INDIAN AND IRISH LAND SETTLEMENTS.

I N the prevailing hopelessness of English public opinion

as to a solution of Irish land difficulties, it seems most desirable to understand clearly what has been elsewhere accomplished in cases by no means dissimilar. The complete success of Prussia in dealing with her agrarian difficulties in 1811, and the more recent case of Russia, peacefully emanci- pating fourteen millions of her subjects, show the way in which wise and vigorous statesmanship may rise to meet a great emergency. Our own proceedings in India, particularly in connection with the Revenue settlement of Bengal, have a more direct bearing on the Irish question than many are apt to suspect. And the ignorance of some of our best informed con- temporaries, as shown notably, for instance, in a leading article of two or three weeks ago in the Pall Mall Gazette, is so curious that it may be well to explain exactly the history and conse- quences of the Bengal Permanent Settlement, contrasting it with such similar measures as have from time to time been adopted by the English Government in Ireland.

Under the ancient Hindoo polity, in which the "Zemindar," or middleman, had no place, the "Ryot," or peasant cultivator, was neither proprietor nor tenant in the strict sense of the terms. He was a member of a village community, which possessed a certain tract of land ; of this he cultivated his share, and paid to the rajah a proportion, fixed by usage, of the gross produce, himself enjoying the remainder.

This regime still prevails throughout a great part of India, including the Bombay and Madras Presidencies, where the

land-tax is collected according to ancient customs. Under the " village " system the head man of each village is respon- sible for the amount due, and levies it on the community ; under the "Ryotwary " system the Government makes a separate bargain for his rent with each individual cultivator.

When the British came into possession of Bengal, they found there in operation a different method of collecting the revenue, introduced by the Mussulman conquerors. The land-tax was farmed by contractors, known as Zemindars, who had authority to realize the assessment, and were re- munerated by a commission, usually of ten per cent. When Government exactions pressed hard on the Zemindars, they in their turn exerted pressure on the ryots. Thus in Bengal, among a pliant and submissive population, the utmost limit of fiscal oppression was attained.

The aristocratic British Government could scarcely fail in such a case to identify the Zemindars with the class of feudal landlords, and to regard the ryot as a tenant having no pro- prietary rights in the soil. Accordingly, in 1793, by the "Permanent Settlement," the "Zemindary " system was adopted in Bengal. The revenue was settled in perpetuity on a scale equitable enough at the time, the Zemindars were made responsible for its collection and payment, being empowered in return to grant leases to the Ryots and to enjoy the rights of hereditary landlords. The British Government thus made over to the Zemindars of Bengal all future claims on the land revenue in consideration of a fixed payment. This act may have been impolitic, but was a regular contract, as to which no legal difficulty has ever arisen. On the other hand, in determining the relative positions of Zemindar and Ryot, Government acted in a legislative capacity, not as a contract- ing party ; and if an injustice was committed, Government was free to remedy it by subsequent legislation.

The liability of the Zemindar was limited for ever, his rights in the soil were declared to be manorial, extending over the waste lands of his district, while the ryot was placed in the

position of a copyholder, at a quit-rent fixed according to local usage. Such was the immediate effect of the Permanent

Settlement, and great as were the changes introduced, the full injustice and inexpediency of the measure, as it then stood, were not immediately apparent. But increased security under a just and stable Government caused capital to accumulate and cultivation to extend. New settlers cleared and occupied the wastes, not without the consent of the Zemindars, who found themselves enriched without any exertions of their own, and gladly received the new corners, exacting from them merely the customary rates. A new class of Ryots thus sprang up, mere tenants-at-will in the eye of the law, but enjoying the same lights as the original, or " Khoodkasht," Ryots, according to custom, which in India is equivalent to law.

The Zemindars, as they became richer and more powerful, began to show a disposition to exact their full legal claims, The regulations of 1793 undoubtedly gave them power to let their waste lands in whatever manner they might think proper.

Although, with few exceptions, all improvements and reclama- tions had been effected by the industry and capital of the new Ryots, the Zemindars claimed power to raise rents to the full competition rate, giving the occupier merely the refusal of the land. Even the right of occupancy at fixed rates, which the old Ryots possessed under the Permanent Settlement, was endangered, owing to the general absence of documentary evidence. At this conjuncture Government came to the rescue of the oppressed cultivators, and Act 10 of 1859 was passed for their relief, conferring the "right of occupancy at fair and

equitable rates" on all who had been twelve years in occu- pation, and confirming the privileges of the original ryots.

From all these advantages tenants proper, holding on short leases, were expressly excluded. From disputes as to the interpretation of this Act the famous Bengal rent case arose, and the decision of the fourteen Puisne Judges seem to have finally settled the law as to the respective rights of Ryot and Zemindar. Act 10 of 1859 may now be regarded as having restored to the ryot the privileges he formerly enjoyed, which were his by custom and common law, but which the Zemindar was enabled to usurp under the Permanent Settlement of 1793. The attempt to introduce an alien system of land laws has failed, as it was certain to fail in a country like India ; but by a prompt acknowledgment and reparation of the error, when it became apparent, the Viceregal Government has averted the disasters impending over Bengal. When we turn to the ease of Ireland, we find from the earliest authentic documents that, previous to the Anglo- Norman invasion, the succession to land was invariably regu- lated by the Irish customs of " tanistry " and "gavelkind." Down to the reign of Elizabeth these customs still prevailed more or less throughout Ireland, in spite of all attempts made by the English to substitute the feudal law of hereditary suc- cession. Even after the nominal adoption of English land tenures, their own ancient customs remained rooted in the hearts of the Irish people, who continued firmly to hold the belief that they, the cultivators, were the rightful lords of the soil.

Nothing more than a personal estate for life was ever con- ceded to the individual by tanistry and Irish gavelkind. The land was the property of the " sept " or tribe, and was divisi- ble at the discretion of the chief among all the males of the sept. A fresh partition of all the lands belonging to a sept took place on the death of any member, and the sons of the deceased had shares allotted to them along with the rest. This was the custom of gavelkind, and affected inferior hold- ings only. The succession to the chieftainship of a sept was regulated by tanistry, the dignity being elective in a certain family, and the eldest or worthiest of the same blood was chosen, during the life of the chief, to be his tanist, or reversionary successor. The chief had his share of the com- mon lands, and his demesne seems to have become in a certain sense hereditary, from his having the power of resuming it at each partition, so that it passed to his tanist, along with the dignity. The principal emoluments of the chief consisted, however, in "cosheries," " sessings," "cuttings," and other exactions of a most arbitrary and oppressive nature.

In the twelfth year of Queen Elizabeth an Act was passed empowering the Lord Deputy to take surrenders and regrant estates to the Irishry. Not many Irish lords availed them- selves of this Act, but those who did so obtained grants of entire districts to themselves only, and all "in demesne." No pro- tection was afforded to the inferior occupiers, who were thus converted by law into tenants-at-will, although they con- tinued to hold their several portions according to the ancient Irish customs, and were subject to the same exactions as before. The granting of "captainries " and " seneschalships" by letters patent, during the same reign, gave likewise a legal sanction to the exercise of great tyranny and oppression. The words used by Edmund Spenser in describing the state of Ireland at this time, and the hopeless perplexity of all interested in her welfare, are almost equally applicable to the present condition of affairs. " Irenaeus," the accurate and candid observer, belongs indeed to a limited class, but " Eudoxus " is the very type of a modern Englishman who wishes well to Ireland. Profoundly ignorant of Irish character, customs, and history, he is most eager that justice should be done to "that sweet land," but he has not an idea of justice beyond the common and statute law of England.

In the reign of James I. a better day seemed to be dawning for Ireland, and Sir John Davis, Irish Attorney-General, boasts that in the first nine years of his gracious master's reign more was done for the welfare of the country than during the previous 440 years. There is good reason for this assertion. A gene- ral Act of Oblivion was proclaimed, and the Irishry were received into His Majesty's immediate protection. The whole kingdom was divided into counties, and circuits were estab- lished for Justices of Assize in every province, that the law of England might be administered all over the country to Irish and English alike. Two special commissions were issued for settling possessions in Ireland; one for accepting surrenders and regrant- ing estates according to the course of English law ; the other for

strengthening defective titles. In the execution of these com- missions particular care was taken to secure the interests of the tenants. Before accepting a surrender from an Irish lord three special points were ascertained : first, the limits of the land whereof he was reputed owner ; secondly, how much he himself held in demesne, and how much was possessed by his tenants and followers ; thirdly, what customs and duties he was entitled to receive.

Eventually grants were made, not of the whole country, but of those lands only which were found in the lords'

possession. The lands possessed by the tenants were left to them, charged only with certain valued rents in lien of all un- certain exactions. Nothing could possibly have been more equitable, and had this land settlement remained undisturbed the hopes of Sir John Davis might have been fulfilled, and Ireland might have become "a rich, a mighty, and a flourish- ing kingdom." The prosperity of Ulster, once the rudest and most barbarous part of the island, certainly dates from this period. But evil times were at hand ; one important string of the Irish harp was still out of tune, and religious fanaticism ere long renewed all the calamities of Ireland's worst days. Under Cromwell and William III. nine-tenths of the land were forfeited by the Roman Catholic owners and acquired by English Protestants. Most of these were absentees, and let their properties for a round sum to middlemen, many of whom, having very long leases, became virtually the landlords, and granted leases in their turn. The unfortunate cultivator thus found himself subjected to several landlords, each of whom was entitled by law to exact from him pay- ment of rent, failing the intermediate lessee. Partnership tenures were also introduced, by which land might be let to a village, the inhabitants being liable conjointly and severally for the entire rent. Indefinite subdivision of farms took place, accompanied with a rapid increase of population, until the whole country was occupied by a swarm of pauper tenants-at- will. In 1841 there were in Ireland 306,915 farms of less than five acres, and only 48,312 of more than thirty. For 200 years matters have gone from bad to worse, until the case would almost appear to be beyond the reach of legis- lation. A despotic and irresponsible government may doubt- less redress wrongs and effect reforms which exceed the power even of the sovereign legislature in a constitutional country. In India, where executive and legislative powers are practically in the same hands, the authorities have only to be satisfied of the wisdom and policy of a measure, and it can at once be put in force. In this country the conflicting interests and influences, in and out of Parliament, are so numerous and so powerful as to paralyze the efforts of far-sighted statesmen. Whether we may be able to profit by the successful examples of other countries is perhaps doubtful ; but the knowledge that such examples exist can scarcely fail to inspire us with hope.