§ SIR WILLIAM WEDDERBURN (Banffshire)I beg to ask he Secretary of State for India, whether the district collectors of the Madras Presidency were 1047 opposed to the extension of the Village Service Act (which formerly applied only to Ryotwari villages) to Zemindari and Devastanam villages; and, if so, on what grounds; whether this extension of the Act was based on the assumption that certain abuses of power by village watchmen complained of by villagers in Tinnevelly were prevalent in Zemindari and Devastanam villages; whether, on the Madras Landholders' Association pointing out that no such abuses prevailed in Zemindari and Devastanam villages, the Madras Government withdrew from the statement of objects and reasons the allegation on which the extension was founded, and yet proceeded to make that extension; and, whether, in view of the extreme unpopularity of this extension amongst the Madras landholders, he will request the Madras Government to reconsider the matter?
§ LORD GEORGE HAMILTONThe Madras Government report that the "district officers of Madras almost, if not quite, unanimously feel the absolute necessity of bringing the village servants in Zemindaris under control" in the way provided by the Act. They conjecture that the statement to the contrary refers to opinions recorded in 1871 –5 upon another proposal. Since 1882 the necessity of bringing village servants in Zemindaris under control has been under discussion; the necessity was held to be general and by no means confined to Tinnevelly villages. I do not find that the differences in wording between the "statement of objects and reasons" as first framed in February 1892, and the statement finally published with the Act, give support to the suggestion in the third clause of the Question. As at present advised I am not prepared to act upon the suggestion in the fourth clause of the Question.