Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

necessary and it was never supposed that the extent of this obligation could be narrowed by his own wishes or ideas of expediency, or that the British Government could not justly compel his acceptance of whatever augmentation of force it judged necessary. Between the rights conferred and the obligations contracted, in both cases, there is no other difference than what arises from the greater importance attached to defending the Vizier against foreign and domestic enemies, beyond that of protecting his subjects against his injustice and oppression, the former being more intimately connected with our own interests than the latter. What degree of substantial reform might have been introduced into the administration of the government of Oude, in spite of the reluctance and bad faith of the Vizier, must continue a matter of doubt, as the prosecution of the discussion was relinquished by Lord Hastings, and has not since been resumed.

In regard to the Nizam's territories, there was no article of a treaty stipulating for the admission of such reforms as the British Resident should advise; but, the utter inefficiency of the Nizam's administration, the degree of control actually exercised by the British Government over its administration, and, consequently, the responsibility contracted for all the abuses that prevailed, ren-.

dered the obligation of making efforts for the reform of those abuses at least as clear and pressing as in the case of Oude. A consciousness of this obligation dictated the letter addressed to Mr. Russell, under date the 22d of January, 1820, wherein he was directed to interpose his advice and influence for the correction of mal-administration in every department. When, however, Mr. Russell's successor was required to justify the zeal with which he had acted in the fulfilment of those instructions, and professed that he "supposed our interference in the Ni"zam's affairs to be not merely a right but a

[ocr errors]

duty, arising out of our supremacy in India,” he was told that, "although a virtual supremacy

[ocr errors]

may, undoubtedly, be said to exist in the "British Government, from the inability of other "states to contend with its strength, the making "such a superiority a principle, singly, sufficient "for any exertion of our will, (however benefi"cent the design and salutary the result,) would "be to misapply that strength, and to pervert it "to tyrannic purposes. ""* When the Resident pleaded the oppressions practised on the Nizam's subjects, as rendering our interposition necessary

* Mr. Swinton's Letter, 25th October, 1822.

for their protection, he was informed that "the "necessity stated was altogether constructive;" and that it was only in the extreme case where "convulsions raged so violently in one state as "clearly to threaten the excitation of ferment in

[ocr errors]

a bordering one, that the latter could be jus❝tified in reducing to order the nation by which "its tranquillity was menaced." In his reply, dated 29th November, 1822, the Resident sup ported, by incontrovertible arguments, his proposition that," supposing this condition of rela❝tive supremacy and dependence to be in un" doubted existence, it did appear to him to be

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

a legitimate conclusion that the people were "entitled to our protection against grievous oppression on two grounds, first, because the "balance between prince and people, usually existing in independent states, was destroyed by the intervention of our foreign army, and, "secondly, because the country was despotically governed by a creature of our will, supported

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

by our power." But his arguments failed to convince the Governor General; and disorders of every description were, are, and will be permitted to take their course until the progress of events shall turn the tide of opinion in favour of a decided change in the policy best adapted to the government of India.

91

CHAPTER III.

ON THE LANDED TENURES AND LAND TAX OF INDIA.

THE superiority of Europe over Asia in wealth and knowledge, in arts and arms, has been justly attributed to the difference in their landed tenures, and in the sources of their public revenue. In Europe, land is the property of individuals, cultivated by themselves, or by tenants, holding for a certain number of years, and paying a fixed annual rent; and all taxes, direct and indirect, are so well defined as to leave to every man, after such deductions, the clear fruits of his own labour. Individuality and security of property being the great spurs to industry, wealth accumulates, invention is excited, theoretical and practical knowledge widely diffused, and every effort of genius well appreciated and rewarded.

The public revenue, being thus derived from the contributions of individuals, must, in some degree, be regulated in its amount, whatever be the form of government, by a regard to their interests and feelings. In influencing the financial proceedings of Government, the richest individuals, and especially those whose wealth is most visible and permanent, the proprietors of land, have the greatest weight; and in protecting their own rents from encroachment throw the taxes on articles of consumption and transfers of property, where moderation is soon taught by its palpable effect in augmenting the aggregate contribution. This influence of wealth re-acts as the greatest incitement to its acquisition; the largest fortunes are considered the standard by which the magnitude of all beneath them should be estimated,the scale by which they should regulate their ambition,—the goal to which they should direct their efforts.

In Asia all these circumstances are reversed. The rent of all land being the property of the sovereign, his subjects have neither interest nor influence in fixing the amount or directing the appropriation of his revenue. It is always maintained at the highest possible amount, subject to no changes but what it may undergo from being more or less incumbered by anticipations. But

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »