INTRODUCTIOK.
Xlviii
long prescription. It was to them that the superior authority, whether Hindu or Muhammadan, looked for the payment of the revenue and as some fields at least in every village were held at money rents, while it was next to impossible to make any trustworthy grain appraisement for the large areas which were
in the direct cultivation of their numerous co-sharers, it became the custom to assess them for a lump sum in cash, which was generally fixed by a rough conjecture of the outside they could be compelled to pay. In the case of taluqas, the Lucknow officials similarly took the outside which could be safely demanded. There was no real principle of assessment, and the proportion of his total income paid as 'revenue varied in the case of each taluqdar with the means of resistance he had at his command. It has now been seen how the original idea of Indian land revenue, as the portion of the gross produce due to the state, was modified by the introducticn of money rents, by the growth under various circumstances of giMasi-proprietary communities between the cultivator and the king, and the co-existence of what were practically two hostile governments on the same soil. ' If the money paid for the fertile fields round the village site looked like rent, and if the cash assessments on the village communities and the sums collected from taluqdars by ndzims might for convenience be not very improperly described as a land tax, it should, however, be remembered that the resemblance is only on the surface. The old system continued to form men's notions on all things connected with the possession of the soil and its It influenced every transaction. In many localities it liabilities. was still in full force, and it remained the ultimate standard of reference in disputes as to the amount of payment to be made in any particular instance. Even now if any tenant objects to the amount demanded from him it is far from uncommon for the landlord to agree with him to resort to the old grain division, and the procedure was still more frequent before annexation. If the value of the produce received by the landlord is less than the cash rent he demanded, his demand was shown to be extortionate: if not, the tenant was convinced of its justice. At any rate, till the introduction of European forms of thought, the very idea of a landlord absolutely owning the land and at liberty to put it up to competition and knock it down to the highest bidder had never entered the minds of the people. The rights of the over-proprietor were confined to the receipt of a fixed customary share of the produce or the money which represented that share, subject to
