urged to it is, that it has, by conferring too
sweepingly upon the zemindars— whose original
status was that of farmers of the land revenue,
the position and powers of proprietors of the
soil— injustice was done in some cases to other
claims, and that, in fact, the wrong man was not
unfrequently put into the wrong place; and
further, that while the settlement has benefited
both the government and the proprietors, it has
not been equally favourable to the peasantry,
whom it has tended to depress.

That there is some truth in these objections
cannot be denied; but the defects pointed out
are accidental, and not a necessary part of the
system. As far as the invasion of individual
rights is concerned, the errors were those of
ignorance, haste, and want of proper precautions,
and these are errors which need never
occur again. The depression of the peasantry
was certainly very great for a time, and up to
1830, when Rammohun Roy made a representation
on their behalf in England, their condition
must have been very bad indeed. But that it
has materially improved since then there can be
no doubt; and so wretched a state of things
would never have existed at all had the government
not consented to remove the restriction by
which the zemindars were at first prevented
from ejecting any ryot who paid the then existing
amount of rent. It would be a difficult
matter, undoubtedly, to maintain a subordinate
permanent settlement between landlord and
tenant; but means might surely be found to
protect the latter from tyrannical exactions
without forfeiting the advantages of the system.
And this, too, must be admitted— that whatever
was the condition of the Bengal peasant five-
and-twenty years ago, under the Perpetual
Settlement, it was better than that of the Madras
peasant under the ryotwar system— the rival
scheme of Sir Thomas Munro; and whereas the
condition of the Bengal peasant has been
improving since that period, the condition of the
Madras peasant remains as bad as ever. Sir
Thomas Munro's scheme was founded upon
exactly opposite principles to that of Lord
Cornwallis. Its main object was to abolish all
intervention between the government which collected
the revenue and the people who paid it. The
functions of the zemindars were swept away.
Every peasant was to have his field measured
and assessed, and to pay his tax direct to the
state, the amount, as in Bengal, to be fixed in
perpetuity. Nothing seemed more just than
such an arrangement. There was only one
objection to it. It would not work without gross
invasion of private rights; but it has endured
in the greater portion of the Madras presidency
to this day, with some modifications, the
principal of which is the substitution of an annual
for the permanent settlement originally intended,
while annual settlement is of course considered
a tax upon improvement, and works accordingly.
As far as oppression and corruption is
concerned, things are doubtless not so bad as they
were; but Sir Thomas Munro soon discovered
that the native subordinates whom it was found
necessary to employ in the elaborate machinery
of the system, abused their powers in the grossest
manner, to an extent, indeed, which would not
have been possible under a zemindaree settlement.

It was the ryotwar system of Madras,
combined with a system of village leases, that was
first introduced into the North- West Provinces.
Lord Wellesley, as we have said, promised a
permanent settlement as in Bengal, but this was
disallowed by the home authorities. The other
plan was adopted by a regulation of 1822; but
it was found too elaborate to be carried out,
and by a regulation of 1833 the present settlement
of the North- West Provinces was enacted.
This was not completed until 1842, twenty
years after it was first designed, the principle
being the same as that of the scheme first introduced.
The settlement, however, besides being
made with communities or their representatives
instead of with every individual peasant,
has the advantage of being for thirty years
instead of for one. It was originally intended
to be for twenty, but it was considered
advisable to make the extension. The result
has been an amount of prosperity and confidence
such as was not expected by anybody but the
immediate promoters of the measure, who
expected a great deal more. And it is to its
successful operation that the comparatively mild
effects of the famine must be mainly ascribed.
Colonel Smith, in his report, bears undeniable
testimony to the fact that, foremost among the
means by which society in Northern India has
been strengthened, so as to resist with far less
suffering far heavier pressure from drought and
famine in 1860-61 than in 1837-38, is the creation
of a vast mass of readily convertible and easily
transferable agricultural property, which is the
direct result of the limitation for long terms of
the government demand on the land, and the
careful record of individual rights accompanying
it, which have been in full and active operation
since the existing settlements were made.

Nevertheless, it is a fact that, although the
last famine has not been so destructive in its
effects as the former one, the amount of destruction
has been deplorable indeed. Colonel Smith
does not venture to estimate the sum total of
the mortality; but we may gain some idea of it
when we hear that it is not nearly so great as
in 1837-38, when the number ot deaths were
estimated at eight hundred thousand. Are we
to understand that it may have been anything
like half that number? In any case, it is clear
that if there are means to be found to avert such
horrors for the future, it is our duty to find
them. A complete system of canals and roads
would work wonders towards the object, and this
may now be considered in progress. But there
is more to be done still; and the excellent working
of the long settlement leads us to the necessary
conclusion, as Colonel Smith recommends,
that it should be made longer, and be extended,
in part, in perpetuity, like that of Bengal. We
have glanced at the objections made to that
settlement, and repeat our conviction that