242 



note printed as appendix VI.-B. (6) the points in regard to 

 whicli provision should be made in the new law. The history 

 of the previous legislation, which I have attempted briefly to 

 sketch in the preceding paragraphs, will, I trust, have shown 

 the defects in the present law and the causes of its failure. 

 The main cause seems to me to be the idea of the legislature 

 that any attempt on its part to define, in an unequivocal 

 manner, the relative rights of Zemindars and ryots might 

 necessitate interference with " rights of property " and " free- 

 dom of contract " and that if it were made imperative that 

 all contracts between landlords and tenants should be re- 

 duced to writing, and machinery provided for summarily 

 deciding disputes between them, matters would adjust them- 

 selves in the manner best calculated to secure the public in- 

 terests. This view of the case assumes that the Zemindar is 

 the full owner of the lands in the Zemindari and that the 

 rights of the ryot are derived through him. The assumption, 

 as will be seen from the account already given of the origin 

 of the ryot's property, is unfounded. The share of the 

 produce which the Government was entitled to take was 

 always limited in lands occupied as well as waste reclaimed, 

 and the rights conferred on Zemindars were no higher than 

 the rights possessed by the Government itself. Any doubts 

 which the inaccurate language of the permanent settlement 

 regulations might have given rise to in this respect were 

 fully cleared up by the legislation of 1822. The ryot's 

 interest in land had, however, no saleable value inmost parts 

 of the presidency at the time of the permanent settlement. 

 The Zemindar's interest was likewise of small value as he 

 had to pay the major portion of his receipts to Government. 

 Now, owing to improved administration and the general 

 progress of the country, and more especially owing to the 

 great rise in the value of agricultural produce consequent on 

 the expansion of foreign trade which has taken place during 

 the last 40 years, the value of both the Zercindar's and ryot's 

 interests has greatly increased. The question involved in 

 according legislative protection to ryots is therefore not what 

 shall be taken away from the Zemindar and given to the 

 ryot, but how shall the Zemindar, while being allowed to 

 enjoy to the fullest extent the enhanced value of bis share 

 of the produce, be prevented from appropriating, as far as 

 legislation can do so, the enhanced value of the ryot's share. 

 The experiment of allowing the ryots to establish their rights 

 in the courts has been tried, and it has grievously failed. In 

 the first place, the courts can act only on the evidence pro- 

 duced before them, and in a contest between a rich and 



