105 



of rent has but little direct application." It is the fashion to 

 say that it matters little by what name the payment made by 

 the ryot to Government is called, ^.e., whether it is designated 

 revenue or rent ; but, in practice, the point of view from which 

 the question is regarded involves most important conse- 

 quences. " To the modern statesman," says Lord Salisbury 

 in reference to this question, " the refined distinctions of the 

 economical school are a solid living reality, from which he 

 can as little separate his thoughts as from his mother tongue. 

 To us it may seem indifferent whether we call a payment 

 revenue or rent, so we get the money ; but it is not indifferent 

 by what name we call it within his hearing. If we say that 

 it is rent, he will hold the Government in strictness entitled 

 to all that remains after wages and profits have been paid, 

 and he will do what he can to hasten the advent of the day 

 when the State shall no longer be kept by any weak com- 

 promises from the enjoyment of its undoubted rights. If we 

 persuade him that it is revenue, he will note the vast dispro- 

 portion of its incidence as compared to that of other taxes, 

 and his efforts will tend to remedy the inequality and to lay 

 upon other classes and interests a more equitable share of the 

 public burden. I prefer the latter tendency to the former. 

 So far as it is possible to change the Indian fiscal system, it 

 is desirable that the cultivator should pay a smaller propor- 

 tion of the whole national charge. It is not in itself a thrifty 

 policy to draw the mass of revenue from the rural districts 

 where capital is scarce, sparing the towns where it is often 

 redundant and runs to waste in luxury. The injury is 

 exaggerated in the case of India, where so much of the reve- 

 nue is exported without a direct equivalent." The above 

 views of Lord Salisbury, which seem to me to be perfectly 

 sound, I shall have occasion to refer to again when I have to 

 consider the effect of land settlements. When the relation 

 between the ryot and the Government is regarded as one of 

 partnership, it results that the payment made by the former 

 to the latter is neither rent nor tax but a share of the pro- 

 fits. As the Government, which is the " sleeping partner " 

 according to Professor Marshall's phraseology, has, however, 

 power to assess the profits and determine the portion to be 

 paid to it as its share, the public interests require that the 

 assessment should be made with as much scrupulosity as 

 in the case of a tax to prevent the share of the profits 

 of the " wo7-Jcing partner " or the private owner, being unduly 

 abridged and the incentives to increased production being 

 weaken'ed ; and this object is best attained by regarding the 



14 



