wants to retain the power of every thirty years indefinitely augmenting
the land revenue on general grounds. Surely it must be apparent to minds
of even the humblest calibre that these two things are utterly
incompatible!

I may mention that there is a strong party in India in favour of granting
at once a permanent assessment at the existing rate of rent for all lands,
and in reference to this point it may be interesting to give the following
passage from a letter I once received from the late Prime Minister of
Mysore, Mr. Rungacharlu, the minister who started the first Representative
Assembly that ever sat in India:

"As you know," he wrote, "I hold decided views on the subject, and the
withholding of the permanent assessment is a serious injury to the
extensive petty landed interests in the country, and is no gain whatever
to the Government. Nearly the whole population of the country are
agriculturists, and live in one way or another upon the cultivation of the
land. The effect of a permanent settlement will therefore create a greater
feeling of security, and to encourage the outlay of capital and labour on
land will be beneficial to the entire population. It will thus be quite a
national measure reaching all, and not in the interests of a few, and is
calculated to develop the capabilities of the land to the utmost. The
prospect of the Government ever being benefited by the reservation of an
increase of assessment on the unearned increment is a mere dream. Such
increase is sure to be resisted or evaded, occasioning meanwhile great
discontent. The Government may confidently look to the development of
other sources of revenue from the increased prosperity of the people."

But whether the best remedy lies in granting, as I have proposed, a fixed
assessment on land brought under well-irrigation at owners' expense, or in