PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
C.O. 882
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH—NOT TO
5 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
66
this case is no means singular. Though it is undoubtedly exceptional in the magnitade of its results, it is typical of what has happened upon a smaller scale, almost every year, in different parts of the island. We have reason to believe, indeed, that results little, if at all, less startling than those revealed by the evidence in the case under review, have, even more recently, been produced by the Government policy in the Province of Uva, We believe that when the Administration Report of that province for 1888 appears, it will contain results of a very similar character to those of the case we are considering Why, at this late period of the year, we should still be without any of the provincial Administration Reports for 1888 is unaccountable to the lay mind; but we have been awaiting these reports for several months past. The events they will place on record are public, and are well known in the particular localities where they occur. They are, therefore, bruited abroad in unofficial shape, and are no secrets, though treated as such in official quarters. It is suspected that the truth is not unfrequently pare down for publication. We have tried in vain to obtain official particulars of the recent mortality in certain districts of Uva, where we have reason to believe the death rate was quite lately as high as 60 per thousand! We think such information should be freely given,
The policy we have under review, and which we are earnestly desirous to see abolished, has wrought most serious injury to the country, and has entailed severe hardship and discouragement upon native agriculturists.
Theoretically, the paddy tax is a tithe of the produce of the land, and was generally paid in kind upon the threshing floor until 1877. Under that system the tithe was farmed to persons who were euphemistically called "renters." These were influential headmen, who bought the right to collect the tithes at public auction. The powers necessarily conferred upon them by the Government, to enable them to exercise their rights, were capable of multiform abuses, and were in fact often so grievously abused that popular indignation was at length aroused against the system, and it was abolished in 1877 in favour of a system of commutation, which had already been in existence in the Central Province for many years.
The principle of commutation was warmly espoused by several parties, each on its own grounds. Those who sought, above all things, to abolish the intolerable abuses of the farming system were its most energetic supporters. Others who were in terror lest the food tax should be altogether superseded, eagerly embraced an alternative which seemed to offer the only chance of saving it. These were powerful advocates, both in position and influence, and they made it appear that the tax was an absolutely indispen- sable item of the revenue; an argument lately revived by a contemporary. A third party, which was efficiently represented on the Commission of 1877, consisted of revenue officers, who saw in the new system a ready means of obtaining, in addition to the theoretical tithe, the big profits of the renters, as well as devices for increasing those profits by means of assessment. These methods of increasing the revenue are practi- cally and forcibly illustrated in the evidence contained in the appendix on which Mr. Moir's report is supposed to be based, and our object is to exhibit them in hope of securing their final abolition. The terror inspired by the extortions of the renting system in some localities is well illustrated by the fact that the villagers of certain districts, mentioned in paragraph 5 at page 23 of the appendix, agreed to an enormous over assessment of their tax, not because it was reasonable, or even that their paddy could afford to pay it, but having coffee gardens, they were willing to pay this excessive tax" to avoid the exactions of a renter.'
*J
The worst abuses of the farming system have since been exceeded by others, practised by adepts under the new system, who were able to assess the lands according to their own arbitrary methods, both of determining the yield and of settling the commutation price of paddy. Hence, it will be seen, for example, that Mr. Soyza had a field which yielded an average of 56 bushels and was assessed at 90 bushels. Other fields close by, that yielded barely the amount of seed paddy, were assessed at 1:33 per pela. The revenue officers under this system could thus assess the lands at rates of yield exceeding the actual crops, and could also value the so-called tithe at rates considerably in excess of the market value of the produce. Here were two means of exaction, of which free use was made in the cases recorded in the appendix before us. Since the Walapane controversy commenced, we have been inundated with authenticated cases in which, by means of the power in question, the tithe was made to represent 15 to 40 per cent., or even a greater proportion of the entire crops. It is true that the consent of the owners or cultivators is supposed to be necessary, and to be in all cases obtained by their signatures to the assessments. This sounds fair in the ears of persons unacquainted with the position and circumstances of the people, but, in fact, the consent is in most
67
cases a foregone conclusion, to which the poor goiya has little to say. His headman speaks for him, often without either his knowledge or consent, and is too anxious to ingratiate himself with the revenue magnate to oppose his wishes. The consequence is, that although the Statute of Frauds requires every agreement affecting land to be notarially attested, we see on the evidence of Mr. King (page 24, paragraph 11) that the assessments therein specified were office compilations! In paragraph 15 of the same page it appears, by the evidence of Mr. Baumgartner, that many owners were bold enough to repudiate their signatures, and it was found, on examination, that all the signatures were by crosses! In a foot note, on the same page, it is stated that this was the case throughout the district! The moral influence of the example thus set in official circles needs no comment, either in regard to the violation of truth or the breach of the law involved in this practice. We mention it in this article as one of the results of affording revenue officers an opportunity of distinguishing themselves for their zeal and success in raising the revenue. It is considered a high encomium to be styled an effective revenue officer, and, no doubt, the one who raised the assessments in 1864 from 661 cents to R1:33 must have gained great éclat. It will be noticed that near the close of paragraph 8 of the report, page 2, it is stated that in submitting the new assessment for the sanction of the Government, the officer in question did not mention that it doubled the amount of the grain tax over a large extent of country! This officer says he heard no complaints, and there are some officers to whom no complaints would, under any circumstances, be addressed. In paragraph 9, however, a successor in office found that complaints were loud, and the over-assessment was deeply felt.
The Commissioners of 1877 recommended that assessments for commutation should be upon a low scale, in order that the new system (new, that is, as a general system) might be made acceptable to the people. This had already been done in the localities where it was previously tried. In the Nuwara Eliya district it commenced with 35 to 40 cents per bushel, and this was afterwards in 1856 increased to 663 cents, see page 23, paragraph 5, and in 1864 still further raised to 133 cents. So that in about 20 years it was multiplied to three times its original amount! There were amongst the Com- missioners of 1877 men who recognised these facilities in the system of commutation, and who may bave had them in view when they joined in the recommendation of the report to adopt a low scale of assessment.
In practice, however, the principle has been widely departed from by official zeal in the interest of revenue; and we have, in the appendix to Mr. Moir's report, abundant evidence of the fatal results of this feature of the Government policy.
The worst, and by far the most fatal, results of the policy of the present system, however, are due to the law which made the land liable for the tax. Under the worst abuses of the old system the owners retained their ancestral possessions. The renter might exact more than his due, by several devices which he was able to practise, but he could claim only his share of the produce, and if there was a failure of crop there was an end of all his possible claims for tax! Far different is the case now.
Not only
is the commutation payable, crop or no crop, but tax and arrears of tax may be recovered by distraint of the cultivator's goods, tools, cattle, and the land itself. Hence, as we see by the evidence, thousands of fields have actually been sold for nou-payment of tax, not in Nuwara Eliya only, where 2,889 fields were so sold, but elsewhere. In Uva we believe that over 9,000 fields have been sold for default of payment of a tax which the people could not pay. A partial return which was applied for in December last showed a grand total of 10,243 lands in different parts of the island, comprising 8,594 acres, sold for taxes averaging in amount 1 rupee and 70 cents per acre!
This return
is very defective and does not include any of the 2,889 fields sold in Nuwara Eliya; and as regards Uva only 506 lands, of 265 acres aggregate extent, are therein specified. A complete return would show very different results.
In the absence of the return which was applied for several weeks ago, of all the paddy lands that have been sold for non-payment of tax in the island, we are unable to state, or even to estimate the total extent of the sales. It cannot be less, however, than 20,000 acres. Even that return, when we get it, will not exhibit the full extent of the evil, for it will be seen by the appendix to the report in question that sales had to be stopped for want of bidders! In the partial return before us, we find that in the Southern Province land was sold for as little as 74 cents, or pence per acre! In Kalutara, land was sold for 12 cents = 2 pence; in the Eastern Province at 17 cents 31 pence; and in Sabaragamuwa at 22 cents 4 pence per acre! To such a pass has paddy land come! Seeing that the assessments were liable to be, and actually were, doubled by a single stroke, lando subject to such exactions could not have any stable value. We are aware that in some casca tax has been withheld in order to force I 2
=