THE INDIAN LAND-REVENUE QUESTION.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE SPECTATOR.

SIR—I beg to return my thanks for your courtesy in so promptly inserting my letter upon the Indian Land-revenue: it was written in Germany, before your number of the nth of April was published. I will now, if yen will permit me, endeavour to show that you have not made oat, in year article upon the "Or- ganization of Agriculture" in that paper, nor in the remarks which yen have made upon my letter in your last number, that "land-tax" (the land-revenue of India) is "not rent." If it be not rent, from what fond is the land-revenue drawn ? If there were not a surplus amount and.value of produce after defraying the wages of labour and the profite-of capital, it is surely manifest that such a revenue could not be raised, or at least could not continue to be raised year after year: but if there be such a surplus, that, according to all definitions that 1 ever saw or heard of, is clearly rent. If the revenue were raised by a different system, the proprietor of the soil would enjoy the whole of this surplus, as he does in England if possessed of an estate tithe-free and with the land-tax redeemed. I have not asserted, as you seem to suppose, that "the Government of India are the owners of the soil:' I am far from denying that "land has been held as private property for cen- turies by the same families, many of whom have title-deeds to show." My posi- tion is simply that the State has taken from time immemorial a very large pro- portion of the rent of all land for public purposes, exactly as the Church in this country has been endowed with a smaller proportion of the same fund for religious purposes. And this is no hardship to individuals, because the system is far older than the families and title-deeds to which you allude; and the revenue, so far from being, as you allege, "a tax imposed after cultivation has introduced rights and relative values," has proceeded, from times far beyond the memory of man or the records of history, pan i pas= with that cultivation, and with whatever of im- provement (mainly, indeed, works of irrigation constructed by the State, or by individuals rather as monuments of piety or munificence than for personal profit) has taken place. I maintain, that as long as the State keeps strictly within the limits of rent as above defined, the circumstance that the value of the surplus produce is collected by public officers, and devoted to public purposes, instead of being left in the hands vf this or the other agricultural class, cannot by possibility affect the cost of production. And I affirm, that where, from social circumstances, such a surplus exists as it does in India, all the power of the most despotic go- vernment cannot prevent its being appropriated by some party or other. To test the correctness of our respective positions, take the following case. Mr. Arthur Crooke has given evidence before the Committee of the House of Com- mons on Sugar and Coffee Planting, now sitting, that he holds lands in thedistrict of Tirhoot, under the Government of Bengal, for the purpose of growing sugar. He is asked, "Are you subject to any land-taxes?"—" The reminder has the land subject to a tax." "That is paid out of the rent you pay to him ?"—" The Zemindar has to pay it out of the rent we pay him." "Do you know what the land-tax is? "—"I can only call to mind one village that we have where we pay to the Zemindar rupees 3,300 or 3,400 a year; the land-tax upon that, I have always heard was rupees 800; that is rupees 800 upon 3100." '"The Ze- mindar pays rupees 800, and you pay him 3,300 or 3,400?"—" Yes." "Your transaction is entirely with the Zemindar? "—" Yes." Now, it appears to me that unless you can show that the revenue is not in this instance a part of the rent, or, to treat the matter practically, that Mr. Crooke would get the village in question a farthing cheaper in the event of the Govern- ment giving up the whole or a part of its revenue, (as you and others have urged that it ought to do, in order to enable India to compete successfully with other countries in the growth of what may be called Tropical produce,) your argument is hors de combat. For there is no essential difference between the position of the Zemindar under whom Mr. Crooke holds the village in question, and that of any other landholder throughout the vast extent of the provinces, the land-revenue of which is happily settled upon sound principles,—namely, in perpetuity, or for a long term of years; though Mr. Crooke's landlord is fortunate enough to be the owner of a very lightly assessed estate. To the system of annual assessments, and to the consequent mischievous meddling of colkctore and collectors' under- lings with the questions whether this or that land be irrigated, or this or that species of crop grown, Jam as strongly opposed as you can possibly be. Forgive me if I say, that it seems to me that the unsound conclusions to which, in my humble judgment, you have come, havebeen mainly drawn from the erroneous as- sumption that the land-revenue is generally administered throughout India upon such principles. Yet in one place you assume that the "land-tax by assessing an even rate on Iambi, of all kinds, levies an average impost" upon lands of all qualities and posi- tions, falling lightly upon fertile soils, and so heavily urn others as to prove a practical prohibition to cultivation. In India," you proceed, " immense tra ts of waste land are kept unproductive by the operation of the land-tax."

I beg to state that you have been misinformed as to the facts of the case. In- deed, in many settlements of the land-revenue, mischievous errors have been committed in the very opposite extreme, by an attempt to discriminate too nicely between the several qualities of soil. That that mistake has long since been dis- cerned and corrected, and that the authorities in India are determined to keep the public assessment well within the limits of that surplus produce which con- stitutes rent, the following extracts will, I think, satisfy you. "It is impracticable also to fix an invariable standard of demand, even on net produce. In another place, I observed that a maximum, however, might be fixed; and that the relinquishment by Government of thirty or thirty-five per cent of the estimated groes rent would seem to be sufficient, under the most unfavourable circumstances, to serve as a remunerating return, and to cover all expenses or risks of collection. By the term 'gross rent,' I explained that I meant the pro- portion of the produce, or the value of the produce remaining after defraying the wages of labour and profits of stock."

It appears to me, that the gross or cucha jiimmabundee (rental) of an estate being once ascertained, the rule should be to assume as the Government share seventy or seventy-five per cent, leaving the remainder to cover all expenses of collection, and all proprietary profits." (Minute of Lord 1Villiam Bentinek, 26th September 1832.)

"It will be obvious, that after the precise area of the estate under assessment shall have been ascertained, the principal object of the collection should be toss- certain, by every available means, the rent actually received by the proprietor from i

his several tenants, of whatever class or description. This s the only safe and practical foundation for the calculation of the public revenue, and no pains should be spared to elicit the requisite imformation. Where it may be found im- possible to obtain it, or where suspicion may attach to the accounts rendered, the rent paid for land of the same quality, and under similar circumstances, in the adjoining estates, will afford the best criterion." (Circular Order of the Cal- cutta Board of Revenue, 12th November 1833.)

Pardon my frankness if I take the liberty of pointing out two other errors into which you have fallen. You have argued, in some instances, as if the many degrees of latitude and longitude which constitute our enormous empire in India

were one place, and as if the land-revenue were administered everywhere on the same system, and that the worst which obtains in any of its numerous provinces;

and, secondly, you have treated exceptional cases as if they were the results of

general rules. A signal instance of this occurs in your article of the 29th of April, above quoted, in respect to the land-tax proving "a practical prohibition to

cultivation." You allege that the Government, pursuing a course which "stamps the impost now levied in India with the indelible marls of a land-tax, and dis- tinguishes it sufficiently from rent," prohibits or discourages the "cultivating Unoccupied land at a modified land-tax by parties willing to bring it under cul- tivation "; and you cite, as proof of this position, a proclamation of the Govern- ment of Bombay, dated 20th June 1838. I do not know the particular case referred to, but I could meet by a dozen instances in which all the encouragernent which can be afforded by grants in perpetuity, or for very long terms of years, free of revenue for a period, and with a slowly ascending scale afterwards have

been giyeu to all parties willing to undertake the cultivation of waste lands ap- pertaining to the State. Indeed, considering the nature of the land-revenue and the rapid general increase of population, I can scarcely conceive a mac in which the Government has not the strongest and the most direct interest in the utmost possible extension of cultivation.

You state that "the invariable accompaniment of the land-MX has been the breaking up of the soil into small areas foi cultivation." ram not aware of the existence of the slightest indication that the revenue system has generated the -potty holdings so prevalent in India. If you think that the land-tax has caused the great subdivision of property in France, (where the law of inheritance, and

the passion for landed property Of which Michelet speaks, have, I apprehend, far more to do with the matter,) what has been the origin of the evil in Ireland? I have seen passages descriptive of the condition of the cattier in that country which might be applied verbatim, with a mere change of proper names, to the ryot of British India.

One word more. You say that "Lord Auckland's published assertion that the assessment is equal and invariable throughout the Company's jurisdiction, seems to be controverted" by my "assertion that the land-tax is rent, and consequently a matter of contract."

To my knowledge, Lord Auckland never made the assertion attributed to him. If he did, he made a mistake; as Lord William Bentinck's Minute and the Cir- cular of the Board of Revenue, above quoted, would alone suffice to evince. What

I know that he did say, with great truth, in his minute upon the cultivation of cotton, was, that the principle had been strongly and repeatedly laid down by the

Government of India, that the assessment of the public revenue should be made upon the basis of the general capability of the soil in each instance, not upon the particular crop which the occupier might choose to cultivate; and I think that he

added, (what has, at any rate, been elsewhere laid down,) that the calculation should be made as if all the land were employed to grow the staple grain of the pro- vince, thus providing that the cultivation of sugar-cane, cotton, indigo, and the like, should not be assessed more heavily than wheat, or rice, or Indian corn. The pro- per amount of rent cannot be ascertained, as in this country, by the commercial experiment of competition; because there is, in the vast majority of instances, some individual or body entitled by law to engage with the Government, (as you have yourself shown in speaking of old families having a property in the soil, and possessing title-deeds); but every other means is resorted to to ascertain what the party at the head of the agricultural scale in each instance of land under assess- ment does receive as rent, or would receive if he let it, (if he cultivate it per- sonally,) and to make that the basis of the public demand.

I add proof,—which I had not at command when I wrote from abroad,—that the view which I take of the matter has the sanction, leaving Ricardo and his theory out of the question, of two of the highest authorities in political economy.

"I conceive that the peculiarity of India, in deriving a large proportion of its re venue from time e land, s a very great advantage. Nine-tenths probably of the revenue of the Government of India is derived from the rent of land, never appro- priated to individuals, and always considered to be the property of Government; and to me that appears to be one of the most fortunate circumstances that can oc- cur in any country; because in consequence of this the wants of the state are sup- plied really and truly without taxation. As far as this source goes, the people of the country remain untaxed. The wants of Government are supplied without any drain upon the produce of any man's labour, or the produce of any man's calmer—James Mill.

"10 meet of the great Eastern monarchies the Sovereign has been considered in the light of the owner of the soil. This premature monopoly of the land, joined with the two properties of the soil and its products just noticed, his enabled the Government to claim at a very early period a certain portion of the produce of all cultivated land; and, under whatever name this may be taken it is essentially rent. It is an excess both of the quantity, and of the exchangeable value of what is produced, above the actual cost of enItivation."—Malthus's Principles of Po- litical Economy, Chapter " Rent of Land."