New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1858-06-07

Lord CaDnings proclamation in relation to Dude,
some important documents in reference tn which we
published on Saturday has revived the discussion as
to the land tenures of India-a subject upon which
there have been great disputes aud differences Of
opinion in times past, and Interpretations in re-
ference to which have led it is alleged, to very
serious practical mistakes in the administration Of
those parts of India directly under British rule. The
great POINT in this controversy is, what is the exact
position which the zemindars, tsookdars or sir
dsrs, so called, hold in the economical system of
India! Are they properly to be considered as
landed preprietors or as mere tax gatherers!
It is agreed that in India, as in most Asiatic
countries, the ultimate property in the soil vests
the Government; but while one party to this
controversy insists that the Government is to
be looked upon as soil proprietor, letting
out the lard on shares to the cutivators, the
ether side maintain that in substance the land in
India lie ust as much private property as in any
other country whatever--this alleged property in
the Government being nothing more than the deri-
vStOn of title from the sovereign theoretically ac
knOwledged in all countries, the codes Of which
are based On the feudal law and substantially ac-
Of the Government to levy taxes the land to the
extent of the needs of the Government, quite indie
pendent Of all considerations except mere matter
Of policy Of the convenience of the owners.
Admitting, however, that the lands of India are
private property, held by good and strong
private title as land elsewhere, who shall be re-
garded as the real owners There are two parties
for whom this claim has been set up. One of these
parties is the class known as zemindars and
tale okdars, who have been considered TO occupy
position similar to that of the landed nobility
ard gentry of Europe; to be, indeed, the real
owDers of the land, subject TO q certain assess
ment due 10 the Government, and, as owners, to
have the right of displacng at pleasure the actual
cultyators, who, in this view Of the case, are re-
garded az standing in the position Of mere tenants
at will, liable to any payment in the way of rent
which the zemndaIs msy see fit TO impose. The
view of the case which naturally fell in with
English ideas, as to the importance and
necessity of landed gentry as the main
pillar of the social fabric, was made the
foundation of the famous landed settlement Of
Bepssl seventy years ago. under the Governor
GeIerslshp Of Lord Cornwslls-s settlem ent which
It'll remains in force, but which as il is maintained
BY many, wrought great injustice 81 he to the Gov
eminent snd TO the actual culiisators. more
thorough study of the institutions Of Hindcstsn,
together with the Inconvenience, both social and
poitcsl, resulting from the Bengal settlement, has
aiyen currency to the option that by the original
Hindoo institutions, the property OF the land was
in the village corporations, in which resided the
power Of aottng il out to individuals FOX cultiva
tiop. while the zemir dars and taookdars were in
their origin nothing but officers of the Government
appointed 10 lock after, 10 collect aud to pay over
10 The prince tie assessment due from the village
This view has Influenced to considerable degree
TIE settlement Of the landed ienuIes aud revenue
usA Of late years in the Indian provinces. OF which
the direct administration has been assumed by the
English. The exclusive proprietary rights claimed
By the ,aookdars ard zemindMs have been regarded
a. originating in usurpations at once sgain,t the
Government and the Gu tiys.ors ard every effort
has been msde to get rid of them as an incubus on
the real cLti7stors Ct TIE soil and the general
impr, yeneut Of tie country. As, however, these
middle ueu, whatever ths oSsin Of their