landlord. In that event the British authorities had to recognize the facts found in existence. In some cases the sturdy proprietors, by means of their organization in the Village Communities, successfully resisted the Tálukdár all through the. times of trouble, and were able to rebut before the British authorities his claim to superior proprietorship. But in many cases the issue had been doubtful; the Tálukdár had persistently asserted himself; the proprietors had struggled against him, and were able to contend that their proprietary right, though often down-trodden, had been neither extirpated nor extinguished. In these instances there was manifestly room for difference of opinion, according as the Government might, upon a review of the history of the circumstances and the equity of the case, incline towards the side either of the Tálukdár or of the original proprietors. Thomason considered that the right lay with the original proprietors, except where they had in former times lost their proprietary position. If the Tálukdár were acknowledged as superior proprietor, then the Revenue Settlement, already described, would be made with him. He would pay the land tax to Government, and reimburse himself with profit by what he could collect from the inferior proprietors, or the occupancy tenants, as they might chance to be at the time; and it only remained to secure such subordinate rights as might still be preserved to these people. But if the original proprietors were adjudged to be still such, then the settlement was made with them, and they
