New-York daily tribune., 1858-07-23

ttst ve could not expec. him TO psy - much taKsaoo
y Il il vss worth y. We hsd 80, ,0Oo,Wo OF poPulr
tio in r, n Britain ard Iresnd in lLdis toefs @
I5O GOO 600 inhsbitas.s. We raised here t6o wv wv
sterling OF tsxes in lpdis, recsonieg n oon no -
bcr CT tee p.oI e Of India, ve rsised t1VVvoV'oy
revenue or FIVE tinee gresser revenue u ~
Iected 1t houe Locking at the fact that tos Po2ur
tio, of India vn i've tune. e eater than ths. OF the
Btsb En ire Q man mig int say that the tsKsa ~ Pc,
head il Irdis and Ecglspd was about tne ssne sud
tbst therefore there Was no great narosnP inu -
But ID Etsland there las sn incacuisose po"el VI
uachnery ard stesm OF means OF transit AM OF esets
ttue that capital and human Invention couid prog
10 aid the industry Of people. In iodiA tae.e
Io,hire Of the tnd They hsd scarcely oecen' '''a
Throughout ILdis
Now il must be admitted that there is something
wrcpe in this method Of comparing Indian taxes
with Bfitish taxes. There is on the one slde the
Ipdiar population, FIVE times as great As the British
one aid there il on the other side tho Indian Taxa
ton amounting to half the British. But then
Mr.. BRIGHT says Indian labor is an equivalent for
about one.twefth only Of British labor. Conse-
ouertIy ESQ OOO 900 of taxes in Indis would repre-
ept $500 OOO. 900 Of taxes in Great Britain instead
of the $50 900, 900 actually there raised. WHAT
then is the conclusion be ought to have arrived ~
That the people Of India in regard to their numerl'
cal strepsth pay the same taxation as the people IN
Great Britain, il allowance 10 inside for the CON-
paratve poverty of the people 10 Iudia, and t3o,-
COO 900 il supposed to weigh as heavily upon
$50 OO0, 900 Indians a. eco, 600 900 upon 3oooo''
600 Britors Such being his supposition it is cer-
tany fallacious to turn round and cay that poor
people cannot pay 30 much ~ 8 rich one' because
the comparative poverty Of the Indian people has
already been taten into account in makiog out the
statement that the Indian pays {" much as the
Briton. There might, in fact. another question be
| raised. It might be. asked, whether man who
earns cay 12 cents day can be fairly expected to
DAY cent with the same ease with which another,
earning SI2 8 day, pays sll Both would rela-
lively contribute the same ailuot part OF their IN
come but still the tax nigh! bear IN quite different
proportions upon their respective necessities. Yet,
Mr.. Bright has not yet put the question in these
terms and if he had, the comparison between
the burden of taxation, borne BY the British wages
Isbsrer On the one hand, and the British capitalist
on the other, would perhaps have struck nearer
beme than the comparison between Indian and
British taxation. Moreover, he admits himself that
from the $50 OOO 600 Of Indian taxes, the toooo'
900 constituting the opium revenue must be sub
tracted. sirce this is, properly speaking, no tax
pressing upon the Indian people, but rather an e1-
mort duty CHARGED upon Chinese consumption. Then
We are reminded by the aPologists OF the Anglo
Indian Administration that fl6OOO,OOo OF income
il derived from the land revenue, or rent, which
from times mmemoral has beloDget TO the state IN
its capacity a. supreme landlord, never constituted
part of the private fortune of the cultivator, and
does in fact no more enter into taxation, properly
10 called than the rent paid by the British farmers
to the British arstocracy be said to enter Brit
ish taxation. Indian taxation, according to this
point of view, would stand thus
Aggregate raised. o00O
PsS1S. S1ct ioI foT 1sst 9pa%f Of 100000
Taxation proper. G9Oo00o
OF this f9, ,0O0, 900, again, it must be admitted
that some important items, such as the post-ofce,
the stamp duties and the custom duties, bear in
very minute proportion on the mass Of the people.
Accordingly, Mr.. Hendricks, in Q paper recently
laid before the British Statistical Society on the
Finances of India, tries to prove, from Parliamen
tary and other official documents, that of the total
revenue paid by the people of India not more than
one-ffth is at present raised by taxation, l. e. from
the real income of the peoples that in Bengal q
per cent only, in the Pupjaub % per cent only in
Madras 81 per cent only, in the Northwest Prov
inces IL per cent only, and in Bombay l6 per cent
only of the total revenue is derived from taxation
proper.
The following comparative view of the average
amount of taxation derived from each inhab
tant Of India and the United Kingdom, during the
years 1886, 10 abstracted from Mr.. Hendricks
statement:
B.pp; per head Revenue. 50 c.T Tn.tion properf !