India Under British Rule from the Foundation of the East India CompanyWheeler, James Talboys
History
India Under British Rule from the Foundation of the East India Company
Wheeler, James Talboys
India -- History -- British occupation, 1765-1947
The post of minister was not, and is not, doubled up with that of
secretary, except during the earlier years of the public works
department. In the present day there is a minister for every department.
Every minister transacts the business of his branch at his own house;
leaving the secretary and under-secretary to control the office of his
particular department, conduct the correspondence, and carry out orders.
[Sidenote: Mr. Wilson, Finance Minister, 1860.]
§4. In 1860 an English financier, the late Mr. James Wilson, was sent
out from England to put the Indian budget to rights. He was a famous man
in his day; a noted leader of the anti-corn law league, and had a large
reputation as a sound financier. He freely conferred with Calcutta
merchants and bankers, and so far poured oil on the troubled waters; but
in those days the merchants of Calcutta were as ignorant of India
outside the city of palaces as Mr. Wilson himself, who was sent out to
tax the people.
[Sidenote: Income-tax.]
Mr. Wilson quoted the laws of Manu in the legislative chamber, and
proposed an income-tax. It was not an ordinary tax on incomes above
400_l._ or 500_l._ per annum, with which India has since been burdened.
It included a tax on Asiatic incomes rising from eight shillings a week
to twenty shillings. It was as oppressive as the poll-tax which drove
Wat Tyler and Jack Cade into rebellion. But India was prostrate. British
red-coats were masters; and British financiers might do as they pleased.
[Sidenote: Protest of Sir Charles Trevelyan.]
Sir Charles Trevelyan was Governor of Madras and knew India well. He
protested against the tax and sent his protest to the newspapers. The
Viceroy and the Secretary of State were filled with wrath at an act of
insubordination which amounted to an appeal to the public opinion of
India against the ukase of the supreme government. Sir Charles Trevelyan
was removed from the government of Madras, but within two years he was
revenged. The obnoxious clause had filled 600,000 households with
weeping and wailing, in order to collect 350,000_l._, of which
100,000_l._ was spent on the work of collection. Accordingly the clause
was repealed.[34]
[Sidenote: Independent Judges.]
Later on, the two judges who sat in the legislative chamber were guilty
of a still more flagrant act of insubordination. Whilst 350,000_l._ was
exacted from 600,000 poor Asiatics in the shape of income-tax, the
Secretary of State for India overruled a previous decision of Lord
Dalhousie, and capitalised half a million sterling, in order to improve
the pensions of the descendants of Tippu! The controversy is obsolete;
the two judges ventured to question the justice of this measure, and the
heinous offence was punished in due course.
[Sidenote: Legislative council remodelled, 1861-62.]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account