1 of the revised plan of settlement as follows:

L ’The assessment to be fixed on an ascertainment in the aggregate of the cultivated area of each estate, and as observed in the Minute of the 29th February, a general acquaintance with the advantages possessed by each village as regards fertility, position, population and any other matter which require to be taken into considera­ tion when regulating the Government demand.

2. 'The apportionment in detail of the assessment so fixed to be left to the village communities or the Zemindars, and the preparation of records of lands in detail to be exacted from the village accountants,

3* 'Existing institutions to be maintained and pre ­ vailing systems of village management not to be interfered with except for exceptional reasons*1 4-. 'All the parties to be secured in the enjoyment of

whatever rights and privileges they may be in possession of or establish a claim to, subject to the limitations above noted; but no new rights to be created and all cultivators who hold as mere

tenants-at-will to be left to make their own bargains as heretofore.1

5* 'The professional survey to be substituted for the native ameen establishment.1

167

The Settlement Conference held at Allahabad on 21, 22 and 23 January 1833 presided over by Bentinck deliberated upon and confirmed these propositions* The decisions that emerged were incorporated in the Regulation IX of 1833* The new

enactment substantially modifying the provisions of Regulation VII of 1822 set forth:1

1. That !so much of Regulation VII of 1822 as pre­ scribed or has been understood to prescribe, that the amount of Jumma to be demanded for any mehal shall be calculated on an ascertainment of the quantity and value of actual produce or on a comparison between the costs of production and value of produce is hereby rescinded.f

2. The judicial issues of settlement was to be determined by a panchayat or arbitration, to be appointed by the Collector on the failure of parties concerned to produce an award within the time specified. The decision of the panchayat. was to be final and was to be Immediately executed. 3* The office of Deputy Collector was thrown open to

Indians of any class or religious persuasion.

Other clauses dealt with the task of expediting the survey and settlement proceedings and confirmed the princi­ ples as laid down by the Governor-General in his Minute of 26 September 1832.

A lone voice, that of Alexander Ross, a member of the Supreme Council protested against the modification of

Tthe sound principle1 of assessment based on the net produce p

criterion. Metcalfe gave his concurrence to the principles enunciated by Bentinck since, according to him, the new plan of settlement

1. Draft Regulation of 1833? passed on 9 Sept. 1835? Beng. Rev. Cons., 9 Sept. 1833, 37*

168

’contemplated for the most part a village settle­ ment for a considerable term of years, a mode of settlement for the Land Revenue of which I have always been an a d v o c a t e 1

It is true that Metcalfe’s proposal for the maintenance and non-interference in the concerns of the village communities was accepted. Also the settlement now was to be made on general considerations^avoiding the meticulous calculations as envisaged by Regulation VII of 1822, In all this Metcalfe’s contribution was considerable indeed. Yet the plan went far beyond Metcalfe’s propositions, A distinct record of all

contracts and engagements that might have passed between the landlords and the tenants was to be maintained to protect the latter from exploitation. In the zamindari villages , the Sadr malguzars were to furnish to the government a copy

(X

of the rent-rolls,with|detailed statement of the amount which

2

the asamis or the hereditary tenants agreed to pay. In cases of villages, where no ’middlemen’ were to be found, the lands which were parcelled out in separate tenures among the inhabitants, a record of similar nature was to be kept in order to prevent exaction on the part of the mukaddam or lambardar. In the circular of Instructions sent by the Sadr Board of Revenue in the Western Provinces to all Commissioners, after the passing of the Regulation IX of 1833 > attention to these questions was specifically drawn and the Commissioners

1. Minute, 15 Nov, 1832, Beng, Rev. Cons,, 27 Lee, 1832, 92, 2, G .G.’s Minute, 26 Sept, 1832, paras, 61, 68* Beng, Rev,

169

were asked to take immediate steps for their implementation* Metcalfe was averse to the process of recording separately the shares or rights of the members of the brotherhood, but he was not opposed to this procedure in the case of the

raiyati villages of the Madras type since recording of the rights of each ryot was basic to it* But it should not be supposed that the Regulation IX of 1833 contemplated a recording of rights of all classes of the cultivating

community* R.M.Bird had asked for the definition of rights of

of the resident or hereditary ryots, as well as/others if

2

possible. But Bentinck had refused declaring that the govern­ ment did not regulate the rights of industrial labourers, av\d there was therefore no necessity of legislating oh behalf

of agricultural labourers.^ Only pattas or certificate of lease were to be granted to the hereditary ryots* The record­ ing of the rights was to be done in the case of the &adr

malguzars or village headmen,or those with whom the govern­ ment engaged for revenue.

i Bentinck’s scheme of settlement in principle was indeed a comprehensive and all-pervasive o n e , touching and protecting all interests connected with the soil* Metcalfe , while passionately advocating the indestructible rights of the village communities,had overlooked or under-estimated the rights of others* Then there were villages which were 1. Revised Circular of Instructions, Beng.Rev*Cons *,

9 Sept. 1833, 38.

2. R.M. B i r d ’s Note on Resident Ryots, n.d. Beng* Rev* Cons*, 2? Bee. 1832, 84.

170

owned by the village communities "but were not cultivated by them since they inhabited other villages.'1' Since proprietary right unconnected with cultivating rights1 did not exist,

was it to be supposed that the rights of the village communi­ ties in these cases were ipso facto cancelled? There were also instances of a village community having cultivated the

2