acknowledged here that the rights of 

 the ryots were distinct from and independent of those of the 

 Zemindars ; secondly, that the maximum rent demandable 

 by the Zemindar was limited to the rent paid in the year 

 preceding that in which the settlement was made, instead of 

 being regulated by the indefinite pergunah rates as in Bengal ; 

 and thirdly, the maintenance of a record by kurnams or 

 village accountants facilitated to some extent the ascertain- 

 ment of the proper rates of rent. Even before the enact- 

 ment of the Regulations 4 and 5 of 1822, the Sudder Court (of 



