ment a quit-rent settled generally by the rate at which he was actually assessed ... It was forgotten that he was not the cultivator, and no protection was given to the ráyat, the real tiller (perhaps the real proprietor) of the soil, against the oppressive exactions of the zamíndár, whose actual dependent he was made by this settlement. In fact, the zamíndár was originally nothing more than the contractor with the native government for the rent of a certain district. ... Where the rent demanded from him was high, he looked to discharge it as well as provide for his own maintenance by squeezing the ráyat[1].'
The changes introduced into the criminal system in Bengal were therefore confined to an enlargement of the powers (with increased supervision) of the native magistrates, enabling them to deal with cases which had hitherto been decided by the Circuit Judges, and to the introduction of an improved set of police regulations, with the object of securing greater activity and of guarding against abuses of power which had too often taken place. In Madras and Bombay, however, the condition of the people was different, and the new criminal system recommended from home was established in those Presidencies.
In alluding to the principles which guided fiscal policy, it should be remembered that Asiatic revenue differs from European taxation, where certain imposts, and no more, are laid upon the people for the sole purpose of defraying the public services of the nation. In India, on the contrary, the revenue is a fixed and
- ↑ Private Journal, ii. 62.
