1845.] the owners, and occupants of the soil in Bengal, $c. 533 



labor, and relieves him from all the care and expense of watching 

 over and transporting his own share of the produce. In order therefore 

 to make an equitable adjustment in converting rents paid in kind 

 into money-rents, every one of these points should receive attention ; 

 and although it is probable that these questions were not formerly 

 understood in all their minuteness of detail, yet we find that in prac- 

 tice the cultivator discovered them as it were by experience, and 

 limited his payments in money to the amount at which cash pay- 

 ments were advantageous or not hurtful to his interests: — and here 

 it must be recollected that in the earlier history of a country the pro- 

 ducer and consumer are more nearly on an equality with each other, 

 that it is not until the increased possessions of the latter give him a 

 monopoly over the land that he can dictate its price to the former ; the 

 careful recollection of this fact will afford material assistance in the 

 consideration of the various rates paid by the different classes of cul- 

 tivators in India. In discussing these it will also be necessary to bear 

 in mind the distinction between the actual rate or nerick, and the 

 various additions which have been made to it by the avarice of the 

 landlords. This was formerly so well understood, that in the earlier 

 discussions on revenue matters in this country we generally find the 

 term ussul nerick, as distinguishing the actual rent or hire of the land 

 from all extra demands made under other pretences. Although this 

 distinction has been very much lost sight of, yet the careful analysis 

 of the accounts of any zemindarree will shew the total demand of 

 dustur against the ryut is made up of the ussul nerick, and various 

 other extra charges. Although these latter are discountenanced and 

 invalid by law, yet the possession of a monopoly of a necessary of life 

 will always give rise to the disposition to profit by it, and landlords 

 in this country are not more disposed than in others, to place other 

 limit on their desires than that which necessity imposes. The cultiva- 

 tor must have land, and he can afford to pay for the hire of it, the 

 whole surplus proceeds remaining after the deduction of the costs of 

 production, and a sum sufficient for his own maintenance. In England 

 this is so well understood, that the capability of the tenant to pay is 

 the only limit to the landlord's demand for rent. In this country 

 ancient institutions, new laws, and large tracts of waste land, con- 

 tribute to defeat the monopolizing tendencies of the landlord ; but there 

 is a constant struggle between himself and his tenantry regarding 



