* Lit. "good mind."

+ Aeshma the wrath-demon of the raid.

‡ Or "shelter," or some similar element favouring the holy people.

§ Over some vital interest, or threatening calamity; as to what it may have been, see

the verbatim and the commentary.

So, for safety; lit., "the good mind's

THIRD SERIES. VOL. VIII.

K

who shall help

Yes, when shall come

the men | best skilled for action?

When drive they hence

This soil of frenzied seer ?

With whose foul rites

the Karp murd'rous would rob us, And by whose

oracle

tyrants are here?

Aye, when shall come

keen zeal with legal Order,

Giving through government

rich pastures, blest homes? ;

Who rest from

blood-stained infidel wins us? ;

To whom shall

civic skill

from good men come?

the men

Yea, such shall be,

O Lord, this land's prince-saviours,

Who in Thy people's

Faith shall firm abide,

With Asha's rites

fulfilled, guarding each statute,

Set against murder's

raid

stemming its tide !

For facility of reference we publish with some of our quarterly reviews of one or more of "The Sacred Books of the East" Series, a complete list of them, brought up to date, which we hope our readers and Oriental scholars generally will consider to be a useful addition. The Series now stands as follows (1st July, 1899): THE

BOOKS OF THE

(Translated by various Oriental Scholars, and edited by the Rt. Hon. F. MAX MÜLLER.)

* Published at the Clarendon Press, Oxford.

THE LANDLORD AND POLITICAL TENURES
OF GUJARAT AND WESTERN INDIA.—IV.

By B. H. BADEN-POWELL, M.A., C.I.E., F.R.S.E., M.R.A.S...

LANDLORD TENURES IN BRITISH DISTRICTS.

It now only remains to consider the tenures of the BRITISH DISTRICTS, which for the most part were the original "Khalsa" territory of the former rulers. In the first place, it is important to remember that in former days these districts were covered by a complete network of Rajput chiefships. Lands were possessed in exactly the same way, and exactly on the same grounds of conquest, grant, or hereditary right, as the "political" districts above noticed. But the Government of the time annexed the territory, and destroyed the independence of the overlords. Often it ejected them altogether, and brought the villages into direct relation with the State. In some cases it left the original chiefs with a fragment of their possessions as free-holders, or gave them the position of "tālukdar," which meant one thing in the Moslem Governor's mind, and quite another in that of the hereditary Rajput bhumiyā or grasiya. We have to note the condition and legal tenure of the different estates as they now appear, and notice how the principles of the Bombay Revenue Administration operated in modifying the title on which they are held.

The "landlord " tenures (which pay revenue) in the British districts of Gujarat, and are distinguished in the statistical tables, are the Talukdāri, Mewāsi, and Udhaḍjamabandi. These apparently are recorded separately solely because the Government revenue is assessed differently in each. Two other kinds of landlord tenure, however, exist, called "Māliki " and “Kasbāti,” which are not separately shown. The reason why I begin with this string of unfamiliar names will soon be apparent. From a purely "tenure" point of view, some of these estates were in origin, and all are in effect, of exactly the same kind. The first two are simply the relics of those Rajput or Koli chiefs' estates, the growth and misfortunes of which have been described. The third is not a special tenure of any kind: any proprietary estate may come under this designation, by the fact of its having a fixed assessment-generally at a somewhat favourable rate, and not assessed on the usual plan of soil valuation, but in a lump sum on the basis of the former customary amount. The "Kasbāti” was a Moslem grant originally of a revenue-lease, which (as usual) became proprietary; Māliki, again, is the name of a regular proprietary grant (Moslem), which, however, underwent a certain dissolution only in recent times. The distinction really was perpetuated on grounds which are interesting, since they result from the Bombay theory of revenue administration as distinct from that of Bengal.

In July, 1894, I published in this Review a paper showing that the early Hindu law, as well as the genuine Muhammadan jurisprudence, knew

nothing of the claim of the King or Emperor to be owner of all landoccupied as well as waste-in his dominions. But both contained the germs of a theory of right by conquest which easily led to such a claim being developed; and by the time British rule began in Bengal or (some 50 years later) in Bombay, the Rājās, Thakurs, Nawabs, and others, who had become independent, had, one and all, asserted and acted on the principle that by conquest (or otherwise) they were the soil-owners.

When Lord Cornwallis came out to settle the revenue-administration of Bengal, this principle appeared to him highly objectionable. He wished that the "estates " should everywhere, if possible, be held by private landlords-subject only to the revenue-payment and to a state-lien on the land as security for its recovery. Accordingly the Governor-General issued, throughout Bengal, grants of title to those persons who were considered best qualified to be called owners. The Government was then no longer the general landlord; it retained only such lands as were waste and unoccupied, or such lands as had no other owners, or for which no one would undertake the responsibility to pay the revenue. In all other cases the theory of "Government lands" or Government being owner, was at an end. The same principle (in a somewhat different form) naturally prevailed in later years when the N.W. Provinces were acquired. A certain number of great landlords were found and acknowledged: but in the majority of cases the lands were owned by groups of co-sharers or joint owners, forming village communities. And here the formal ownership of the village was recognised as residing in the jointly responsible body which engaged (through its representative headmen) to pay the revenue. But the theory of Government ownership was equally at an end. It resulted also from this desire (in Bengal) to transfer the soil-ownership to considerable landlords, or to joint bodies, that the idea of the necessity (for administrative purposes) of a middleman between the host of actual possessors and cultivators and the State, grew so strong under the Bengal system in early times. If there was no proprietor, then a revenue-engagement must be taken from a middleman or "farmer" of some kind, whose position was not further defined than by calling him the "holder of the settlement."

In BOMBAY the Government never adopted this Bengal policy, nor did it repudiate the position of owner-in-chief of the entire soil which it derived by succession to the Moslem and Mahratha Governments. On the contrary, it was inclined rather to insist on the title, because (if for no other reason) it gave a locus standi from which to secure the hereditary and transferable "occupancy" tenure of the cultivating raiyats, while leaving them the option of relinquishing land if they could not make it pay. In consequence a special method of survey, valuation, and land-administration was devised. By the time the long period of the retention of experimental (and old native) methods of revenue management came to an end, MUNRO, in Madras, had finally effected the triumph of the "raiyat wāri" system; and the adoption of similar principles in Bombay was secured. Under such a

* The necessity of the middleman (especially where, as in Bengal, there was no Cadastral Survey) arose from the belief that it was impossible to manage and deal with the mass of peasant holders of lands direct.