value of the produce of the land, or by maintaining good roads and canals, to provide the most extensive markets for the produce."Wealth of Nations, book v. p. 104. In another place, he thus argues on the equitable' system of land revenues:— "The attention of the landlord is a particular and minute consideration of what is likely to be the most advantageous application of every inch of ground upon his estate. The principal attention of the sovereign ought to be to encourage, by every means in his power, the attention both of the landlord and the farmer, by allowing both to pursue their own interest in their own way, and according to their own judgment, by giving to both the most perfect security that they shall enjoy the full recompense of their own industry; and by procuring to both the most extensive market for every part of their produce, in consequence of establishing the easiest and safest communications both by land and by water, through every part of his own dominions, as well as the most unbounded freedom of exportation to the dominions of all other princes. "If by such a system of administration a tax of this kind could be so managed as to give, not only no discouragement, but, on the contrary, some encouragement to the improvement of the land, it does not appear likely to occasion any other inconveniency to the landlord, except always the unavoidable one of being obliged to pay the tax. In all the variations of the state of society; in the improvement and in the declension of agriculture; in all those in the standard of the coin, a tax of this kind would, of its own accord, and without any attention of government, readily suit itself to the actual situation of things, and would be equally just and equitable in all those different changes.”Wealth of Nations, book v. p. 270. Dr. Smith assigns a reason why land is a much more proper subject of direct taxation than "stock;" namely, because the ascertaining of the latter would be inquisitorial, its fluctuation more variable, and the proprietor of land is a citizen of the state, whereas "stock" is easily removeable. All who have observed the character of the Hindoos, are aware how much they dread any thing like an inquisition as to their private financial condition; many, indeed, possessed of considerable wealth have every appearance of poverty, while the jealousy with which they view an approach ing knowledge of an European to their domestic habits, shews they have not entirely subdued their fears, that the present rulers of India would act like their predecessors in squeezing from their subjects the uttermost farthing, beyond what might be necessary to support life on the lowest possible scale of animal existence. To be sure, Mr. Rickards and the Westminster Reviewer for 1832 says, that such is the case; they assert that the Hindoos are as heavily taxed by the East-India Company, as they were by the Mahomedan government. To endeavour to prove this Mr. Rickards has written two immense volumes, but they present such a mass of contradictory testimony, and are so opposed to his evidence before Parliament, that it is difficult where to expose their absurdity most; his constant assertion is, that the Company "invariably proclaim the savage right to seize upon half the gross produce of the land as a tax ;* thus treading in the steps of their unrighteous predecessors, the Mahomedans." This statement is incorrect in many particulars; first, as to the Government exacting half the gross produce:-under the permanent settlement there were three parties whose shares ran thus:— The ryot or cultivator 50 per cent. of the produce of the land. ditto ditto. In Bombay it is less than the foregoing imaginary assessment, and according to the evidence of Mr. Elphinstone the revenue is still in the course of reduction: in Madras it is yet less than at either of the other settlements; If consideration be had to the vast quantity of waste land brought into cultivation under the operation of the permanent settlement, and the immense amount of land held rent-free,* I am rather under than above the mark in stating, that even the nominal Government revenue from the land throughout all India is not one-fourth, much less one-half of the produce of the soil! Now, not only is Mr. Rickards incorrect with respect to "the Company's grand source of oppression, the enormous amount of the land-tax, upwards of fifty per cent.," but he has also grossly (I had almost said intentionally) erred in asserting that the Hindoos are as heavily taxed by the Company as they were by the Mahomedans; I say intentionally, for Mr. Rickards repeatedly shews that there was no limit to Mahomedan taxation but what their wretched subjects could bear without being deprived of life; he proves, indeed, that the Mussulmans did not destroy the bees, for that would have left them no honey for the ensuing year, but they took every particle of honey beyond what was immediately necessary to the end in view-reproduction ;‡ when * In the ceded and conquered provinces of the Doab, the rent-free lands amount to 44,95,177 beegahs. In the lower provinces of Bengal exclusive of Cuttack, Lord Teignmouth stated the rent-free lands to be in amount according to investigation, 83,75,942 beegahs. Indeed in some districts the lands held rent-free are more than one-half in quantity than those paying revenue to Government. Mr. Colebrooke gives the following estimate of some pergunnahs : Free Lands. Cultivated. In Sherefoebad and Tajpur..beegahs 298,275 524,909 Total........ beegahs 441,317 826,040 With regard to Bombay Mr. Elphinstone says, 66 a considerable extent of land is held rent-free as jaghire for military and other services; some with a quit rent so light that it almost partakes of that nature, and some is entirely exempt from all payment of revenue; and nothing was to be levied on new land brought into cultivation."-Lords' Report, March 25, 1830. p. 590. + Vol. i. Mr. R. quotes (p. 281) an extract from the Hedaya, Book ix. chap. 7, to shew that "it is lawful to take the whole of the persons and referring therefore (in the very same page in which he charges the Company with adopting all but "the sanguinary creed of the Mahomedans in Bengal") to Colonel Galloway's able work on the "Law and Constitution of India," he might in common justice to that corporation whom he so long served, and by whose very existence he was maintained, he might, I repeat, have quoted the numerous other taxes, besides half the gross produce of the soil, which the Mahomedans levied in Bengal, and indeed every where they went; but no-Mr. Rickards, like a special pleader, had a case to make out, a theory to support, and he merely brought into relief what suited his views, rather than what rendered justice to his antagonist-Proh pudor! Colonel Galloway says that the zemindars of Bengal, in addition to the Mahomedan assessment (of Akbar) of rupees 1,49,61,482, were bound to furnish 23,330 cavalry, 801,158 infantry, 170 elephants, 4,260 cannon, and 4,400 boats; that Behar paid in revenue rupees 55,47,985, and furnished a contingent of 11,415 cavalry, 449,350 infantry and 100 boats. Colonel Galloway justly adds,-" the British Government has not only relieved the people from such burdens as these, but has continued the old exemptions and admitted a variety of new exemptions, from revenue; and moreover has seldom, if ever, availed itself of the customary exercise of the power of resumption of jagheers and other rent-free lands."* I ask you, Mr. Rickards, was it fair, was it honourable, to omit this highly important statement? Yet, Sir, you not only disingenuously concealed it, but you acted in a similar manner with respect to the numerous annual and occasional and properties of infidels, and to distribute them among the Mussulmans;" and he abundantly proves in many other passages throughout his work, that the Mahomedans were not slow to avail themselves of this "lawful" enactment. * Page 98, second edition, Parbury, Allen, and Co. imposts which were levied on the Zimmee or non-Moslem subject by his conqueror, in addition to the "khurauj," or five tithes of the produce: the capitation-tax on adult nonMoslem subjects amounted annually to the enormous sum of about ninety-eight millions of rupees annually! The mint taxes were six and a quarter per cent. for gold, besides seven and a-half per cent. more paid by the owner of the bullion for the expense of assaying and coinage! On silver and copper coinage, the Government duty alone on each species was five per cent.* The tax levied on marriages whether of a son or daughter must, as Col. Galloway says, have been great, it varied from ten gold mohurs downwards, according to the rank of the parents; goods were annually taxed, whether as merchandize in store or in transit; the stock in a tradesman's or artist's shop paid a yearly ad valorem tax; the gold and silver coin in the possession of an individual, the bullion, the ornaments of jewellery, the plate made of the precious metals, were all taxed by the Moslems at the lowest rate of two and a-half per cent.+ The custom duties were five per cent. on non-Moslem subjects, two and a-half per cent. on Moslems; then there were taxes on "convocations assembled to settle business, on each person," on horses, on kine, on herbs, on fruit and fruit-trees, on cases of succession, on artizans, There was an annual recoinage under the Mahomedan governments. Rupees of three years' currency were received at a discount of three per cent.; but the poor tenants or under-farmers had paid these in to the zemindar at a discount of five per cent., by which he lost two per cent. on his rent. †These circumstances fully account for the dread which the Hindoos evince to the present day of allowing the extent of their wealth to be known; it was gratifying to me, however, to hear a zemindar informing me one day when visiting his splendid, and at the same time elegant mansion, “I may now display my wealth without a fear of its being taxed." All the Hindoos have not, however, yet allowed their fears to subside, and many are immensely rich who appear poverty-struck. |