was merely a text-book or had acquired the force of law by
the use made of it and by incidental references in official despatches.
It included, for example, a kind of bankruptcy law, under which large
amounts of property had been distributed; although, according to some
opinions, the whole process was illegal. Conflicting views were held by
high authorities. 'As many as six or seven degrees of inspiration had
been attributed to different parts of the code,' said Fitzjames (March
26, 1872), 'as to the relation in which they stood to the rest.' In
short, a book originally intended as a guide to administrators of the
law had come to be a 'sort of semi-inspired volume,' with varying
degrees of 'infallibility.' Moreover, as it led to much litigation and
many discussions, it had swelled from a small volume into 'one of those
enormous receptacles of notes, comments, sections of Acts, and general
observations which pass in England under the name of legal text-books.'
(September 5, 1871.) In order to clear up the confusion, Mr. D. G.
Barkley had been directed by the Lieutenant-Governor of the Punjab to
prepare a volume containing all the regulations which were supposed to
have actually the force of law. Many of these were only accessible in
official archives. This volume filled 408 closely printed pages, besides
various schedules. When carefully examined by Fitzjames this was reduced
to an act of fifty-eight sections, and the question as to authority
finally set at rest.

A still more important part of the Punjab administration dealt with the
land revenue. This, of course, touches the most vital part of the whole
system of British government. A famous 'Regulation, VII. of 1822,' had
laid down the general principles of land-revenue law. But it was in
itself ambiguous, and there were great doubts as to whether it extended
to the Punjab, or whether the administrators of the Punjab had full
power to lay down such rules as they pleased, subject only to the
direction to take the regulation for a model as far as applicable.
Different views were taken by the courts of law and by the governors;
some opinions would tend to show that the whole series of administrative
acts had been illegal, and out of this difficulty had arisen an
acrimonious controversy in 1868 upon Punjab tenancy. Meanwhile various
'instructions' had been issued by the executive, and two books, written
by Mr. Thomason, gave directions to 'settlement officers' and
'collec