Current:

Leader (1850-1860), 14th August 1858, Edition 1 of 2, Page 813, I Nl> I A.

Page 813
Page 21
21 of 32

On this page

  • Text (4)
  • Transcript

    • Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

      Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.

      No. 438, August 14,1858.] T H E L, E Ap ...

      No . 438 , August 14 , 1858 . ] T H E L , E AP E R . 813

      I Nl> I A.

      I Nl > I A .

      Mr. Ewaht's Committee On European Coloni...

      MR . EWAHT'S COMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN COLONISATION AND SETTLEMENT IN INDIA . —THE LANDKEVENUIE SYSTEMS . Oun readers , we think , will welcome a continuation of our notes on the evidence given before this committee , la a recent notice we quoted the causes alleged by European settlers to account for the total absence of that class in entire provinces , and their small number anywhere . Our chief cause , as we pointed out , is the state of the land tenures , as

      resulting from the systems of raising the land revenue . Throughout India the land tax is the chief source of revenue ; it amounts to sixteen or seventeen , millions sterling , or two-thirds of the whole revenue ; and it is assessed on the principle that the Government is the lord of the soil , and entitled as such , to ail that share of the profit of cultivation which constitutes rent , and belougs to the private landowner . This principle has been applied in different ways in different parts of India , according to the opinions for the time being of the ruling authority ; and aio fewer than three verv different systems

      have coma in this way to be established . The importance of the principle will be readily appreciated , and it will not be difficult to describe an imaginary case which will convey a very fair idea of the manner in wkich it has been acted upon by the East India Company . Suppose , for instance , one great dueal ' . landowner , resolved to grant no leases for terms , and to have dealings through his steward only with actual cultivators . The tendency of this system would certainly be to cover his estate with a pauperised tenantry ; and it would be very difficult at any future time to introduce capital and

      reparcel the estate among great fanners . Suppose next , on the contrary , the same great landowner resolved to have no connexion at . ill with the peasantry or actual cultivators , and to renounce his ancient jus projpriefatis and secure a fixed fee-farm rent , and nothing more , in perpetuity , for himself and his heirs for ever ; suppose agaia the same great landowner to come to a new estate , and on which he finds a landlord class in receipt and enjoyment both of land and of rents , and also a cultivating peasantry-, — -as lord paramount ( which he declares himself to be ) , he becomes jealous of the old landlords , and regards them as an encumbrance to the land , or as useless ; but , from a certain equity of

      temper , he wishes to exercise his new power with moderation , aud at the same time tliat he fixes the rent of the land as absolute owner , he allows a percentage of it to the old proprietor , and grants a lease for thirty years to tlie cultivators , holding himself free to do as he pleases vith the reversion when the term shall expire . Of the East India Company we may now say , the Company has been exactly such a landowner ; and such are the different courses it has pursued in India . The first case supposed is a type of what exists in Madras tind Bombay ; the second case is that of Iiower Bengal , with its permanent and Zcmiudarce settlement : and the third case is the North-West

      Pro-. The question , then , arises , How have these different systems answered ? For the East India Company ' s own opinion we need only turn to their celebrated " Memohandusi" on its administration , published when the Court was first threatened with extinction ; and it is curious to observe that , of its three systems , the only one which to the last it dislikes is the permanent settlement . In the ryotwnrce settlement it is admitted tliat great mistakes were made ; but , then , remedies are being applied to

      them , and the North-West Settlement is regarded as a prodigy of practical wisdom and a model system ; but the permanent settlement , it is said , began in wrong , and is a standing injustice to the Government : it made , it is said , thoso proprietors who "were only collectors ; deprived the Government of all power of protecting the ryots ( cultivators ) from the proverbial cruelty of private landlords , and of nil power , also , of profiting b y the improved value ¦ of the land tax or rent . Such is the view generally which the East India Company takes of these different , systems . We shall not stop here to controvert thorn , beyond remarking that the two last objections to the permanent settlement savour of inconsistcncc , aud tUo first of them is not true in fact . The ryot s , it is assumed , have been oppressed , and this is imputed as a consequence of the permanent settlement ; but the truth is , that , the power of legislating in the interests of the ryots was reserved by the express

      terms of the settlement , and the oppression is rather chargeable against the Government , which never exercised its reserved power , and neglected its duty towards the population . We must now return to the evidence , which required these introductory statements to make it quite intelligible . The view which the European witnesses took of these reserved systems was quite the reverse of that presented in the " Memorandum . " In Madras and Bombay there are no European settlers ^ and tie reason is , that they cannot get a footing in the country under such a revenue system ; and were this difficulty removed , the system has so pauperised the mass of the population and split up holdings , that the operation of the capitalist would

      be practically impossible . In the North-West Provinces , tlie settlement is unfavourable to the capitalist , and consequently to the settlement of Europeans . In Lower Bengal alone Europeans find a system , in its main features , favourable to them , but it is impaired by faults which jeopardise all capital . Its merit consists in the fixed character of the land tax . The tax was assessed in 1793 ; it remains the same in the present day , and such it will remain for ever ; but in case of non-payment , the Government has a statutory execution , more summary and severe than the extents of the Crown in England , and they sweep away , by the mere fact of the sale in execution , all leases , and hand over a clear estate , such as it was in 1793 , to the new purchaser . This it is which places capital in a state of insecurity niuch complained of by all the witnesses .

      Evidence Keferred To In Page 666-Witness...

      EVIDENCE KEFERRED TO IN PAGE 666-Witness : N . Theobatjd , Esq . Subject : The Kyotwakbee System . The witness having spoken of the land tenures as preventing Europeans from getting settlements in some parts of India , is asked— - To what do you refer when you speak about the land tenure preventing 1 the settlement of Europeans , & c?—I refer to the ry-otwarree settlement , as it is called—a term very well known in this country ; under that tenure the Government i 3 the immediate landlord , and in its transactions with the ryots and cultivators is represented by an army of -what I should call revenue police ^ who , I think it sufficiently appears now , by the Madras Tontine

      Report , are men of no principle whatever . I am now referring to the Madras territory , and I believe that the 3 ame revenue settlement , that is , the ryotwarree settlement , exists fo a great extent in the Bombay Presidency ; in all where that state of things exists , that is , ¦ with tlie Government as the landlord , and being represented by such a police as exists there—an army of something like sixty thousand—I apprehend it is selfevident that with a pauperised tenantry the capitalist cannot possibly get a footing ; and he cannot get a footing for another reason , that the settlement is an exclusive settlement , and does not involve any plan for introducing a class of landlords intermediate to the Government . I state thnt aa the conclusion of my own mind as to that settlement .

      Would your answer be represented by the opinion that the frequent interposition of the Government agents between the producer and the consumer ia productive of much evil ?—By tho interposition of the existing class that is the case . TJie existing class is a revenue police ; large numbers of them are very ill paid , and from what we have lately learned , through official reports , tliey are a very unprincipled , rapacious class of men , who pauperises the population ; and I think it is stated in Mr . Kaye ' s book , that tho Government are of opinion that they cannot extend cultivation any farther ( I do not know whether they admit under that settlement ) , although there are large tracts at present uninhabited , and largo numbers of persons are constantly migrating eastward from tho Coromandel coast , where this settloinent prevails , for emnlovment elsewhere .

      Do you ascribe that to tho revenue system r—That would be th « conclusion of my own mind . It excludes the capitalist and prevents that expansion of prosperity which tho introduction of capital leads to . CltOSS-KXABlINKD BY Mlt . MANGLK 8 ON THE ABOVE Evidence . You said tliat at Madras , in consequence of the ryotwarree system , capitalists cannot get a footing ?—Yes ; that wns tho expression which I used . A capitalist can buy land of tho ryot at Madras , can he not?—Yes ; from a ryot no doubt ho can . I believe now tho ryet has a saleable interest , but I should thinlc it a perfect impracticability fur a capitalist to buy out a whole population , because it would come to that , nml what is to become of the population when it is bought out ? The question supposes a thing to be practicable which is only theoretically possible .

      Aro you not aware that many of the ryots hnvo largo holdings ?—Yes , I think it is very likely . I am not aw aro whether they aro numerous . I understood that the mass of the ryot populntion had very small holdings , and wore in a pauperised condition , something liko tho

      Irish , peasantry until the exodus which followed the famine . You said that the people -were emigrating , & c , in consequence of the revenue system of Madras ?—I stated , certainly , that there was an unusual emigration , & c , and by conjecture I imputed it to the difficulty of living on the spot . The native of India does not emigrate very willingly , and I have ascribed it to the condition of the permanently settled population . Are you not aware that the wages of labour upon that coast are extremely high ?—No ; I have no information on tliat subject . Therefore , having no information * you thought it best to ascribe it to the undue amount of the Government assessment ?—My information led me to draw the conclusion that it -w-as owing to the revenue system , and not merelv to the amount of the assessment .

      Same Witness , on the Psbslanent Settlement . What is the ' nature of the revenue settlement that you refer to in Lower Bengal , and what faults do you impute to it ?—The settlement is known by the name of " the permanent settlement . It is also called the Cornwallis Settlement , because it was established , by Lord Cornwallis Under the authority of an Act of Parliament , and with the full consent , and after great consideration of the Court of Directors here , it was established by Lord Cornwallis . I mention that because I have seen publications in which it appears to > have been imputed to Lord Cornwallis as rather an arbitrary act , arising out of a prejudice of th at nobleman for the institution of great landlords ; but I believe that was the origin

      of the permanent settlement . It -was Lord Corn-w-allis acting on the vieAvs of the first-class statesmen of that day , and it was called the Peimanent Settlement because the settlement already established had been only for ten years , ^ vliicb . was converted , into a settlement for perpetuity . Then , with reference to the faults of that settlement , the Government imposed very stringent terms oil the zemindars for the purpose of realising its revenue—such as , if there was any default in -the ' payment of the revenue , what we should call in England a statutory execution might immediately issue , that i 3 , the mere fact of default entitled the collector immediately to sell the zemindarree . That was done , and it had the effect , I believe , of sweeping-away the zemindars tv-Iio were the proprietors , and most of the great families who ^ -e re the zemindars , when that settlement -was established . 1 think that proves that it was , as respects the terms of

      the settlement and the amount of tlie revenue , not a particularly favourable settlement . Then the condition , of the settlement , to -which I adverted , and to which I should refer as a fault in the settlement not particularly favourable to us , was this , that , whenever an estate had to be sold for default of tie payment of revenue , all under-tenures created subsequently to the date of the settlement ( 1793 ) Aveie swept away by the fact of the forfeiture ; and that affects us in this vay : we take parts of a zemindarree , perhaps on a lease or some other tenure , such as a putnee tenure ; -we thereby become perpetual householders of a part of the zemindarree , and that interest is forfeited by the zemindarree being sold free from all under-tenures . Our lease is cancelled by thc ^ aet of sale , and as the tenant or putnee-holder haa not necessarily , or had not originally , notice of the forfeiture , his property is lost without his being at all aware of it . Since I have been in India there lias been an

      improvement in that respect . Does tliat grievance exist now ?—To a much less extent than it did formerly , and it has been under tho consideration of the Government of India . The sub-renter is affected by tho default of the superior landholder , without the priority of the settlement to it ?—Yes , lie may have given 10 , 000 ? . for a valuable lease , and also bo under an engagement to pay a portion of the Government revenue accruing in respect of that lease , nnd that is swept away . It is a forfeiture whicli cannot be appealed against That h quite n recognised grievance , and Mr . John Peter Grant , a man of very distinguished ability undoubtedly .

      brought in a bill for the purpose of removing this inconvenience and altering tlie law . The Indigo Planters Association entirely npproved of the object of the bill , but tlie new law -would have produced practical inconveniences , vliieh obliged tho Europeans to oppose that form of the law , and , as too often happens -where -wo partially oppose , and on grounds bo strong that the measure is postponed , we did not get tho better measure which we ourselves suggested . Wo nrc , therefore , still under tho old arrangement and tho old law . Although a reform of the law was undertaken by n . member of tho Government in consequenco of our partial opposition , tho mnttcr appears to linvo been dropped .

      Do Europeans seriously suffer under tho existing state of tlielaw ?—Yos ; I believo llioy do . It affects the value of their properly ns n security . I understood you that the grievance is simply thisthat the rights of tho sub-renter aro swept away together with tho proprietorship of tho zemindar ?—Yes , all auch interests created Binco 17 f >« 'J . Can putneedum save tiieir tenure from the effects of a snlo for arrears of revenue by depositing their otvn rent with tlio collector ?—I think not merely by depositing thotr own rent ; I think thoy have to deposit alao the rent of tho zemindar .

  • Citation
    • Leader (1850-1860), Aug. 14, 1858, page 813, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/l/issues/ldr_14081858/page/21/