網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版

Revenue Department, dated 23rd March, 1869, reproduce a Memorandum by Brandis, Inspector-General of Forests, dated 28th February, 1869, containing suggestions on certain points connected with the management of the forests in the Bombay Presidency. In this Memorandum the following paragraph appears with reference to the introduction of the Forest Act VII of 1865 into the Presidency : “In the matter of forest legislation, I would draw attention to the peculiar difficulties under which a portion, at least, of the Bombay Forests are placed in the matter of protection. I understand that the Government forests are frequently so interlaced with private forest lands that protection is impossible without a system of strict control over all timber, wood and forest produce in transit, whether it is the produce of Government or private lands, or has been imported from forests beyond British territory.

The existing Forest Act (VII of 1865) does not provide for the exercise of such a control. The object in view would, therefore, not be furthered by extension of this Act to Bombay. But a revision of the Act is at present under the consideration of the Government of India, and I would suggest that a Report be made, as soon as practicable, to the Government of India of the circumstances which appear to render necessary the introduction of a special clause. I would also suggest that the question be asked whether it is intended in the revised Act to provide for the control of timber, wood and other forest produce from all forest lands, whether Government, private or situated beyond British territory, while in transit by land or water. Should such a clause not be included in the revised Act, then special legislation for the Bombay Presidency would become necessary.

In a Resolution on Brandis' Memorandum the Governor of Bombay in Council on the subject of the Forest Act wrote: “ With regard to the question of forest legislation, a mass of papers containing many valuable suggestions on this important subject have already been laid before Government. The Revenue and Survey Commissioners and the Conservator will be requested to avail themselves of the opportunity for meeting together next 'rains' at Poona to discuss the matter with a view to the preparation of a Bill. As the circumstances of different parts of this Presidency vary so much, it will probably be found necessary to prepare separate rules to meet the special requirements of different localities. It is not likely that any one Act for the whole of India would suffice for Bombay, and therefore local legislation will be necessary.

In the Rules under the Forest Act, which have been briefly described above, allusion is made to the fact that the forests in the different Local Governments and Administrations had been placed under the management of a Conservator and Staff of Assistants. In the period here under review, these staffs, with the exception of Bombay, where the scale at first introduced had been too lavish and was subsequently reduced, had been subject to expansion with the extension of organisation work. In enclosures to a letter from the Governor-General of India in Council to the Secretary of State for India, dated 31st January, No. I Forests, 1868, we find in Circular No. 2 Forests the following reference to the increase in establishments and the charges incurred under this head for the years 1864-65 to 1866-67 and 1867-68 to 1868-69. This Statement is as follows:

“The organisation of the department has again required a further expansion of establishments. A comparative Statement of these charges, as incurred for the last few years, is recorded in the following table :

[ocr errors]

ABSTRACT OF CHARGES UNDER B'ESTABLISHMENTS' IN FOREST

DEPARTMENT SINCE 1864-65

ACTUALS.

ESTIMATES.

GOVERNMENTS AND
ADMINISTRATIONS.

1864-65. 1865-66. 1866-67. 1867-68. 1868–69.

30,680

14,881

Rs. Rs. Rs. Government of India

43,615 10,163 Madras

95,300 1,17,054 1,02,920 Bombay and Sind 2,10,352 2,11,987 2,10,973 Bengal

6,604 16,292 North-Western Provinces 65,740 84,558 83,711 Punjab

84,665

78,680 Oudh

27,154 19,883

21,571 British Burma

86,081 90,327 Central Provinces .

61,946 74,994 Coorg ·

Rs.

Rs. 34,047 33,352 1,33,000 1,45,500 2,43,428 2,23,797

27,471 54,000 1,00,690 1,08,000 1,22,010

1,53,820 29,304 29,244 1,14,262 1,13,000 1,10,605 1,15,000

77,968

80,544
81,041

8,6547,127

4,201

9,313 10,000

Total Mysore Hyderabad.

6,85,658 7,11,880 7,12,128 9,24,130 9,85,713 53,018

54,768 53,823 64,759 65,000 478

8,991 | *13,718 12,141 31,500 7.39,154 7.75,639 7,79,669 10,01,030 10,82,213

Total

* There is some uncertainty about this item, as nothing appeared under Working

It will be observed that the charges under Establishments have increased from 6,85,658 rupees in 1864-65 to 9,85,713 rupees in 1868–69."

This statement furnishes direct evidence, upon which further comment appears unnecessary, of the progress which forest organisation had made in the brief period of a decade, and of the hearty co-operation of the Secretary of State with the Government of India in their determination to assist that

ABSTRACT OF THE PROVINCIAL BUDGET ESTIMATES OF THE FOREST DEPARTMENT THROUGHOUT INDIA, 1868–69, AS PASSED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, IN THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT

[blocks in formation]

30,680

Government of

India Madras Bombay and

Sind
Bengal
North-West

Provinces
Punjab
Oudh
British Burma
Central Provinces
Coorg

Total
Total British Net

Revenue.

29,752 34,047 33,352 3,38,608 4,00,000 4,20,000

4,50,000 2,17,171 2,73,000 2,73,000 3,09,800 8,21,268 14,63,197 14,63,197 | 9,54,000 6,47,443 9,17,570 9,17,570 6,19,597

50,555 1,40,978 73,283 1,50,000 1,04,207 1,21,440 1,37,148 1,44,000 5,77,954 6,01,448 5,83,267 6,43,700 3,11,897 4,08,385 / 3,67,401 4,08,000 2,31,470 2,60,570 2,93,590 3,78,400 2,55,630 2,48,650 3,06,080 3,66,520 2,01,246 1, 29,120 1,29,120 2,00,000 59,572 1,06,089 1,11,824 1,30,164 4,24,053 8,69,000 7,00,000 6,97,600 2,85,135 3,48,862 3,48,862 3,61,000 3,67,095 4,17,907 3,72,253 4,76,000 1,27,858 2,90,924 2,90,924 3,72,500 31,934 61,750 61,750

89,100 11,552 19,113 18,973 28,400 30,44,183 43,43,970 40,96,460 40,38,800 20,51,145 27,63,785 28,05,769 27,73,333 9,93,038 15,80,185 12,90,69112,65,467 2,66,020 3,91,460 3,46,600 2,06,000 85,988 1,39,954 1,29,659 1,09,500 43,574 1,26,000

90,000 90,000 13,718 50,557 46,000 81,500

Mysore
Hyderabad

99,706 1,90,511

1,75,659 1,91,000

Net Revenue Rs.

3,09,594 5,17,460 4,36,600 2,96,000
2,09,888 3,26,949 2,60,941 1,05,000

progress by all the means within their power, and at as rapid a rate as the existing conditions in the different parts of the country would permit.

The Budget Estimates for this period, dealt with in the same circular, are equally illuminating. We read in the Resolution on this subject :

“The Governor-General in Council records with satisfaction the general punctuality with which the Budget Estimates for 1868-69 of the Forest Department have been submitted." In previous years there had been considerable delays in the matter of the submission of these budgets, a delay which with the organisation of

entirely new staffs and the taking over of new unorganised charges was perhaps to be expected, and in some instances almost unavoidable. The neglect, however, to submit the Budget Estimates to time, avoidable or unavoidable as the case may have been, had called forth strong remonstrances from the Secretary of State and the Government of India, and the above expression of satisfaction on the part of the Governor-General points to the fact that for the time_being, at any rate, the difficulties had been surmounted. The Resolution continues :

“ The several Estimates have been reviewed at length separately, and the figures are brought together in the table opposite for convenience of comparison, and in order to exhibit the aggregate amounts involved.

The total amounts, omitting Mysore and the Berars, are :

[blocks in formation]

In the four years ending with 1866–67, the gross revenue, after rising from 303 lakhs in 1863–64 to 351 lakhs in 1865-66, again subsided to 304 lakhs in 1866–67, which year comprised eleven months only. If, for the sake of comparison, allowance for the twelfth month is made, this amount is raised to 331 lakhs. This is not unfavourable, considering that in two of the most productive Provinces, Bombay and British Burma, the general depression of trade caused a great falling off in forest revenue. The aggregate charges have been annually increasing, and consequently the surplus has diminished from 16 to 12 lakhs. This, however, is a necessary consequence of conservancy management, the fruits of which cannot be reaped immediately, but which will not be wanting, provided means are taken to work the forests in accordance with a rational and well-devised plan of operations."

It will be possible to show in this History how the confident, almost prophetic, assertion contained in the last few lines was to inevitably follow the introduction of “a rational and welldevised plan of operations,” carried out by a body of highly trained scientific forest experts.

That the authorities had fully grasped the fact that at the outset of the introduction of a proper conservation of the forests it would not be always possible to cover the expenditure incurred in any one year or series of years in their management by the revenue obtained from them is well brought out by the correspondence which took place at the period on what was termed “extraordinary expenditure.” It originated with a letter from the Secretary to Government, Punjab, to the Government of India, in which it was represented that “in consequence of the former indiscriminate felling of timber in several of the Hill Forests” (vide Cleghorn's Reports of the Punjab Himalayan Forests, detailed in Vol. I), “a restriction of felling operations within narrow limits has become necessary, and that on this account, and by reason of the orders of the Government of India to include the expenditure for canal and fuel plantations in the Forest Budget, there is apparently no prospect of the expenditure for some years being covered by the expected income.”

On this subject the Governor-General, Sir John Lawrence, in Council addressed the following letter (Revenue-Forests No. 24, dated 23rd November, 1867) to the Secretary of State:

“We have the honour to forward for the information of Her Majesty's Government copy of our Circular Resolution, containing rules to regulate extraordinary expenditure in the Forest Department. The consideration of this matter was necessitated by a reference from the Punjab Government, relative to the principles which should regulate the relation between income and expenditure of the Forest Department in that province, copy of which we also forward herewith.

The Punjab Government represented that owing to the diminished resources of the Hill Forests, and the heavy charges imposed upon the forests on account of the canal and fuel plantations, there was apparently no prospect of the expenditure for some years being covered by the expected income.

In reply, the Local Government was informed that although, as a rule, the ordinary expenditure on account of the forests must always be covered by the income of the year, yet this rule cannot be held to apply to extraordinary expenditure of the nature of capital outlay that will in the end prove directly remunerative.

This difference between ordinary and extraordinary expenditure having thus been admitted, it appeared necessary

« 上一頁繼續 »