ing reserved to itself the proprietary sovereignty on the expulsion of the original Zemindars.

In the Dooab, and Bundelcund, estates in joint property are common, like the Palabhogam, and Samadayum, villages of Tanjore.* These properties are known, in the north, by the name of Putteedary, and Byachara. The chief difference between these two, is stated to be, that in Putteedary estates specific shares appertain to particular persons; whence the revenue assessed on the whole estate is apportioned to each share thereof, agreeably to its extent and value; whilst deficiencies fall only on the share or shares, in which such deficiency may occur; whereas in Byachara estates, the property being common, deficiencies in the revenue are made good by a general re-assessment on the whole estate.

Khode Khost, and Pay Khost, Ryots are also common in the north of India, corresponding with the resident Ryots (Oolkoodies), and tenants at will (Parakoodies), in the southern provinces. Free labourers, and slave cultivators, are likewise common.

Although the knowledge of this description of property was within the reach of ordinary

"Vide supra, p. 241.

enquiry at the time of our becoming possess ed of the ceded and conquered provinces; it is stated, that, in the first revenue settlements effected, one fifth or thereabouts of the whole country was given up, as in Bengal, to great Zemindars, to the entire subversion of the rights and property of the real owners; whilst, for the remaining four fifths, settlements were concluded with village Maliks,* as representatives of the joint bodies of co-proprietors. But as the representative Maliks, or village Zemindars, were inadvertently considered as the actual and sole proprietors of the lands for which they engaged, when estates were sold to liquidate arrears of revenue, we have seen to what an extent of injustice confiscations were carried; and how greatly aggravated by the fraud and collusion of our own native servants. Though the evil was, as before explained, attempted to be remedied by Reg. I. of 1821,† it is to be apprehended, that act, like many others of the same description, will only avail to testify the good intentions of its authors, without producing its desired effect; and that so much complicated atrocity, as therein described, will ever remain a reproach to our administration for at least

Beng. Rev. Sel. vol. iii. p. 165. † Vide supra, p. 154 et seq.

precipitancy, and criminal negligence, which, considering the extent of injury committed, no sacrifice should now be thought, too great to repair

SECTION XVI.

Landed property in India compared with that of ancient Europe-Greece, and Rome.

ALTHOUGH the property here described, is not a fee simple, or feodal tenure, according to the definition of English jurists, there are still many points of striking resemblance between ancient institutions and usages of India, and of Europe, which deserve to be noticed.

In the first place, I must observe, that I am unable to conceive any other origin of proprietary right in land, in any part of the world, than the simple one given by Menu, who lays it down as law, that cultivated land is the property "of him who cut away

66

the

wood, or who first cleared and tilled it," in other words - labour and occupancy

This maxim coincides with the opinion of Mr. Locke, on the origin of the right of property. After the creation of

That this was the case universally in Hindoo countries derives considerable probability, if not confirmation, from a remark by Mr. Ellis, in a very able document on landed tenures in the Peninsula, commonly called his Meerassy

man, and that God (as the Psalmist says) "had given the "earth to the children of men," land and its fruits were common property. Every person, or every family of persons, might select for themselves;

"The world was all before them, where to choose

"Their place of rest, and Providence their guide."

and having appropriated to themselves what suited them best, without injury to their fellows there being enough, and more than enough, left for others—and bestowed their labour thereon, it became, by natural right, their own. Mr. Locke's words are

"Though the earth, and all inferior creatures, be common " to all men, yet every man has a property in his own person : "this nobody has any right to but himself. The labour of his "body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly "his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that "nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his "labour with, and joined it to, something that is his own, "and thereby makes it his property. It being by him re"moved from the common state nature hath placed it in, it

46

hath by this labour something annexed to it that excludes "the common right of other men. For this labour being "the unquestionable property of the labourer, no man but "he can have a right to what that is once joined to, at least, where there is enough, and as good, left in common

66

for others."-Locke on Civ. Gov. vol. iv. p. 353.

Paper; who says, "after diligent search I "cannot find in any work on Hindoo law, "text book, or commentary, any positive

66

precept or injunction, conferring on any

description of persons property in land, though "the existence of such property under a variety of terms, and for a variety of "is alluded to in every page. The fact is "that the thing existed in India, when the

66

purposes,

lawgivers wrote; and it was evidently su"perfluous to prescribe what they found fully "established."*

In treating of European tenures, I am aware that I am about to enter on difficult and disputed ground. I enter upon it, however, with

#

As proofs of the high civilization, and great superiority, of Europeans, we have instances, it is true, of their invading, and taking forcible possession of, primitive countries, and appropriating the lands, after extermination of the original inhabitants. On the extinction, or retreat, of the latter, the civilized invaders become proprietors of estates under specifie grants from government, by whom the power of distributing the lands is, in such cases, naturally assumed; and these titles are deemed perfect, there being probably no primitive proprietor, or occupant, of the the soil to question their validity, or to oppose the usurpation. But this is a right founded on brute force, not on legitimate peaceable possession, and inapplicable to those states of society, whether in India or in Europe, which we are here discussing, as well as to the original peopling of all extensive continents.