See below, pp.

3. Elphinstone’s Notes, Elphinstone Papers. MS,S.EUR, E.88, Box 15, Portfolio, 2 ( 2 2).

152

coffee, sugar, indigo and tea.

It has been argued that large farms under men of

means were indispensable for quicker economic progress* This had been the experience of England in the late eighteenth

and early nineteenth centuries* This however, could hardly have applied to Indian conditions* The Industrial Revolution

could not be transplanted overnight to an alien soil* The permanent settlement of Bengal had been introduced, perhaps, with some such objective in view* Since its introduction, it seemed,great increase in cultivation in Bengal had taken place, but the truth was, as Metcalfe argued, increase in

cultivation in India was possible under any mode of settle­ ment with good management, provided that the land assessment was moderate and taxes light.^ The improvement in Bengal had taken place in spite of the zamindars. Metcalfe reacted

sharply against this class since experience had shown their utter worthlessness. In his view, they were mostly indolent,

2

extravagant and devoid of intelligence. Elphinstone who sympathised with the privileged order, regretted that *the ryots were reduced to entire dependence and almost to

bondage1 in the Cornwallis system. Another effect however incidental yet regrettable had been ’the overthrow of the village-corporations’. Added to all this, the zamrndars had

1. Metcalfe’s Minute, 29 June 1832, Beng.Rev.Cons., 27 Dec.

1832,

66.

2. Metcalfe to Beng.Govt., 30 June 1815, paras.42,50,51* Beng.Rev.Cons*, 26 July 1815, 55*

Also Minute, 7 Nov. 1830, SRRNWP , 2, p.223.

3* Elphinstone to Strachey, 3 -Sept. 1820, Colebrooke, Life of Elphinstone, 2, p.117*

153

no pretence of a right to arrogate to themselves the title of proprietors. Under such circumstances, if the village communities were revitalised they could he turned into instruments of progress. The village system was eminently suited for co-operative ventures* The co-sharing village brotherhood had a tradition of working in co-operation for mutual benefit. Their assemblies were known to have conducted their business in a most harmonious fashion* They could even provide adequate capital for a project of considerable magni­

tude. Many villages paid fair amounts of revenue to the government and had sufficient land for cultivation* Since individual enterprise and resources were not forthcoming, the village society as one unit in a village could possibly act as an entrepreneur providing capital and organizing

economic activity.

In the twenties and thirties of the last century in India, theories for effecting economic growth were being debated. Echoing Ricardo, Robert Mertins Bird asserted

that ’a tax on the rent of la nd 1 would promote accumulation of agricultural capital, since *it was the least objectionable of all t a x e s . S i m i l a r l y Bentinck defined gross rent

’as the proportion of the produce or the value of the produce remaining after defraying the wages of labour and profits of stock.’ 2

To Fane and Tilghman, ’Revenue' meant 'the proportion of 1. R.M.Bird, Minute, 8 May 1832, para.22, Beng*Rev*Cons*,

27 Dec.1832, 88.

154

the existing land rent.'“^ Alexander Ross maintained that a tax on rent would not injure the interests of anybody:

'Rent being the surplus of the Produce of the Land after the capital expended in its culti­ vation has been returned with as large a net profit as could be derived from the employment of the same capital in any other way, it is the source from which the Revenue required for

Public purposes may be taken with the least impediment to the exertions of the Individual Industry and the accumulation of wealth*1 2

Equivalent terms for ’r e n t ’ were ’net produce’, ’unearned income' or 'agricultural profits

The Regulation VII of1822 intended to calculate in exact terms the rent-product* It aimed at regulating the assessment of land after allowing a net profit of about 20% to the 'rent-owners'* It also professed to define and record the rights of not only the 'owning' but 'cultivating' classes a l s o, so as to safeguard the latter from extortion and

injustice of the former* These rights were justiciable* Bentinck, Fane and Tilghman were willing to share the net profit with the proprietary classes by relinquishing 20% to

35% of the gross rental in their favour; while R.M. Bird and Alexander Ross would have had the entire rent property

exacted by the state. Ricardo advocated an extraction of the entire net profit by the state so that it was not frittered away uneconomically by the needy cultivators, while Maithus preferred sharing it with 'a leisured class' implying

1. Sadr Board of Revenue to G.G., 31 Jan.1832, para*5* Ibid. ,

51

2. A.Ross's Minute, 27 July 1833* paras.11,12, Beng*Rev. Cons., 9 Sept. 1833> 38*

155

proprietors. As such in the former set of men Halthus seemed to have a greater influence, whereas in the latter, Ricardo’s hold apparently was more predominant.

Eight years of settlement operations as conducted under the Regulation VII of 1822 had proved ’the complete failure1 of the scheme, as Bentinck candidly admitted. He accepted the 'soundness of its theory* hut doubted its

'practical application1.'1* It entailed enormous expense and time and appeared impossible of execution. The cost of

musahut establishment i.e. for survey alone in the Western Provinces during the eight years, had been R s .7*24,340 and the total amount of the jama surveyed by it stood at only

p

R s .27,270,93* At this rate of progress, Bentinck remarked that a century would elapse before the Western Provinces

could be settled wholly. The net-produce criterion of assess­ ment thus had proved not only to be too theoretical but also an expensive one. Clearly it was an impossible venture to calculate in precise terms the cost of production, wages of labour and profits of stock under the existing conditions in India. The cultivators as well as the proprietors were too ignorant to keep an account of their enterprise, as such an estimate of everything including petty little details of expenditure had to be made by the assessing officer before rent was calculated.

1. G.G^'s Letter to Sadr Board of Revenue on Deputation, 7 April 1831, para.72, S R R N W P . , 2, p.253*

2. G.G.'s Minute, 29 Sept. 1832, paras.62,75,81, Beng.Rev. Cons., 27 Bee. 1832, 79* Also W.Fane's Minute, 4 Sept. 1832, Ibid. , 88.

156

Metcalfe considered that the Regulation in itself was not entirely impracticable, had some of the unnecessary

details been left out of the investigation.'1' Pragmatic as his

0

approach was he maintained that the term 'rent* in the con­ text of Indian land revenue system, had been unnecessarily mystified; when in an intelligible manner the land revenue

2