Other
answers. Remainder of this section.
VIII. (pelusion.
(Inclusion 3.
Conclusion 4.
Conclusion 5.
Conclusion 6.
116
By way of comment on the remainder of this section, I would beg leave to draw attention to my remarks on Mr. Le Mesurier's Letter, IV., paras. 41, 42, and 44.
So far is Mr. Wall's admission, that landlords "sometimes" obtain as much as a half share of the crop by way of rent, from admitting the whole truth, it is the case, as there shown by me, that they sometimes obtain as much as four-fifths of the crop by way of rent, viz., out of a crop of 60 bushels, 48 bushels, Government getting about 6 bushels (or a little less) by way of tax, and the tenant the remaining 6 bushels by way of remuneration for his labour in cultivating,; and it is also the case that in certain instances personally investigated by myself, where the tenant found, seed, cattle, and every requisite for cultivation, and the landlord did nothing for the tenant beyond giving him the use of the land, the landlord received one-half the gross crop by way of rent, and paid the Government share therefrom, and the tenant was allowed to keep only the other half by way of remuneration for his supplying seed, cattle, &c., as aforesaid, and for his labour in cultivating the land!
I would also, in regard to the sometimes alleged unremunerativeness of paddy cultivation invite attention to the enclosed copy, which I beg may be returned to me when done with, of a paper by Mr. Elliott on the subject, and to the reports in the Ceylon Observer" of the results of some recent experiments in paddy cultivation carried out under the same gentleman's personal superintendence, and also to the paragraphs on the subject in the report of the Central Irrigation Board for 1888.
Mr. Wall discreetly says nothing about the necessity for an assessment as a pre- liminary to a general land tax, nor about the cost and difficulty of making the assessment, nor about the cost and other inconveniences of collecting such a tax in Ceylon. But he denies the necessity for a preliminary survey, and quotes the late Colonel Fyers in support of his denial, adding that the Surveyor-General would be the officer " responsible for carrying into effect a land tax."
If there were no survey, the Surveyor-General would have nothing whatever to do with carrying a land tax -into effect; and, in any case, the Government Agents (as pointed out by Mr. Twynam and others) are the officers through whom, if it were decided to impose a general land tax, the attempt to collect the tax would necessarily have to be made. There can be no mistake about the opinion of the Government Agents regarding the difficulty of collecting such a tax, any more than there is any about the opinion of the Native Members of Council as to its undesirability and unacceptability by the people. As regards the necessity for a preliminary survey, I have nothing to add to what has been stated in the report of the Select Committee beyond soliciting special attention to the facts disclosed by Mr. de Saram's settlement of the village of Dehiwala, and to my remarks on that head in my printed letter to Sir A. Havelock under Section VIII., conclusion.
It is shown in the report of the Select Committee, para. 28, that if the grain taxes had been abolished in 1898 and a general land tax substituted therefor, such of the consumers of imported rice as have no interest in land would have been freed of taxation amounting to over Rs. 1,100,000, and that amount thrown on to the land in addition to its other burdens. The amount stated would, of course, increase with the increase of population.
I maintain "the probability that the burden on the holders of paddy lands would not be reduced" if the grain tuzes were abolished and a general land tax substituted therefor. Mr. Wall virtually makes me say, "if it were necessary to raise a revenue equivalent to that derived from the paddy tax," a very different thing. But the import duty would follow the paddy tax, and in that event I have no hesitation in saying, for the reasons given in the report of the Select Committee, that the burden on the holders of paddy lands would probably be increased under a general land tax. It is astonishing to hear a man of his length of residence in the country speak, as he does, as if the amount of garden and chena land owned by paddy land owners were generally only equal to that of their paddy fields. In cases of doubtful claim, e.g., under
Sannasses," which are silent as to the extent of high or chena land, the minimum allowed by Government is three times the extent of the paddy land; and, as a matter of fact, the owners of paddy lands generally possess much more chens than three times the extent of their paddy fields.
Se remarks on para. 4.
All the difficulties of a land tax apply equally, or even more forcibly, to assess- ments for paddy tax." This, and the kindred statement in para. 1 of the same rection that "a survey is not nearly so indispensable for an equitable land tax as for
117
an assessment for commutation of paddy fields," afford a good illustration of the recklessness of the writer. It is certainly desirable for several reasons that the paddy fields should, when convenient, be surveyed where this has not already been done, though for the present the compilation of field books and rough sketches would suffice for most purposes. But from this admission to the writer's assertions is a very wide leap indeed. Paddy is grown in unbroken sheets; each field is generally small, and its limits marked and plain to the eye; the amount for which one-tenth of the crops was sold to the renters under the renting system is known for a number of years, the sowing extent," i..., the extent as settled by the amount of seed required to sow the field is known, as is also, approximately, the productiveness of the land, and we have further the assessments and re-assessments of grain commissioners under Ordinance II. of 1878 to guide us. As regards "chenas," which constitute the large majority of private lands other than paddy fields, every single particular for the guidance of an assessor in determining extent and productiveness is totally absent.
letter.
The remainder of Mr. Wall's letter is devoted to two lines of argument:-(1.) Apps Remaind rently an argument to show that the cultivation of paddy is very unremunerative of Mr. (except, I presume, for large proprietors, though he does not specifically exempt them); and (2) an argument to show that in Ceylon poor men pay by way of taxation a larger proportion of their income than comparatively rich men.
And first as to (1). I have stated what Mr. Wall's argument is " while his opening remarks have a more or less general application, his observations, apparently," for as he proceeds, apply only to cultivators properly so called, who have no paddy land of their own, but cultivate the lands of others for a share of the crop. These, he says, have a hard time of it, and it is wrong to require them to pay to Government one- tenth of the paddy which they produce, and they should be relieved by the abolition of the tax. Here, again, we have the old confusion of ideas which perpetually recurs in the utterances of abolitionists, and which arises from their ambiguous use of terms, and from their never having taken the trouble to think the matter out. The cultivator proper, as above described, does not pay the tax on the paddy which he produces for his landlord or his employer, but only on such rice, whether island-grown or imported, as he may happen to consume; the Government share of the paddy raised from any particular field is paid to the Government by the owners of that field, and the abolition of the tax would not advantage the (tenant or) cultivator in any way, but only swell his landlord's or employer's gains. As regards the profits of comparatively large proprietors who let their fields to tenants, and the profits of small proprietors who cultivate their own fields themselves, what I have already written has received no sort of answer, and I have therefore nothing to add to it. What is required, and all that is required by way of relief in respect of the paddy tax is, in the opinion of the Select Committee and myself, firstly that there should be remission of the tax when the crop practically fails; and, secondly (but this is less imperative), that unfertile fields should be taxed at a lower rate than fertile fields.
Next as to (2).-I am unable to follow Mr. Wall hers. have endeavoured to understand his table and have failed. If he really thinks that he can obtain labour in any village in Ceylon for 10 cents a day, he is subject to an extraordinary delusion. The sources of his delusion, or some of them, may be gathered from my remarks on his letter. At the same time (though I am unable to give even approximate details at present) I have very little doubt that the poorer classes in Ceylon pay a much larger proportion of their incomes in taxation than the comparatively rich class88— and this is as true of the poorer classes that consume imported rice as it is of such of them as consume Ceylon rice, whether raised by themselves or not. The question is: Can this be remedied in the present circumstances of Ceylon, regard being had to her condition and liabilities? A general land tax would be no remedy, but a most serious aggravation of the complaint. Can capital, "e.g., through export duties, be taxed in addition to its present burdens to such an extent as will enable the Government to dispense with the existing taxation on the food of the people without imposing a general land tax, which in Ceylon would be only a tax on food under another name, but harder on the people by just so much as a larger gross revenue than is now levied on their food would have to be levied in order to eqver the increased cost of collection (over two-thirds of the existing taxes on rice being now collected at the Customs at infinitesimal cost) and the cost of the preliminary survey and assessment ?
I more than doubt it, and no endeavour has ever been made to show the present practicability of such a transference of burdens.
G. T. M. O'BRIEN.
P 3
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference:
TILLC.O. 882
5 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
15,863.
MY LORD,
118
No. 26.
The COBDEN CLUB to COLONIAL OFFICE.
6, Upper Park Road, Hampstead,
London, N.W.,
August 6, 1891.
I AM instructed by the Committee of the Cobden Club to forward letter signed by Mr. T. B. Potter, M.P., Chairman of the Committee, praying for
you the enclosed special consideration to the question of the repeal of the Paddy Tax in Ceylon.
your
I am, &c.
RICHARD GOWING,
(Signed)
The Right Hon. Lord Knutsford, G.C.M.G., Secretary of State for the Colonies.
Secretary.
MY LORD,
A SUB-COMMITTEE of the Cobden Club, acting under the authority of the Committee to collect information and to take such action as may be best calculated to induce Her Majesty's Government to take into favourable consideration the question of the repeal of the duty called the Paddy Tax in Ceylon, are advised that Her Majesty's Government might find less difficulty in dealing with this question as a question by itself, apart from that of the import duties on rice in the island.
6, Upper Park Road, Haverstock Hill, N.W.,
August 5, 1891.
The Committee regard the import duty on rice as an objectionable tax, which should be abolished whenever its repeal is fiscally practicable; but they do not consider that the repeal of the import duty stands on the same level of urgency with that of the Paddy Tax, and they are advised that Her Majesty's Government might more easily see their way to the abolition of the Paddy Tax as a separate measure.
Our Committee do not think necessary to re-state the well-known reasons for the abolition of the Paddy Tax, including not only the economic reasons which serve as a guide to the fiscal policy of the United Kingdom, but the special reasons, of a most serious and weighty nature, affecting the domestic condition, the moral and physical welfare, or the lives, of that numerous section of the population of Ceylon which have long lived by the cultivation of rice.
The Committee are aware that the evils of the tax, in all their intensity, have been brought to your knowledge by the officers of the Government.
With respect to substitutes to meet the deficiencies of revenue which the abolition of the Paddy Tax will entail, the Committee beg to point out that the loss, for several reasons, will not be so heavy as would appear on the surface. The officials of the Colonial Office will be better able to appreciate this from the evidence already before them than from any statement we can give here. The cost of the collection of this tax, as compared with the cost of the collection of taxes in other forms, is evidently very large, and the heavy abatements which the humane British Government sees itself so often compelled to make lessens its intrinsic value.
On the other hand the taxes paid, directly and indirectly, on the sale and consumption of spirits seem to be open to an increase which, while it would probably somewhat lessen the consumption, would increase the revenue. The Committee are informed that the illicit manufacture of spirits in the island is practically impossible on any scale that would affect the revenue, owing to the spirit being distilled from the flowers of the cocoa-nut and other materials growing in centres of population near the coast.
It is held by some people of knowledge in these matters whose opinions have weight in Ceylon, that an increase of certain crimes of late years can be traced to the evil effects of the Paddy Tax, bringing about a displacement of the rural population and the consumption of the ardent spirits so easily within reach, and points to the double advantage which would be brought about by the abolition of the one tax and the increase of the other.
A land tax, also, has been often recommended for Ceylon by local gentlemen of authority. Such a tax would fall equally on all alike, and not only on one-and that the poorest-section of cultivators.