Act XXVI. of 1866 was passed, it is true, "for the better determination of certain claims of subordinate proprietors inOudh;" but in order that these subordinate proprietors might enjoy the advantage of paying only a fixed rent, they had toproduce proofs, which was a matter of great difficulty to them. About a tenth part of the cultivators found themselves thusprotected in their occupancy by the law. Nevertheless, according to Art. 32, of the Rent Act of 1868, the rent may beincreased by the court on the demand of the Taluqdar, if the rent paid is less than that generally paid in the district bypersons of the same class, or if it is l2?per cent. less than that paid by tenants with no right of occupancy. With regard toother persons, their position is likewise regulated by the same Rent Act. Article 35 of this Act says: "The court shall in nocase enquire into the propriety of the rate payable by a tenant not having a right of occupancy. The rent payable by suchtenant for any land in his occupation shall be such amount as may be agreed upon -between him and the landlord; or if nosuch agreement has been made, such amount as was payable for the land in the last preceding year." The cultivator,therefore, is obviously transformed into a tenant at will, and the rent which he has to pay is subject to the law ofcompetition, which, as Mr Strachey remarks, in a country like India leads to the most unfortunate consequences. The onlyprotection granted to him by the Rent Act is that he can demand from the proprietor a lease stipulating the condition oftenure (Art. 7); that eviction must be regularly notified to him (Arts. 37 and 43); and that he is entitled to compensation forpermanent improvements of such a nature as to increase the letting value of the land (Arts. 23 and -24). Hence somethingvery similar to the English agrarian system has been established in Oudh, but it does not produce the same results, becausethe Taluqdars do not apply a portion of their revenues as many English landlords do, to the improvement of the soil and themeans of cultivating it. The cultivators have been deprived of the security of possession afforded them by custom, andsubjected to the extortion of a rent regulated by competition; and the limited quasi-proprietorship of the Taluqdars has beentransformed into an absolute right. The better course, according to Mr Thornton and Sir George Campbell, would, on thecontrary, have been to maintain, with all necessary precautions, the system inaugurated after the annexation,that is to say,to keep the property in the hands of the small Zemindars and the village inhabitants, to allow a fixed revenue to theTaluqdars, and to reserve for the State all increase of rent Mr Thornton shews decisively that the best tax is that which theState levies, in its capacity as sole eminent proprietor of the soil. ( Indian Public Works , p. 218.)4. In the North-West Provinces, a more equitable system was introduced by the regulation of 1822, carried out for the mostpart by Mr Thomason. It was decided that the rights of all proprietors, great and small, and even those of the occupiers,should be recognized and registered. The government claimed two-thirds of the rent, the amount of which was to be subjectto revision every thirty years. As for the ryots, they "hardly understood the distinction between hereditary occupancy andtenancyat-will, the question of eviction never having been raised." All those, who had been in uninterrupted possession fortwelve years, were considered as having a right of hereditary occupancy, at a fair rent But the Act x. of 1859 recognized inthe Zemindars the right of increasing the rent Fortunately, they have taken little advantage of it. In fine, in spite of manyerrors in the regulation of rights generally of a very vague nature, agriculture has flourished, land has acquired a high value,and the population is prosperous and contented.
5. In the Central Provinces, the revenue was collected by farmers, and the sum to be paid by the ryots was fixed by Stateofficials. But the authorities, wishing to introduce private property absolutely, recognized these farmers as hereditaryproprietors, allowing them the difference between the rent paid by the ryots and the revenue fixed by government, andwhatever else they might derive from the bringing into cultivation of the waste lands assigned to each village. The Statereserves the right of increasing the revenue, and of retaining the waste lands not comprised in the village domain. Under thissystem, the rights of the cultivators are guaranteed; but the State would have done better if it had regarded the Zemindars ascollectors of revenue. It would have avoided, as Sir George Campbell points out, the complications arising from the divisionof inheritances; it would have had submissive and active functionaries, in the place of rapacious and insubordinateproprietors. The security afforded by a direct tenure under government is the best stimulus to agricultural improvements onthe part of the cultivators. But now with no compensation for the sacrifice, the State is despoiled of a portion of its rights,which would have become very important in the future, and this for the sake of an idle class doing nothing to increase theproductiveness of the soil.
