The Sun.
London, England, 1854-07-12 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, JULY l2, 1854

dispute. It had been disputed whether the land tax was a
tax in the ordinary sense of the term, or whether it was
the legitimate rent of the land which in other communi-
ties was paid. to the private landowner, and those who took
the latter view contended that it, made no difference to the
tenant whether he paid a rent to a landlord, or a tax to
the Government for his land. This was by no means an
unimportant question, and it had been well argued by the
hon. member for Manchester in 1850, when he brought
forward a motion somewhat similar to that which he was
now submitting, and demonstrated the difference between
a land rent fixed arbitrarilyby the Government, as in India,
and a rent which depended upon value, and was founded
upon a fair and equitable consideration of the relative po-
sitions of landlord and tenant as in this country. But
whatever the origin of the tax, and whether it was re-
garded as a tax or as a rent, the object should be to levy
it in that mode which would be least injurious to the cul-
tivator of the land, most productive to the revenue and at
the same time most calculated to stimulate private industry.
The hon. gentleman proceeded to ',say that in the evidence
he should produce, he should only cite the authority of
Mr. Dyke, the collector of Salem, Mr. Thomas, a member
of the council at Meares, and Mr. Bourdillon. He ad-
[flitted that the East India Company in stepping into the
shoes of the native princes, had bound themselves to many
duties which they would never otherwise have discharged,
but they were nevertheless bound to consider that, how-
ever, they were under some disagreeable necess.ties —they
were to look forward to a period when the Asiatic system
ought to disappear. He admitted that this policy was
laid down by the founder of our Indian empire, but you
were unable to detect any traces of it in the ryotwar sys-
tem as it was at present administered. That system in-
volved the perpetual meddling of the State with the affairs
of its subjects. The State acted as landlord over the
whole of its territory, and placed a money-tax on
every field in its dominions, over an area iu Madras
of 7,000 square miles, and in other collectorships as
those of Cuddepore and Bekary of 13,000 square miles ;
each of which was under the superintendence of one
collector, with a number of assistants, who had to
make tours over the district, and ascertain the quan-
tity of land possessed by each cultivator, and the
amount of its produce. He believed this system of taxa-
tion tended to break down the cultivation of the land, the
property of which was practically in the hands of the Go-
vernment. It was true that the owner of the land held it
in fee, but the tax on it was so severe as to leave him in the
hands of the Government, which, inexisting circumstances,
meant in the hands of a host of native functionaries; and
the land possessed no market value. This was the state of
things under the ryotwar as it was now administered,
but not as it was contemplated to exist by Col. Reid, Sir
Themes Munro, and Lord William Bentinck. They in-
tended to give to the tenant fixity of tenure, and it was
Sir Thomas Munro's prime idea to make the land tax ap-
proximate as nearly as possible to a quit rent, and it was
intended to be permanent in amount. This also appeared
by a proclamation of Col. Reid to have been his intention.
The question of its being a permanent, involved the ques-
tion of its being a moderate rate. As regarded Madras, it
had been admitted last year by the President of the Board
of Control that the land tax was too high, and that a re-
vision of the assessment was desirable. The principle on
which the assessment was made caused it to press pecu-
liarly on the cultivators of the soil. The assessment was
originally fixed by a survey made fifty years ago, which
was made under great disadvantages, and much of it with-
out the aid of maps. Upon that survey the gross produce
of the soil was taken, and a survey rate computed. at the
then market price, and the amount of the tax fixed by that
standard. The market price was then high, but since then
prices had been steadily falling, and yet the Ryots paid the
tax now on a scale calculated on the prices of sixty years
ago. The hon. gentleman here read a document to show
the view which Sir Thomas Munro took of this point, and
which was to the effect that he did not think that prices
would fall lower than they were in his day. So far from
that, it appeared by an extract from a minute made by
Mr. Thomas, member of council at Madras, that prices had
gradually ranged lower. There was a phenomenon which
illustrated the effect of this exorbitant assessment, and
that was that the best land bore the highest assessment,
and it was so high as to drive the cultivator to prefer to
cultivate poor land, which was rated at a lower assessment,
rather than go to that which was so enormously taxed ;
and it appeared from a portion of Mr. Dyke's evidence,
that in his collectorate large patches of the best land were
left uncultivated, while evidence of the same state of things
was to be found in Mr. Bourdillon's pamphlet on the land
revenue. Here was an instance of the consequence of de-
parting from Sir T. Munro's policy, for the land tax which
he meant to be permanent had become fluctuating. There
had been an abandonment of another principle of Sir Thomas
Munro, which was that there should be something like
what was called tenant right. Sir Thomas Munro was
resolved that the laud tax should not be increased or im-
posed in consequence of improvements made by the tenant
himself, and that no additional rent should be asked in
consequence of improvements (the hon. gentleman here read
an extract from Sir Thomas Munro's opinions on that
point). That policy had been clearly departed from. Mr.
Dyke stated that additions had been recently made to tax-
ation by taxing improvements, and Sir Charles Trevelyan
spoke of the objectionable system of taxation on improve-
ments, which he hold to be worse than the system of
tithes. Mr. Peacock was called to contradict the evidence
of Sir Charles Trevelyan, and he said that the ryots were
allowed the benefit of their improvements under an
order of 1852, which was explanatory of orders which
had been issued years before. But he did not in fact
contradict Sir C. Trevelyan, for he admitted that there
were such orders, but they had not been duly executed.
What he (Mr. Blackett) complained of was that the East
India Company adopted and perpetuated a system of taxa-
tion which had all the disadvantages to which the Govern-
ment washable in the management of the revenue. Immense
power had been placed in the hands of a swarm of govern-
ment functionaries of a class the least to be desired. He
had mentioned the immense space of land which was under
the control of one collector, and which required to be
lookedafter by his assistants. It was awful to contemplate
the effect of this system on the families of the persons under
their control, and the state of dependence in which this
broken down race of people were placed under the rule of
revenue officials of native Indian race. However hemight
advocate the employment of natives by the government,
yet he thought it objectionable that this particular class
should be employed in a position where they had every
temptation to ingratiate themselves with their English
roasters at the expense of the other natives. It was felt
by Sir T. Munro, that there was a great want of proper
agency to carry out the ryotwar system; and one of the
main diniculties was to prevent the revenue officials from
collecting the tax by meansat which humanity shuddered.
The hon. gentleman here read an extract from Mr. Baur-
didon's pamphlet, which showed that the number of
officials under a collector ranged from 1,500, and that every
sort of peculation and oppression was exercised by them.
Again, he (Mr. Blackett) gave credit to the East India
Company for regretting the difficulties they had to en-
counter in carrying out this system. There must be a
minute inspection, and you could not get English servants
to perform the duty, while it was not possible to pay such
salaries to the natives as to prevent peculation. But all this
showed that there was reason for inquiry into the abuses of
a system which required such means to carry it out. He
had pointed out the three main defects of the system of
ryotwar—viz., the enormous assessment, the taxing of
agricultural improvements, and the immense power placed
in the hands of native tax-gatherers. He would now go
into the question of the state of the revenue, of the
land and population. The revenue had been declining or
at least was stationary. By the latest returns for the year
1852-53, the revenue was 3,637,8111. In 1848 49 it was
3,647,6981. ; and in 1819-50 it was 3,479,4891. With re-
gard to the land it appeared by an appendix to the report
of the committee which sat last year, and which gave an
account of the rental for the eleven years ending 1851-52,
that a rental of 115,4861. when put up for sale fetched
only 167,1801; a very small ratio of a year's purchase. In
Mr. Dyke's evidence he produced a letter written by Sir
Thomas Munro, which went to show that the tendency of
ryotwar was to produce a class of very small farmers.
The speed with which small properties multiplied was
frightful. Mr. Thomas had stated that the mass of the
landholders were holders of tenements of the annual value
of 30 or 40 rupees, and of course had no capital, and those
holders had within 20 years increased in one district from
971 to 3,607, while the holders of tenements of the value
of from 50 to 500 rupees, ha .t decreased from 78 to 28.
(Hear, hear) He would read an extract from Mr Bour-
dillon's pamphlet with regard to the native population of
Madras. Having read tls% extract, the hon. member con-
tinued : Here was a picture of society, given by a !most
experienced person connected with the administration of
the government which represented the people as livivg
from hand to mouth, and pressed down to the very
ground by death and starvation. Society here was
wholly destitute of those supports which were wit-
nessed in other countries, and be confessed it seemed to
him that it was their duty to ascertain if some remedy
could not be applied to this deplorable state of things.
The President of the Board of Control met some of
these objections last year, when he said the remedy
fur the evils complained of in Madras roust be left to
the local government, but for his part he confessed be
had no confidence in the wishes or intentions of that Go-
vernment. Until the principle of private property was
established in the Presidency he could have no hope for
the prosperity of the people, and he insisted that the Bri-
tish Parliament was bound to do something towards the
recognition of that principle. The occupier of land should
have it in his power to redeem the objectionable tax that
pressed so heavily upon him, and since he was anxious to
get in the small end of the wedge, he cared not how small
the beginning might be, so that the house would consent
to make it. Let them sow the seed at once, and he cared
not whether it was half a century before it took root.
With that view he only asked the Government to do for
Madras that which they had already done with so much
advantage for Ceylon, and by appointing a commission to
inquire into the evils on the spot see if something could
not be done to remove the lamentable state of society
' which be had tried, though feebly, to picture to the house.
The hon. member concluded by moving an address to the
Crown for the appointment of a commission to proceed
to India to inquire into the tenure of land in the Presi-
dency of Madras.
Mr. BRIGHT seconded the motion.
Mr. LOWS said • think that he had but to make out a case
nothing to do .
his hon and learned friend seemed to
against the tees
learned friend.
Madras to entitle
Now, him to ask the house to assent to his mo-
tion.much stronger titan present mode of collecting the land revenues of
the house to
he !onfessed he differed from his hon. and
of inquiry to India.
Re thought it would require a case indeed
despotism, was based upon
take the
he had made out in order to in-
ducethe step of sending out a commission
The theory of the government of In-
diaof India that there Zaoauldbe unwise to show the people
rn sfledu thiseetnoce t
hdeerse
of the last necessity itand except only in cases
get
abroatalti authority in England that
power. If we allowed such
andin India, it would tend to
omninthlat account he objected
an
nwuler impressionslPe
to this appeal to the English
hion the subject. No-
body in England attended thoron( Indian matters
unless he was personally interested'in ythteom ; d
PersoolMvaensted of such
mission were sent out composed of
to make '
so e
gar c
ao
tml y-
an interest, they might run the risk
deceived by the representations of the peoelng
detrimental
alike them recommend measures with thebest posgleaP
which, when carried out, would prove highly
alike to India and this country. Another objectiorni
to this motion was, that the government of Madras had
been changed since last year; a new governor had beers
sent out in the person of :, nobleman of distinguished ability,
suit the Government had every reason to hope and expect
that great advantages would result from this change in the
administration. These were the reasons which appeared
to him to require that his hon. and learned friend should
show something more than he had yet done to justify the
appointment of this commission ; a mere complaint, based
upon the mode of collecting the revenue of Madras, was
not sufficient ; and in order to make out a case for inquiry,
his bon. and learned friend must show at least one of three
things. He must either show that the Government of
Madras would not recognise some particular grievance, or
that, recogniing it, they refused, or were not prepared to
apply a remedy. In want of either of these two things his
hop, and learned friend must show that the Government of
India was dog,gedly opposed to all reform or remedy cf