DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.68025#0141
ROYAL COMMISSION UPON DECENTRALIZATION.
135
17733. Might it not be better, in passing an Act, not
to bring it into force throughout the province at once,
but to allow the Lieutenant-Governor to extend it to
different portions of the province as he thought fit ?—■
I quite agree. But the Tenancy Act is not applied
wholesale to Orissa ; it is applied to it piecemeal.
17734. When you introduce any new system of ad-
ministration, might it not be better, instead of trying
to impose a uniform system over the whole province,
to give the Lieutenant-Governor power to apply it
district by district as he thinks fit ?—Most certainly so
in this province.
17735. You speak also of certain financial relations
between the Imperial and the Local Governments.
Are you acquainted with the character of the present
financial settlement between the two Governments ?—
I have very little knowledge of it ; but I understand
the present settlement, and that it is to some extent
permanent.
17736. You say that the Local Government under
the old system would not offer to spend money unless
it was going to return about 14 per cent. Should the
Local Government in laying out money in the public
interests always be expecting to get a percentage of
profit on the money ?—No, I do not say so absolutely,
but I think that the Government, with due regard to
thrift, should look to a return approximating to the
rate at which it can borrow, unless there are very
exceptional reasons for foregoing it. Of course, the
Government can wait longer for its profits than
private individuals.
17737. That would apply to money spent out of
borrowings, but in this case the money is spent out of
revenue. When you spend money out of revenue, do
you propose to apply the same conditions of profit and
loss as when you are borrowing from outside ?—I do
not see that they are essentially different.
17738. You would admit that you have to spend
money on police and schools and matters of that sort ?
—That is part of the necessary business of adminis-
tration ; but if you have to spend money on matters
that do bring in a profit, then I think' the rate of
profit has to be considered.
17739. As regards a variety of matters under the
present settlement the whole expenditure is on the
Local Government, as to police, education, and so forth ;
there are also certain heads that are divided, such as
forests, excise, and income tax ; it has been suggested
that it might simplify matters if the Local Govern-
ment, which administer these Services for the province,
took over the whole expenditure upon them ; what
would be your opinion on such a plan ?—It seems to
me very difficult to give an opinion without going
into the particular case. I think it would hardly be
reasonable that the Local Government should take the
whole of an expenditure which might be expanding,
and only half of the revenue ; that is to say, it is a
pure question of the proportion of expenditure to
receipts ; if the expansion of half the revenue is not
somewhat greater, certain to continue to be greater,
than the expansion of the whole expenditure, it is a
bad bargain for the Local Government.
17740. Then you would prefer the plan by which the
Local and Imperial Governments share the expenditure
as also the receipts ?—So far as I know anything of
the subject, yes.
17741. You are in favour generally of some larger
separation of imperial and provincial finance ?—On the
whole, but I may say that I think the lines of the
present settlement, if permanence can be guaranteed,
are very reasonable lines.
17742. You have not thought out any method of
improving things ?—No. The subjects in which the
Local Government ought to be most interested, like
excise, forests, and so on, are already sufficiently in its
hands.
17743. As regards lapses, you are not quite satisfied
with the present situation ; what is your idea of re-
medying it ?•—I should like to see lapsed budget heads
carried on ; if any system could be invented by which
an unexpended grant could be carried on, so that the
work might be continued, it would be extremely
valuable.
17744. Is it not possible for the Local Government
to do that at this moment ?—Suppose they anticipate
two or three lakhs of lapses under education, can they
not provide for spending it in the next year ?—I am
not aware of it.
17745. You quote as an instance of undesirable
centralisation on the part of the Government of India,
their interference in the matter of remission in per-
manently settled estates ? —Yes, I thought the orders
of the Government of India did not sufficiently take
into consideration local experience. I understand the
Government of Bengal was required to prepare regular
rules for remission in permanently settled estates.
17746. Are permanently settled estates entitled to
any remission at all ?—No.
17747. Was not one of the main conditions of the
Permanent Settlement that the settlement was to be
permanent ?—I understand that that is so.
17748. And I understand that the Government of
India said, “ Nevertheless we are willing to allow re-
mission as a matter of grace in certain cases pro-
vided the zamindar does not pocket the money
himself but hands it to his tenants.” What do you
object to in that ?—What I object to is not that, but
that it should have been considered necessary to insist
on rules of any sort being prepared. The circum-
stances of remissions being necessary in permanently
settled estates were so entirely exceptional that the
matter might have been left to be dealt with when
occasion arose, without giving rise to any sort of
opinion that such a thing could occur as a matter of
course or routine.
Mr. F. W.
Duke.
3 Jan., 1908.
17749. When a special concession is made as a matter
of grace, is it not rather desirable to limit it, lest
certain officers who may not understand the position
exactly should allow their generosity to run away with
them ?—If that were likely to happen that would be
so ; but in my view, and I think the general view in
Bengal, it was extremely unlikely that such cases would
arise, and when one did arise it might very well have
been dealt with as it stood.
17750. You are in favour of larger powers to the
Commissioner and Collector in regard to suspensions
and remissions of revenue ?—I merely mentioned what
seemed to be a defect in some of the new rules. I
referred to temporarily settled estates.
17751. Are not those restrictions imposed by the
Local Government itself ?—-The rules must have been
drawn up by the Local Government and approved by
the Government of India.
17752. Was there anything to prevent the Local
Government giving a freer hand to subordinate autho-
rities if it chose ?—Nothing, so far as I know.
17753. As regards remissions, you cannot give any
without reference to the Board of Revenue ?—That
is so.
17754. Is that not rather undue centralization ?—It
does not seem to me a matter of very great importance,
because there is time to consider it ; the suspensions
have been granted and afforded immediate relief, and
there is time to consider the matter. Of course it
would be a decent measure of decentralization to allow
remissions to be granted to a certain extent by the
local authority.
17755. We have it that some of these estates are
extremely small ?■—They are of all sizes.
17756. You might conceive the case of a remission
of Rs. 5 ; is it necessary to carry that up to the Board
of Revenue ?—I think not, but I take it the Board of
Revenue would sanction the submission for remission
in one list; they might have a remission of Rs. 10.
17757. Might not the Commissioner, at any rate,
have some discretion in such matters in temporarily
settled estates ?—Certainly.
17758. You consider that as regards the initiation of
reforms the credit is generally due to the Local
Government ? Take for instance the four matters of
excise, education, police, and agriculture ; with regard
to those have there not been considerable reforms of
late years on the initiative of the Government of
India ?—Yes.
17759. You speak.of “that portion of the Public
Works Cess which was allotted by the Imperial Govern-
ment to the Local Government.” Surely the Public
Works Cess is a local cess of which the Local Govern-
ment has always had the entire control, at any rate for
135
17733. Might it not be better, in passing an Act, not
to bring it into force throughout the province at once,
but to allow the Lieutenant-Governor to extend it to
different portions of the province as he thought fit ?—■
I quite agree. But the Tenancy Act is not applied
wholesale to Orissa ; it is applied to it piecemeal.
17734. When you introduce any new system of ad-
ministration, might it not be better, instead of trying
to impose a uniform system over the whole province,
to give the Lieutenant-Governor power to apply it
district by district as he thinks fit ?—Most certainly so
in this province.
17735. You speak also of certain financial relations
between the Imperial and the Local Governments.
Are you acquainted with the character of the present
financial settlement between the two Governments ?—
I have very little knowledge of it ; but I understand
the present settlement, and that it is to some extent
permanent.
17736. You say that the Local Government under
the old system would not offer to spend money unless
it was going to return about 14 per cent. Should the
Local Government in laying out money in the public
interests always be expecting to get a percentage of
profit on the money ?—No, I do not say so absolutely,
but I think that the Government, with due regard to
thrift, should look to a return approximating to the
rate at which it can borrow, unless there are very
exceptional reasons for foregoing it. Of course, the
Government can wait longer for its profits than
private individuals.
17737. That would apply to money spent out of
borrowings, but in this case the money is spent out of
revenue. When you spend money out of revenue, do
you propose to apply the same conditions of profit and
loss as when you are borrowing from outside ?—I do
not see that they are essentially different.
17738. You would admit that you have to spend
money on police and schools and matters of that sort ?
—That is part of the necessary business of adminis-
tration ; but if you have to spend money on matters
that do bring in a profit, then I think' the rate of
profit has to be considered.
17739. As regards a variety of matters under the
present settlement the whole expenditure is on the
Local Government, as to police, education, and so forth ;
there are also certain heads that are divided, such as
forests, excise, and income tax ; it has been suggested
that it might simplify matters if the Local Govern-
ment, which administer these Services for the province,
took over the whole expenditure upon them ; what
would be your opinion on such a plan ?—It seems to
me very difficult to give an opinion without going
into the particular case. I think it would hardly be
reasonable that the Local Government should take the
whole of an expenditure which might be expanding,
and only half of the revenue ; that is to say, it is a
pure question of the proportion of expenditure to
receipts ; if the expansion of half the revenue is not
somewhat greater, certain to continue to be greater,
than the expansion of the whole expenditure, it is a
bad bargain for the Local Government.
17740. Then you would prefer the plan by which the
Local and Imperial Governments share the expenditure
as also the receipts ?—So far as I know anything of
the subject, yes.
17741. You are in favour generally of some larger
separation of imperial and provincial finance ?—On the
whole, but I may say that I think the lines of the
present settlement, if permanence can be guaranteed,
are very reasonable lines.
17742. You have not thought out any method of
improving things ?—No. The subjects in which the
Local Government ought to be most interested, like
excise, forests, and so on, are already sufficiently in its
hands.
17743. As regards lapses, you are not quite satisfied
with the present situation ; what is your idea of re-
medying it ?•—I should like to see lapsed budget heads
carried on ; if any system could be invented by which
an unexpended grant could be carried on, so that the
work might be continued, it would be extremely
valuable.
17744. Is it not possible for the Local Government
to do that at this moment ?—Suppose they anticipate
two or three lakhs of lapses under education, can they
not provide for spending it in the next year ?—I am
not aware of it.
17745. You quote as an instance of undesirable
centralisation on the part of the Government of India,
their interference in the matter of remission in per-
manently settled estates ? —Yes, I thought the orders
of the Government of India did not sufficiently take
into consideration local experience. I understand the
Government of Bengal was required to prepare regular
rules for remission in permanently settled estates.
17746. Are permanently settled estates entitled to
any remission at all ?—No.
17747. Was not one of the main conditions of the
Permanent Settlement that the settlement was to be
permanent ?—I understand that that is so.
17748. And I understand that the Government of
India said, “ Nevertheless we are willing to allow re-
mission as a matter of grace in certain cases pro-
vided the zamindar does not pocket the money
himself but hands it to his tenants.” What do you
object to in that ?—What I object to is not that, but
that it should have been considered necessary to insist
on rules of any sort being prepared. The circum-
stances of remissions being necessary in permanently
settled estates were so entirely exceptional that the
matter might have been left to be dealt with when
occasion arose, without giving rise to any sort of
opinion that such a thing could occur as a matter of
course or routine.
Mr. F. W.
Duke.
3 Jan., 1908.
17749. When a special concession is made as a matter
of grace, is it not rather desirable to limit it, lest
certain officers who may not understand the position
exactly should allow their generosity to run away with
them ?—If that were likely to happen that would be
so ; but in my view, and I think the general view in
Bengal, it was extremely unlikely that such cases would
arise, and when one did arise it might very well have
been dealt with as it stood.
17750. You are in favour of larger powers to the
Commissioner and Collector in regard to suspensions
and remissions of revenue ?—I merely mentioned what
seemed to be a defect in some of the new rules. I
referred to temporarily settled estates.
17751. Are not those restrictions imposed by the
Local Government itself ?—-The rules must have been
drawn up by the Local Government and approved by
the Government of India.
17752. Was there anything to prevent the Local
Government giving a freer hand to subordinate autho-
rities if it chose ?—Nothing, so far as I know.
17753. As regards remissions, you cannot give any
without reference to the Board of Revenue ?—That
is so.
17754. Is that not rather undue centralization ?—It
does not seem to me a matter of very great importance,
because there is time to consider it ; the suspensions
have been granted and afforded immediate relief, and
there is time to consider the matter. Of course it
would be a decent measure of decentralization to allow
remissions to be granted to a certain extent by the
local authority.
17755. We have it that some of these estates are
extremely small ?■—They are of all sizes.
17756. You might conceive the case of a remission
of Rs. 5 ; is it necessary to carry that up to the Board
of Revenue ?—I think not, but I take it the Board of
Revenue would sanction the submission for remission
in one list; they might have a remission of Rs. 10.
17757. Might not the Commissioner, at any rate,
have some discretion in such matters in temporarily
settled estates ?—Certainly.
17758. You consider that as regards the initiation of
reforms the credit is generally due to the Local
Government ? Take for instance the four matters of
excise, education, police, and agriculture ; with regard
to those have there not been considerable reforms of
late years on the initiative of the Government of
India ?—Yes.
17759. You speak.of “that portion of the Public
Works Cess which was allotted by the Imperial Govern-
ment to the Local Government.” Surely the Public
Works Cess is a local cess of which the Local Govern-
ment has always had the entire control, at any rate for