The Online Library of Liberty

A project of Liberty Fund, Inc.

• Introduction
• Textual Introduction
• Acknowledgments
• Writings On India
• Trade With India 1828
• Minute On the Black Act 1836
• Penal Code For India 1838
• The East India Company’s Charter 1852
• The Petition of the East-india Company 1858
• Memorandum of the Improvements In the Administration of India During the Last Thirty Years 1858
• Report to the General Court of Proprietors, Drawing Attention to the Two Bills Now Before Parliament Relating to the Government of India 1858
• A Constitutional View of the India Question 1858
• Observations On the Proposed Council of India 1858
• Practical Observations On the First Two of the Proposed Resolutions On the Government of India 1858
• The Moral of the India Debate 1858
• A President In Council the Best Government For India 1858
• Letter From the East India Company to the President of the Board of Control 1858
• Maine On Village Communities 1871
• Appendices
• Appendix A: Check List of Mill’s Indian Despatches (1823%u201358)
• Appendix B: List of Published Extracts From Mill’s Indian Despatches
• Appendix C: Editorial Emendations
• Appendix D: Index of Persons, and Works Cited, With Variants and Notes

THE EAST INDIA COMPANY’S CHARTER

1852

EDITORS’ NOTE

“Report from the Select Committee of the House of Lords Appointed to Inquire into the Operation of the Act 3 & 4 William IV, c. 85, for the Better Government of Her Majesty’s Indian Territories; with Minutes of Evidence, Appendix, and Index Thereto” (29 June, 1852), PP, 1852-53, XXX, 304-36. Headed: “John Stuart Mill, Esquire, is called in, and examined as follows” (p. 304) and “John Stuart Mill, Esquire, is called in and further examined as follows” (p. 313). Mill gave his evidence on 21 and 22 June, 1852, in answer to questions 2912-3019 and (2nd day) 3020-3176. Not republished. Identified in Mill’s bibliography as “Evidence before the Select Committee of the House of Lords on India affairs, printed with their Report, (No. 88. of the sessional papers for 1852) ordered to be printed 29th June 1852” (MacMinn, 77). In the text below, the questions by the Committee members are in italic type. The questioners are not identified in PP or in the Sessional Papers of the House of Lords, 1852, XIX, where the same Blue Book is presented. The Committee was chaired by the Lord Privy Seal, James Brownlow William Gascoigne-Cecil (1791-1868), Marquis of Salisbury.

The East India Company’s Charter

what connexionhave you had with the Government of India? I am one of the assistants to the Examiner of Indian Correspondence, in whose office the greater part of the correspondence with India relating to the Government is conducted.

For what length of time have you been in that office? Since the year 1823, and nearly the whole of that time in the Correspondence Department; in fact, I may say the whole of it.

Have you been exclusively in that department, or in others also? Exclusively in that department.

Have we reason, do you think, on the whole, to feel satisfied with the general working of the Home Government of India? The present constitution of the Indian Government, considering the great difficulties of the case, seems to me to have worked very satisfactorily.

Will you state more specifically the causes to which you attribute the satisfactory working of the Government? I conceive that there are several causes; probably the most important is, that the whole Government of India is carried on in writing. All the orders given, and all the acts of the executive officers, are reported in writing, and the whole of the original correspondence is sent to the Home Government; so that there is no single act done in India, the whole of the reasons for which are not placed on record. This appears to me a greater security for good government than exists in almost any other government in the world, because no other probably has a system of recordation so complete.

In those records do you find the records of opinions? To a very great extent. If the local officer and the Government differ in opinion, or if the opinions of the different members of the Government differ from one another, the reasons on both sides, and the discussions that take place, are put in writing, and reported to the Home Government, who are thus in possession of all the materials of knowledge that the local authorities can supply.

What do you think would be the consequence of Parliament interfering more frequently and more extensively in the government of India? I think that many bad, and few good consequences would result. The public opinion of one country is scarcely any security for the good government of another. The people of one country, whether represented by the public authorities of this country, or by the nation itself, cannot have the same acquaintance with the circumstances and interests of the other country as they may have with their own. The great security for the good government of any country is an enlightened public opinion; but an unenlightened public opinion is no security for good government. The people of England are unacquainted, or very ill acquainted, with the people and the circumstances of India, and feel so little interest in them, that I apprehend the influence of public opinion in this country on the Government of India is of very little value, because there are very few cases in which public opinion is called into exercise; and when it is so, it is usually from impulses derived from the interests of Europeans connected with India, rather than from the interests of the people of India itself.

Supposing that appeals were permitted freely to the English Parliament from the decisions of the Governor-general of India, in cases of resumption, such as have taken place at different times, do you think that that would tend greatly to impair the power of the Government of India? I think that anything which causes the people of India to look beyond the Government of India to any authority here, of which they have no knowledge, and concerning which they have most indefinite ideas, would tend to weaken the local Government. Of course that inconvenience must be submitted to in so far as it has any tendency to increase the security for good government; but the real security for the good government of India depends, as it seems to me, upon a careful review of the Acts of the local Government, grounded on the transmission of all the recorded proceedings to this country. The proceedings are subjected to a very rigid examination, not, of course, as to all their details, but as to their general principles, and the spirit in which those general principles are applied to particular cases; this seems to me the only kind of appeal that is of any considerable value in regard to the government of a country at such a distance, and in the peculiar circumstances of India.

Will you state the successive checks which operated upon the occasion of the deposition of the Rajah of Sattara?¹ There was first the decision of the Bombay Government; and then that decision could not take effect without the concurrence of the Government of India, which was, therefore, the first check or appeal, as it may be called. In the next place, that decision was subject to reversal by the joint action of the Court of Directors and the Board of Control; and, finally, it was open to any Member of either House of Parliament to bring forward a Motion, which, if it had been effectual, might have led to a Parliamentary inquiry, or eventually to a reversal of the Act.

And to a certain extent there might have been the interposition of the Court of Proprietors? The Court of Proprietors would have had no power of reversing what had been done. They have the power of holding a public discussion, which, as a means of publicity, is not without value.

In regard to the action on that occasion of the Government of Bombay, was there not a minute recorded of the Governor, and were there not also minutes recorded of each member of Council? There were. In the first place, there was the report of the local officer, the Resident at Sattara; this report was then the subject of discussion in the Council, and the Governor and each member of Council recorded their opinion. When they, either unanimously or by a majority, had formed their opinion, they communicated it in a despatch to the Governor-general in Council, who issued the final orders—final as far as India was concerned.

When this despatch, accompanied by the recorded minutes, was forwarded to the Government of India, were there not further minutes written by the Governor-general and the members of Council, each giving his opinion separately upon the subject? Whether that was so in that particular case, I am not certain, but I believe so. In cases of importance it almost invariably happens that the opinion of each member of Council is recorded separately.

With his reasons? With his reasons.

All those reports were then forwarded to the Court of Directors? Yes.

And the subject was discussed by the Court of Directors? Yes.

Were there further minutes entered upon the journals of the Court of Directors upon the same subject? It is not usual to enter on the records of the Court any minutes of opinions, except dissents.² After a resolution is passed, any member of the Court who dissents from the resolution, if he thinks the matter of sufficient importance, records his dissent, accompanied with reasons, and those are, as a matter of course, communicated to the Board of Control.

Are those dissents communicated to the general Court, or to the Committee? The dissents are recorded on the minutes of the Court, and have nothing to do with any Committee.

The expression of all those opinions was submitted to the Board of Control before the ultimate decision was taken upon the subject? Yes; it does occasionally, but seldom, happen, that the ultimate decision is taken before the dissent has been sent to the Board.

It is only in cases where the question has been so repeatedly discussed, that it is thought hardly necessary to send up the dissents; but in the first instance, all the dissents are sent up? The dissents are sent to the Board as soon as they are copied; but cases have happened, though not, I believe, in matters of importance, when the despatch has been sent back approved by the Board before the dissent reached them: it is only in those cases that the Board has not had the advantage of the dissents before its final decision.

Any member of the Court of Proprietors moreover may, if he thinks fit, raise a question for public discussion, and appeal to the public in England upon the subject? Any nine members may sign a requisition for a special meeting of the Court of Proprietors, or any one proprietor may, at a quarterly meeting, after notice, make a motion on any matter connected with Indian affairs.

You think that those successive checks operate more beneficially for the protection of the natives of India than any constant interference of Parliament on their behalf? No one will deny that it is necessary that Parliament should be open to appeals on all subjects connected with the government of any part of the British Empire; but, so far as my experience goes, I should say that the security for the good government of India derived from discussions in Parliament is far short of that derived from the habitual examination of all papers of any importance by persons specially devoted to that object.

Persons who have no sinister interest? It is next to impossible to form in one country an organ of government for another which shall have a strong interest in good government; but if that cannot be done, the next best thing is, to form a body with the least possible interest in bad government; and I conceive that the present governing bodies in this country for the affairs of India have as little sinister interest of any kind as any government in the world.

Have the natives of India shown a disposition to employ agents in this country for the prosecutions of appeals against the decisions of the Governor-general? Yes; and I think with increasing frequency.

If the opinion became prevalent in India that changes of decision on matters of individual and immediate interest might be readily produced by such appeals to Parliament, do you think that they would become very frequent? Those best acquainted with India say, that the natives are exceedingly averse to giving up any pretension whatever, until they have tried every resource within their reach for getting a hostile decision reversed. I think if it were the habit of the people of India to look to a revision of their cases in England, as a thing which could be procured by sending vakeels, or delegates, here, they would very frequently do so, incurring much useless expense, and often ultimate disappointment. But the proper remedy is, that the Home Government should so act as to convince the natives of India that if their case is just, they will have full justice done to them, on a review of the papers, without sending any one here to represent them; and that if their case is unjust, however many people they may send, it will do them no good.

Would money be wanting on their part to prosecute such appeals? There are many natives who have ample means for the purpose.

Can you suggest any improvements in the present Home Government of India? It is difficult to suggest alterations in a system of Government, of which the good working, so far as it has worked well, could not have been predicted beforehand. The present constitution of the Government of India has been very much the growth of accident, and has worked well, in consequence of things which were not foreseen, and were not in the contemplation of those who established it in a great measure, from causes not provided for in the received theories of government. So much of the good working of the present Government being the result of accident, accident would probably have a great share in determining the operation of any new system which might be substituted for it; but it would be necessary to keep in view in any alteration the circumstances, so far as they can be assigned, which have been the causes of the beneficial working hitherto. Among the first of those seems to me to be, that those who are sent to administer the affairs of India, are not sent to any particular appointment; they go out merely as candidates; they go out when young, and go through the necessary course of preparation in subordinate functions before they can arrive at the higher ones. That seems to me the first essential requisite for the good government of India. A second great advantage of the present system is, that those who are sent out as candidates to rise by degrees to the higher offices, are generally unconnected with the influential classes in this country, and out of the range of Parliamentary influence. The consequence is, that those who have the disposal of offices in India have little or no motive to put unfit persons into important situations, or to permit unjustifiable acts to be done by them. Any change in the government of India which would bring the appointment to Indian offices into the ordinary channels of political or Parliamentary influence would, I think, take away one of the chief causes of whatever is beneficial in the present working of the Government of India.

Would the sale of such appointments, in your opinion, operate injuriously? It would probably bring a much greater proportion of them than at present into the channels in which political influence flows in this country, and in so far as it did so I think it would deteriorate the Indian Government. At present, the civil servants, appointed very young, and by individual members of the Court, do not usually become eligible for any very high appointment during the time that the Directors who appointed them can be supposed to have any influence over their promotion. Partly from this circumstance, and partly because the person who gives the appointment is only one of 24, it is my belief there is hardly any government existing in which there is so little personal jobbing as in the Government of India.

Is there not a tendency, from the patronage being administered from private and personal motives, to the service of India becoming a sort of caste of particular families and particular connexions? I should say not more than is in the nature of the case, and not to such an extent as to be an evil. It will happen under any system that persons who have served in India will look by preference to Indian appointments for their sons; and they would under any system be likely to have readier access to Indian than to any other appointments. In whatever manner the Home Government might be constituted, it would doubtless be partly composed of persons who have served in India, and, if so, the patronage in their gift would flow in the same channels as at present.

Is it not generally supposed that the patronage in the hands of the Directors is made use of to obtain elections to the Court? I have heard of such things; I do not know how far that is the case. I have no doubt the directors bestow their patronage on those who have served them in that, or any other way. But the main point appears to me to be, that neither a Director, nor any one else connected with the Home Government, has it in his power to appoint an unfit person to any situation in India: the only thing he can do is, to send out a candidate, who will ultimately obtain an important situation if he is considered fit for it by the local Government; but since the appointment here is only the appointment of a candidate, who is to go to India, and make himself fit for an important situation before he can receive it, the bestowing of this patronage from private motives is not attended with the evils which would arise from making appointments to office on private grounds.

Has not the influence of the proprietors, in the bestowal of the patronage, the effect of distributing the patronage more largely and more widely among the community? No doubt it has; the general course in which the patronage flows is among the middle classes.

What do you mean by the middle classes? I mean, in the present case, by the middle classes, the classes unconnected with politics, or with the two Houses of Parliament.

It has been frequently observed that a very large proportion of the servants of the East India Company have been selected from that part of the kingdom north of the Tweed; is it your opinion that such is the case, or not? It was the case at one time, from accidental circumstances. One of the causes was said to be, that the first Lord Melville was so long President of the Board of Control;³ at present I am not aware that there is a larger proportion of Scotch in the Indian service than in other departments of the public service.

It is your opinion that there are not a greater number of Scotchmen in the East India Company’s service than Englishmen or Irishmen? I do not think there are.

Do you consider a tradesman to belong to the middle class, or not? I do.

Are there not a great many sons of tradesmen sent to India? I am not aware what the proportion is; but I have no doubt that there are some.

What circumstance, in your opinion, leads to the appointment of sons of tradesmen to writerships, or cadetships? I cannot answer that question; I have no knowledge of the motives which operate on Directors in disposing of their patronage.

Is it not a curious circumstance that the son of a horse-dealer should be sent to India as a cadet? The son of a horse-dealer is as likely to qualify himself in the subordinate situations for succeeding to the higher as the son of any one else.

But that is not exactly the class from which you would select persons to be the companions of gentlemen who are to fill honourable professions? It is not the class from whom cadets or writers are generally selected; but I see no reason why such persons should be excluded.

Do you see any reason why the aristocracy should be excluded? I see no reason for excluding any one; but it does seem to me undesirable that those who are appointed to situations in India should be persons permanently connected with political parties, or with Parliamentary influence at home.

Do not you think that the higher the class of men who are appointed to fill our civil situations in India, the greater the security for the connection between India and England? I think that the permanence of the connection between India and England depends upon our being able to give good government to India, and to persuade the people of India that we do so.

Is it your opinion that those persons ought to be excluded from the Indian service who have any connection with the great political parties in this country? I would exclude no one; but I think it is a recommendation of the present system that those appointed under it are mostly unconnected with the possessors of Parliamentary influence.

You think that that is advantageous to the Government of India? It is the greatest protection that can be obtained against improper appointments.

Hitherto there has not been even a suspicion against the manner in which the Governor-general has exercised his power of selection? The Governor-general can seldom have any motive to appoint unfit persons to situations in India, because while the service is taken from one class, the Governor-general belongs to another, and none of his personal or political connexions are in the class from which the service is taken. He has thus no personal interest in appointing persons to situations for which they are unfit, and I believe it is very seldom that such appointments take place, except by mistake, or negligence.

Should you think it an extraordinary circumstance if you heard that a gentleman, on being appointed Governor-general, had, in the course of ten days, before he could get out to India, no less than 400 letters asking him for appointments? I should not be surprised to hear of any number of applications for appointments.

What is the second circumstance to which you alluded as a recommendation of the existing constitution of the Government of India? The two circumstances which I mentioned were, in the first place, that those who are sent out are merely candidates; they are never, or very rarely, appointed from England to any situation in India. The second circumstance was, that by the time those candidates come to be eligible for high situations, it generally happens that the Director from whom they received their nomination is no longer a Director.

Those circumstances that you have stated have reference solely to the appointment and promotion of civil servants. Do you see any other circumstance in the working of the Government at home which would recommend it to Parliament for renewal? The great reason, as it seems to me, recommending it for renewal, is the difficulty, if not impossibility, of forming a system of government which would be likely to work better.

The late Sir Charles Forbes was not a Director? He was not; but he had a son a Director at one time.⁴

He took a great deal of interest in the election of Directors? He had great influence in the elections.

Was he not connected with a party which hung together with the view of influencing the election of Directors? I am not aware that he was.

Should you be surprised to hear that Sir Charles Forbes, in the course of his life, had obtained 40 different appointments, and that he had the curiosity to have the likeness taken of every young man for whom he obtained an appointment, and those likenesses were hung round his room? From his long connexion with the Court of Directors, I should not be surprised at his having obtained that number of appointments. Those who were appointed on his recommendation have been as good servants as any others. If it were only from having a son a Director, he might obtain in a number of years almost that number of appointments.

Have you ever looked at the list of voters for the election of Directors for the purpose of seeing how many gentlemen can obtain a majority of votes?⁵ I have never examined the list with that particular view.

Should you be surprised if you found, on looking into it, that 413 gentlemen had 910 votes?⁶ I should not. That might be the result under any system which gives a plurality of votes on account of the property held.

Have you looked into the list which has been presented from the India House of the number of persons having more than one vote, and the number of voters and the number of votes? I know that there is a considerable number who have two, three, or four stars opposite to their names. If I am asked whether I think it would be better to give only one vote to each elector, I am inclined to think that it would make no practical difference of any importance. The proprietors are not a body which any one would have selected à priori for the election of Directors. Any other body whatever of respectable men would be as likely to elect proper persons as this, and this as likely as any other. As you cannot constitute an elective body in this country identified with the interests of the people of India, it does not appear to me to matter much what the body is.

Need the present body be identified with the interests of India, looking to what the qualification of the elector is beyond this, that it is their interest to see that the interest of the debt is paid? That is the only interest they have in India.

Do you think that the existence of the proprietors as an elective body has the effect of distributing more widely the patronage of the Court of Directors who now distribute it, than if such proprietory body did not exist, and had no claim upon the distribution? I cannot answer that question; I am ignorant what proportion of the patronage of India goes to the proprietors; and whatever the proportion may be, some considerable part of it would go into the same channels if no such body as the proprietors existed.

The more limited the number of persons who distribute the patronage, and the more limited the claims upon them, the more likely that patronage would be to pass in narrow channels connected with the individuals who gave it? It seems to me the primary and essential object that appointments in India should not be held by persons who have Parliamentary and political influence at home, that being the source from which inducements to make bad appointments, or to sanction bad measures, are most likely to come.

What is there in the constitution of the present Court of Proprietors which prevents any political party in this country from becoming proprietors, and, therefore, electors of the Court of Directors? There is nothing to prevent it; but it has not been the fact, and it is not likely to be the fact.

Is there any necessary connexion between the possession of a certain amount of stock, which gives a vote to the party holding it, and interest in the good government of India; and do you think that it would be desirable to introduce some more direct connexion with India on the part of the electors? I think there is a good deal to be said both for and against any such proposition.

Will you have the goodness to state what the arguments are for and against it? If the question were put with reference to some particular proposition, I might be able to answer more satisfactorily.

Is it your opinion that it would be desirable to allow the holders of the debt in India to vote for the Directors, or to give a right of voting to the Company’s servants? I think the constitution of the body of proprietors is of less importance than almost any other question connected with the Government of India; but the main fault of the present system is the long and troublesome canvass which is necessary to enable any person to be appointed a Director; and if there were an increase of the constituency, it is a question whether it would tend to make this canvass a greater or a less burden; it might do either the one or the other.

What objection should you have to Mr. Wynne’s proposal,⁷that the Crownshould have the power of appointing Indian servants as Directors on their return from India to this country? I think the fact that all Indian proceedings are reviewed by two separate bodies, independent of one another, is a much greater security for good government than would exist under any system by which those two bodies were merged into one. The double revision by persons of a different class, in a different position, and probably with different prepossessions, tends greatly to promote a close and rigid examination.

Do you suppose that the present system operates as a sufficient check upon the President of the Board of Control? To judge of the present system, it must be compared with some other. If we compare it with the system of an Indian Minister, who should have both the initiation and the final decision, he would act under a much less check than he now does. The Court of Directors, who are the initiating body, not being the body which finally decides; not being able to act but by the concurrence of a second authority, and having no means of causing their opinion to be adopted by that authority, except the strength of their reasons, there is much greater probability that a body so situated will examine and weigh carefully the grounds of all proceedings, than if the same body which had the initiative gave the final order.

On the whole, you conceive that the Court of Directors are the best administrative body that could be found under the peculiar circumstances of the Government of India? I would not pretend to say that no better could be found; but it seems to me they are as good a body as there is any probability of obtaining. Not having the final power, all the power which they exercise depends upon the care which they bestow upon the examination and consideration of the matters committed to them.

Are you acquainted yourself with the details of the correspondence between the Court of Directors and the Board of Control; can you trace a letter from the moment when it originates, to its final arrival before the Board of Control, or does your position enable you to know anything about it? In most cases it does.

With whom does the letter originate? With the Chairman.

Nominally and officially it originates with the Chairman; but does the Chairman, in fact, gives instructions for writing the letter? That depends upon circumstances. There is a vast mass of ordinary business respecting which the Chairman neither feels called upon to give previous instructions, nor do those who have the care of the department think it necessary to ask for them.

In point of fact, does it not frequently happen that the correspondence is examined by the clerk, or the secretary, and he suggests what the reply shall be? Sometimes so, and sometimes not. In the course of business, the papers come first into the hands of the secretary or clerk, or the person who is in charge of the correspondence; it is his duty, in bringing those papers to the notice of the Chairman, to be able to answer all questions concerning them, and it is expected of him that he shall have formed an opinion upon the subject.

It is expected that he shall suggest what the answer shall be? It is not expected; but he is always at liberty to do so.

Is it not the practice? It is not the practice universally; it is the practice in ordinary matters.

Is it general practice? There is no general practice. It is usual for the person in charge of the correspondence to ask the previous instructions of the Chairman, when he thinks there is any doubt of what the opinions of the Chairman would be.

Does he not write a memorandum first of all of the facts? That is sometimes done in complicated and important cases.

Is it not done universally; is not the substance of the papers in the collection stated in a memorandum, for the convenience of the Chairman; how can he possibly read all the papers himself? It is sometimes stated in the form of a memorandum, and sometimes in that of a proposed letter.

But in all cases the substance, at least, is stated in some manner to the Chairman? Yes.

Together with the opinion of the clerk who makes the statement? With an opinion, or without an opinion. Sometimes the officer who makes the statement thinks it desirable to ask the Chairman’s instructions first on the facts merely, without giving any opinion. In some cases again the Chairman does not wait till he has the facts brought before him, but sends for the officer, interrogates him on the facts, and gives instructions for preparing the reply, after calling for whatever papers he thinks necessary to understand it. The modes of proceeding vary according to the degree of importance ascribed to the matter, and according to the degree of interest the Chairman takes in the subject.

Do not they vary according to the business-like habits of the Chairman? They do; but since the last Charter,⁸ it has very seldom happened that the Chairman has not been a man of business.

Is it not a rare circumstance that the view of the Chairman is disregarded? By no means. On subjects on which a difference of opinion can fairly exist, it very often happens.

What is the character of the opinion expressed by the clerk; does it consist in remarks upon the correspondence in the way of censure or approval? Yes.

Do you know any one measure which has originated at home? It is scarcely possible to say where measures really originate. In cases of emergency, such as war, anything done must necessarily depend upon the Governor-general on the spot; and all that can be done by the home authorities is to express an opinion upon it after it is done, which may have an influence on the Government in future cases. But with reference to internal government, I am not aware of any great measures which have been adopted until after there has been a great deal of discussion between the Local Government and the Home Government on the subject; and though the measure may have originated nominally with the Government of India, the suggestions may often be traced to instructions which had been given, or principles laid down in despatches sent from the home authorities.

At the distance of many years? The despatches from the India House have in many cases tended greatly to form the opinions of Indian politicians in India.

In the case of the abolition of the 160 duties in the North-western frontier in the year 1843,⁹did that measure originate here? I am not conversant with the details of the Revenue department, though I am, of course, acquainted with its general principles.

Should you not say that the general government of India proceeds on all great occasions without receiving special instructions from home? I think a case can hardly happen in which the Government of India is not tolerably well aware, from previous despatches, whether the course which is about to be adopted is likely to have the approval of the home authorities. There is hardly any measure adopted of which the general principle might not be found discussed in the previous correspondence.

Do not you know whether the abolition of 160 duties upon the North-western frontier was approved or not? I am not aware whether it was approved at the time, but it was sanctioned.

You spoke of the working of the Government being, considering the difficulties, very satisfactory. Can you point out any of the difficulties to which you allude which would be removable by Parliament? It is difficult to foresee in what way alterations would work. But any alteration which placed the control of the Government in some one authority, instead of leaving it divided between two, would, I think, be for the worse.

Would you carry the same principle into effect in every case; instead of having a single Government, do you think it would be convenient to have a double Government? My opinion, if I were able to form any, would depend upon the nature of the case. I am inclined to think that such a double Government would be useful, wherever it was necessary to have a body of a permanent character specially conversant with a subject not generally studied by politicians in this country, while, at the same time, the general Government of the country must also have a voice.

Would you introduce the system of double Government with reference to the 52 colonies of the Crown? I am not sufficiently acquainted with the Colonial department to be able to express a positive opinion; but I should conceive that there might be great advantage from having some body analogous to the Court of Directors as a Council to assist the Colonial Minister.

A Council to represent each colony? It does not follow that there should be a separate body for each colony, any more than that there should be a separate body for each Presidency, or each Zillah, in India.¹⁰

Between Australia and Canada there is no connexion; one permanent body would not be able to advise the Minister of the Crown on Australian and Canadian matters? In Canada and Australia there are local representative bodies perfectly competent to exercise that antagonistic discussion, which seems to me an essential element of good government everywhere; but for India you cannot have any local body which shall produce that result.

Is there not a good deal of antagonistic discussion between the Government of India and the authorities at home; are not the Government of India capable of taking their own part, and giving their reasons for their measures? Certainly; but the discussion between the Government here and the Government there, I apprehend, is not sufficient security where there is nothing else to trust to; where there is no body representing the people of the country, and no body of persons ex officio conversant with their interests.

Should you say that the Court of Directors represent the people of India? Certainly not.

Is not their position directly antagonistic to that of the people of India? The antagonism which I contemplated was a discussion between persons who could not be supposed beforehand to be likely to be of the same opinion; discussion, by persons all of one mind, is of no use; where you have not the advantages given by a representative Government of discussion by persons of all partialities, prepossessions and interests, to secure that the subject shall be looked at in many different lights, though you cannot have a perfect substitute for this, still some substitute is better than none. If you can have a body unconnected with the general Government of the country, and containing many persons who have made that department of public affairs the business of their lives, as is the case with the Court of Directors, there is much better discussion and much better sifting of the matters committed to their charge, by having such a body in addition to the Minister of the Crown, than by having the Minister of the Crown without such a body, or the Minister of the Crown acting as Chairman of the body.

Do you think that if the Court of Directors, in its present form, is to be maintained, advantage would be derived from giving a quasi representative character to the Court of Proprietors, so that their representatives might be more identified in feeling with the people of India? I am not aware how the Court of Proprietors could be so constituted as to be identified with the people of India.

Could you not give to the Court of Proprietors more knowledge of the affairs of India: it appears, by a Return which has been presented to the Committee, that out of 1,760 persons who vote in the election of Directors, there are but 253 persons who have ever been in the service of the Government?¹¹ I cannot foresee what would be the effect of making the circumstance of having served a certain time in India a qualification for the Court of Proprietors; but I should think it could not have a bad effect, unless by multiplying the body, and rendering the canvass more onerous than at present; the difficulty of the canvass has prevented some of the most eminent servants of the Company from seeking a place in the Court of Directors.

Might not the Court of Proprietors be so extended in number, as to render a canvass impossible; and might it not be so improved in its composition, as to give the means of knowing the respective qualifications and claims of the several candidates who desired to belong to the Direction, having served in India? It is difficult to say; there is no popular election at present, however public in its character, in which there is not a canvass; and in this case it is probable that the canvass would always continue onerous.

For instance, do you think that the 899 ladies who have votes, exercise a sound discretion in the selection of the individuals, knowing their qualifications and claims? I do not believe any portion of the Court of Proprietors exercise much discretion of that kind; I do not believe that to any great degree the election by the proprietors is determined by public grounds. I believe, however, that those who are influential among the proprietors are sufficiently before the public, and are themselves sufficiently interested in Indian affairs, not to use their influence on behalf of persons who would be considered discreditable. That is the extent to which there is now a security, and I doubt whether more would be obtained under any system, because I do not think there are the means of forming an electoral body sufficiently identified with the interests of India to afford much security for a good choice.

Do you think the English and foreign Jews, who hold a large amount of stock, exercise a sound discretion in the election of Directors, with reference to the good government of India? I have already said that I do not think the elections of the Court of Directors are made on public grounds; they are mainly the result of private influence; but those who possess the influence, exercise it under a sufficiently strong sense of responsibility to the public to prevent them from selecting any person very objectionable. The security at present depends rather on the kind of persons who are candidates, than on the kind who are electors. The candidates being, as a general rule, persons of Indian experience, who wish to keep up their connexion with Indian affairs, that is in itself some evidence of their not being wholly unfit for the station, inasmuch as persons who have gone through the Indian service, and retired from it, are not likely to retain a taste for Indian employment, unless they retain in some degree their fitness for it.

Has the tendency of the elections in the last 20 years of the Court of Proprietors, as at present constituted, been to strengthen the connexion of the Court of Directors with India, or otherwise? Nearly all the Directors chosen since the last renewal of the Charter have been persons who have served in India; but that I attribute not to the constitution of the Court of Proprietors, but to the fact, that since the Company has ceased to be commercial, there are not the same inducements as formerly to the merchants and bankers of London either to hold stock, or to become Directors, and in consequence few such have been elected.

Has not the circumstance of the Company having ceased to trade, and having ceased to transact all the business which was connected with that trade, increased the number of the Directors who take part in the consideration of the general Government of India? Very much so; it has rendered the personal participation of the whole of the 24 Directors in the general business of India much more complete than it was before. Under the former constitution of the Company, the administration of India rested, with the exception of the Chairs, entirely with the Committee of Correspondence, composed of the nine senior Directors, the remainder of the Directors having no voice in that portion of the business of the Court; of course they had a voice in the deliberations of the Court itself; but not having been previously prepared, by examination of papers and discussion in Committee, they had not so much influence, and were, besides, occupied with other things. The Committee of Correspondence, composed of the senior Directors, and, therefore, necessarily including any members of the Court who might be superannuated, were extremely overladen with business, and made a much more cursory examination of the papers than the Committees do now. At present the Government of India being the only business of the Court, it is divided among three Committees, to all of which every Director is eligible, and the consequence is, that every Director takes a more active part than formerly in the consideration of the draft despatches that are laid before them by the Chairs.

Has not one effect of that been that the Chairs have much less authority than they used to have in the Court? I think it has.

Has it not produced, whether for good or evil, a great practical revolution in the system of government; formerly the business having been conducted through the Chairs by a small body of persons who had the cognizance and general transaction of political cases; and now the 24 Directors take part in the discussions? There is generally a great indisposition to oppose the Chairs; and they are never opposed, except where there is fair ground for a difference of opinion.

Is it not the fact, that in former times, before the commencement of the present Charter Act, when the President of the Board of Control had settled any matter with the Chairs, it was practically a final settlement, and the view taken by the Court, was not in fact different from theirs; but now a settlement between the Chairs and the President, by no means brings after it, as a matter of course, the acquiescence of the Court? I am not aware whether or not there is so great a difference as the question seems to contemplate: there is certainly some difference, and there is a much more active part taken by individual Directors than formerly.

Is not that, again, a great practical alteration in the system of Government? I do not think it is a great practical alteration; it is some practical alteration.

So that we have now to consider whether it is expedient to retain a Government very different from that which existed in 1834? I should not say very different; in some degree it is different.

Does not the addition of three-fourths to a cabinet, which is the change that has been made, produce a very great change in the mode in which cases are judged of and discussed; are not cases now judged of and discussed as they would be in a popular assembly? On great questions which are likely to lead to a difference of opinion between the Court of Directors and the Board of Control, I doubt whether there is any difference; because on questions which were interesting to the collective body of the Court, all the Directors would at any time have given their minds to the subject, and the opinion expressed would have been the opinion of the collective body; I think the difference which has been produced is in the details; it happens much more frequently now that the draft despatches submitted by the Chairs undergo alterations of details in Committees, or the Court; but these are seldom of a kind that materially alter the Government of India.

Does not the influence of the Chair depend very much upon the individual Chairman? Yes.

This change goes, to a certain extent, to diminish the value of the previous communications? There still is very great advantage in the previous communications.

With regard to the active participation taken by the whole body of Directors in the transaction of the business, what is your opinion of that part of the law which requires one-fifth of the Court to go out annually?¹² I think it makes very little difference for either good or harm; I have no decided opinion about it.

With this active part taken by those 24 gentlemen, might it not happen that, merely on account of rotation, a member connected with a department of public business, for which he was peculiarly qualified, might be obliged to go out, and the Court might be deprived of his aid in the transaction of that business? Yes; but that happens much more seldom than might be supposed, because it is always endeavoured to conclude the business of the year within the year. Subjects are begun at such times that they shall not be under discussion at the time of the renewal of the Directors, as in the case of the Session of Parliament, except that there is no interval, as in that case.

Whatever inconvenience exists in that case, your opinion is that care is taken to diminish that inconvenience? I think so.¹³

* * * * *

Are there any circumstances in the relations between England and India which require that the machinery for the government of India should be differently constituted from that of the other dependencies of Great Britain? I think there are very important differences; principally two. In the first place, India is a peculiar country; the state of society and civilization, the character and habits of the people, and the private and public rights established among them, are totally different from those which are known or recognised in this country; in fact the study of India must be as much a profession in itself as law or medicine. In the other dependencies of Great Britain the people are for the most part English, and whoever is fit to deal with English people here, is fit to deal with them there. But in the case of India, even if a person of the greatest knowledge of the world and the most cultivated mind were sent to be Governor-general, he would still have an apprenticeship to serve. This makes it essential that the administration of India should be carried on by men who have been trained in the subordinate offices, and have studied India as it were professionally. A second consideration, not less important is, that the public of India afford no assistance in their own government. They are not ripe for doing so by means of representative government; they are not even in a condition to make effectual appeals to the people of this country; they cannot even make their circumstances and interests and grievances known and intelligible to people so different and so unacquainted with India as the people, and even the Parliament, of this country. The discussion here of Indian subjects, when there is any, is carried on not by persons representing the people of India, but chiefly by Englishmen who have personal interests or connexions in India, generally almost as ignorant of the people and the interests of India as the English public, and having mostly other objects than the interest of the people of India in view. Since, therefore, the great security for good government—public discussion—does not exist for India, as it exists for this country and for its other dependencies, the only means of ensuring the necessary discussion and collision of opinions is provided within the governing body itself. The British colonies, of which the people are mostly English, and in most of which there are representative bodies composed of English people, have ample means of discussion, and ample means by which, if they think themselves aggrieved by any act of the Government, they can appeal home; and when such an appeal is made, the people of this country, although often extremely ill informed as to colonial matters, are much more capable of judging of them than they are of Indian affairs.

What do you think would be the probable effect of carrying on the government of India like that of the colonies, by means of a Secretary of State for India? I should think it would be the most complete despotism that could possibly exist in a country like this; because there would be no provision for any discussion or deliberation, except that which might take place between the Secretary of State and his subordinates in office, whose advice and opinion he would not be bound to listen to; and who, even if he were, would not be responsible for the advice or opinion that they might give.

How could it be a despotism when Parliament would have the control of the conduct of the Secretary of State? Undoubtedly Parliament would have the control; but Parliament not having sufficient knowledge of India and its people, would exercise its control with very imperfect information; and it seems to me of the utmost importance to make provision in the constitution of the Government itself, for compelling those who have the governing power, to listen to, and take into consideration, the opinions of persons who, from their position and their previous life, have made a study of Indian subjects, and acquired experience in them.

But though Parliament might be imperfectly informed, Parliament would not think it was imperfectly informed? That would be one of the evils I should apprehend.

Would it be possible for Parliament to have sufficient cognizance of the facts connected with the administration of the Secretary of State for India, to enable them to act as a check upon his administration? It cannot be said that Parliament and publicity are no check; but I think they are a very insufficient one.

Would it be possible to give such publicity as would enable them to act as a check? It would be possible to give any degree of publicity; but it would not be possible to secure the requisite interest in the subject, or the requisite instruction.

Do you think that, under such a system of Government, the continual change of policy, which would be likely to take place, arising from the change of parties, would be fatal to the Government of India? It would be a great evil if it really happened; possibly, however, it might not happen, and the Government of India might continue to be carried on in much the same way under all parties; but there would not be the same security for this which there is at present. I conceive that there would be two great inconveniences: in ordinary cases there would be apathy and indifference on the part of Parliament and the public; the Secretary of State for India would be able to do exactly as he liked, and to omit any part of his duty if he were too indolent or too ignorant to perform it; but whenever it did happen that interest was excited in Indian questions, they would become party questions; and India would be made (which I should regard as a great calamity) a subject for discussions, of which the real object would be to effect a change in the administration of the Government of England.

Why do you think that greater apathy would exist upon questions relative to the interests of India, than upon questions relating to the interests of the colonies? Because the colonies have the means of making their grievances heard; the colonies are much more closely connected with England; there are many more English people who have interests there; and there are also in the colonies local popular bodies, which is of itself a very great check, independently of any check afforded by Parliament. If there were a possibility at present of establishing a similar check in India, by any form of local representative government, I should think the constitution of the organ of Government in England much less important; but at present the only security for the good government of India is in constituting the Government here with as little imperfection as possible.

Do you think it would be possible to recognise any body in India which should be competent to express an opinion upon measures relating to that country? I do not think that India has yet attained such a degree of civilization and improvement as to be ripe for anything like a representative system. It would certainly be possible for the Government to take natives into its counsels much more than at present; but this I think would be better done by cultivating a greater degree of intercourse between intelligent natives and the members of the Government, or the holders of public offices, rather than by forming a body of persons selected by the Government and considering them as the representatives of the people of India, who, probably for the very reason of their being selected by the Government, would not be inclined to recognise them as their representatives.

It has been stated by some witnesses, that great advantage has resulted in India from the preliminary promulgation of proposed laws, which has had the effect of eliciting opinions from the natives, so as to enable the Government to form an opinion whether the law might be advantageously carried into effect or not;¹⁴do you think that is a useful practice? I have no doubt that it has been a very useful and indeed a necessary practice. The Court of Directors, in the instructions issued after the last renewal of the charter, pointed out that, in the absence of the security against precipitate legislation derived from public discussion by a numerous body like the Legislature of this country, it was necessary to make some other provision for deliberation and previous information; and therefore to interpose a certain delay between the first proposing and the passing of any Act, and to invite, in every way in which it could conveniently be done, suggestions and information in the meanwhile.¹⁵

What are the advantages of the division of the home Government of India into two distinct bodies, the Court of Directors and the Board of Control? It affords, I think, a great additional security for discussion and consideration. By rendering the consent of two distinct authorities necessary, you, in the first place, secure discussion between those two. The initiative being given to one body and a veto to the other, and the body over which the veto can be exercised, having in reality no substantial power, except that which it derives from the force of its reasons, it is under very strong inducements to put reason on its side if it can. If the despatches which originate with the Court of Directors are not well grounded in reason, they carry no weight with the Board. The Court of Directors does not and cannot exercise any effective share in the government except in so far as it takes care to have reason on its side. Having this instrument of power and no other, it has the strongest motive to use that instrument to the utmost; and in doing so, it is a most efficient check upon the body which has the ultimate power, because that body being sure to have all subjects brought before it, with the result of the full consideration and concentrated judgment of a body which, from its constitution, has commonly that special knowledge and information which the President of the Board of Control in general has not, the President is under great inducement not to set aside the judgment of this comparatively well-informed body, unless he can give as strong or stronger reasons on the contrary side.

Is it not the case, that even in addition to the ordinary forms of conference and communication between the Chairs, as they are called, and the President of the Board, if there should be any difference between them, the President has the power of consulting the other members of the Court, and frequently does so through the Chairs, and in fact has recourse to any documents which the Chairs may have it in their power to lay before him, so as to strengthen the view which they have put before the President? The President can call upon the Chairs to produce any papers upon the subject which they may have omitted to bring before him.

Is it not the case, that independently of the legal power of the President, where different communications have taken place between the President and the Chairs, they are in the habit of laying before him any additional documents which they think will strengthen the views which they have put before the President? Yes, and of discussing all subjects on which there is any difference of opinion.

Is not the Court of Directors specially interested in appointing the very ablest officials? They are; and they exert themselves to obtain the ablest persons they can to conduct the correspondence under them. Their position gives them a very strong interest in doing this, since they can only expect that their draft despatches will be adopted by the Board of Control, if they are such as to carry the weight of reason and knowledge with them.

Would the same benefits be realized, in your opinion, if India were to be governed by the two bodies merged into one, and by endeavouring to form a single body which should unite the advantages of both, such as a Council of India, presided over by a Minister of the Crown? I think that such a system would be far preferable to a Government merely by a Secretary of State; but that the advantages now derived from the division of the governing body into two parts, the one having the initiative and the other the ultimate control, would not be obtained under the system of a Minister and Council. In the first place, there is now not only an examination by two authorities, but successive examinations by two sets of competent subordinates. If the body were but one, there would be only one set of subordinates; and that is not a trifling consideration, but in practice a very important one. In the next place, if the Minister of the Crown were President of the co-ordinate body, whether it were called the Court of Directors or Council of India, he would have, not as at present substantially a mere veto, but substantially the initiative, as the Chairman now has; and in that case the Council would not be under anything like the same responsibility, and would not exercise anything like the same power that the Court of Directors do. When the Council are obliged to consider the subject first, and to make up their minds upon it, and to write, or cause to be written, the strongest justification they can make of their opinion, the mind of this body is much more effectually applied to the subject, and a much more painstaking and conscientious decision is likely to be arrived at by them, than if they were only considered as the advisers of, or as a check upon another initiating authority. Of course, under the system suggested in the question, it cannot be meant that the power of decision should rest in the Minister and his Council jointly. The ultimate decision would rest with the Minister only, and his Council would be merely a Council. Now, when the Minister had thus both the ultimate power of decision and the initiative, it seems to me that the functions of the Council would be reduced to comparative insignificance, and there would be great danger of their becoming nominal.

If the plan suggested in the last question were adopted, would not the Government of necessity cease to be a double Government, and be a single Government, consisting of combined parts, which from their nature and their functions would be liable to constant collision? They are now liable to collision; but any prolonged conflict is provided against by giving to one of the two authorities—the Minister of the Crown—the ultimate deciding power: and I imagine that in any new system that could be proposed, this provision would be adhered to.

Although there is a liability at present to come into collision, is not that collision, and are not the consequences of such collision, better guarded against by the present system than they would be by that proposed? I conceive that under the alteration proposed, the specially instructed body would not have power enough; in the first place, because the initiative would fall habitually into the hands of the President, and consequently the members of the Council would not be under nearly such strong inducements as the Court of Directors are to form a careful opinion, and to stand up for it. In the next place, they would not be nearly so much in the public eye. The Court of Directors are at present the ostensible Government of India; they reap a very large proportion of the credit of good government, and of the discredit of bad; and it seems to me of great importance that they should still do so; because that is what places them, with no instrument in their hands but reason, under such strong inducements to employ that instrument to the utmost.

In fact you consider that the present system is a very convenient fiction? I do not think it is fairly described as a fiction, since it is acknowledged, that not only the Board of Control but the Cabinet, when of a different opinion, sometimes think it right to defer to the opinion of the Court of Directors: no doubt because they feel that the Directors are more competent to form an opinion than themselves. As the Court of Directors can have no power but what they derive from that belief, it is greatly for their interest that the belief should be justified.

Is it a fiction to say that the Government of India resides in the Court of Directors? It is practically by no means a fiction, since it does not happen once in a hundred times that a despatch, prepared by the Court of Directors, undergoes alteration in principle and substance by the Board of Control. It is true that this is in a great measure to be accounted for by the constant communication kept up between the Chairs and the President; so that, unless the Chairs are anxious to have a contest with the Board, in order to place on record an important difference of opinion, they seldom send up a proposed despatch which they know is contrary to the President’s opinion, and therefore will not pass. Still, however, in practice, the preparation of despatches rests substantially with the Court of Directors, and not with the Board of Control.

You think it is not fairly to be called a fiction; but do you not think that the general notion which people have of their power attributes to them much greater power than they really have? Undoubtedly the habit of speaking of the Court of Directors as the Government of India, causes the controlling power exercised over them to be very much lost sight of, and causes much less of the moral responsibility of the Government of India to rest upon the Minister of the Crown than is really his fair share. But even this has its advantages, because it brings the feeling of responsibility to bear more strongly upon those who possess the requisite knowledge, and whose examination is much more effectual than any examination that can be exercised by persons less acquainted with the subject. It therefore seems to me important that the Court should not be led to consider themselves, or be considered by the public and by the people of India, as a subordinate, but as a co-ordinate authority.

Do they not, under the power they have of initiating all despatches, virtually exercise a principal part in the general administration of the Government of India? In as far as that can be said of the home Government at all, I think they do. I think that those who deliberately consider all subjects in the first instance, recording their opinion, and who do this in such a manner, that in a great majority of cases their opinion is adopted by the controlling power, have a full share, and virtually the largest share in the administration.

Do not they practically furnish the knowledge by which the Government of India is conducted? They furnish much more than the Board of Control.

Is it not the fact that the Board of Control furnish none? The Board of Control furnish none but the knowledge which their officers have acquired by experience in the office.

What means of resistance, on the part of the Court of Directors, have the Legislature provided, for preventing the Board of Control from usurping the entire power, and reducing the Court of Directors to a nullity? The main security is, that the Board of Control cannot themselves initiate any instructions to India (except in the Secret Department, which is limited by law to matters of war and negotiation) unless by calling upon the Court to do so; it is only if the Court fail to do so within a certain time, that the Board of Control can initiate a despatch, and compel the Court to send it out; and this shows that it was the intention of the Legislature, that the Board should be a controlling rather than an originating power.

Have not the Court of Directors a further power, by having a virtual veto upon the nomination of the Governor-general by the Crown? They have; and I may say, on that subject, that I think the present mode of appointing the Governor-general, namely, by the Court of Directors ostensibly, but with the approbation of the Crown, is the only means by which the Court of Directors could obtain so much as a veto; everybody is aware that the Crown really appoints the Governor-general; but if the Crown were ostensibly to do so, if the nomination were to vest in the Crown, then, even if a veto were nominally given to the Court of Directors, they would not have a real veto. To refuse their sanction to an appointment once made, would appear to them so strong a measure, that it must be a very bad appointment indeed, much worse than is likely to happen, which they would feel called upon so to resist; whereas, by making it in legal form necessary that they should initiate the appointment, you do not secure to them, what I think it is not desirable that they should have, the real appointment, but you give them a real veto; you prevent the Crown from being able to force upon them any Governor-general to whom they have a decided objection. I think that a very important power.

Do you think it is as important, for the maintenance of their authority, that they should have the power of recall? I think it is proper and necessary.

Are there not circumstances under which the nomination of the Governor-general will fall to the Crown? If the Court of Directors make no appointment within two months.

Would it be desirable to place modifications of the same nature upon the power of recall; that is to say, by requiring certain notice of the intention of the Court to exercise the power? I see no particular advantage in that; because it is not to be supposed that the Directors would seriously contemplate a recall, unless they intended to persevere in it; it is not probable that they would raise the question unless their opinion was thoroughly made up.

Have you ever referred to what took place between the Government and the Court of Directors in the time of Lord Wellesley?¹⁶ I have no particular recollection of the history of those transactions.

Have you ever referred to it? I have.

Are you under the impression that the Court of Directors never wished to recall Lord Wellesley? I am under the impression that they did wish, but not so strongly as to take a measure which they knew would be extremely disagreeable to the Government of the time.

It was rather a strong Government, that of Mr. Pitt, at that time, was it not?¹⁷ It was.

Is not there a further power of resistance on the part of the Court of Directors, by refusing to send out a certain despatch, and compelling the Board of Control to appeal to public opinion in open court, and forcing them by means of a mandamus in the Court of Queen’s Bench? That is only the power which anybody possesses of compelling discussion by resisting a legal authority. The Court would no doubt never think themselves justified in resorting to such an extremity, unless they had such strong conscientious objections to the thing proposed, as to outweigh the objection to refusing obedience to a lawful order.

Do you recollect any instance in which that remedy has been resorted to by the Court? I remember one instance,¹⁸ and I think there have been two within my recollection.

In which it was successfully exercised? In one of the cases it was successfully exercised; I am not certain about the second.

Does the Court of Directors ever resist by avoiding to form a sufficient quorum to sign a despatch? The Court have no occasion to avoid forming a quorum; because no individual can be forced to sign, even if there is quorum, unless by process of law. In one of the cases mentioned, several of the Directors were fully prepared to go to prison, rather than sign an order which they thought grossly unjust.

Was that resistance successful? It was.

Have not the Directors the power of appealing to the Court of Proprietors, and producing such documents as they may think necessary for instructing the public mind, and thus communicating a knowledge of those measures of which they disapprove, without at the same time appealing to party prejudices, as would be the case were that appeal made to the House of Commons? No doubt the Court of Proprietors afford means of publicity, but not greater than would be obtained by a motion for papers in the House of Commons.

Would not there be this disadvantage in a motion for papers in the House of Commons, that they must act through some party, and the question would at once assume a party character? There are usually members of the Court of Directors in the House of Commons, any one of whom can move for papers.

Would it not be a great disadvantage if Indian matters were made the subject of party conflict? It is necessary that the last resort of an appeal to Parliament should be open; but I have already remarked, that I think the security which that affords for good government is not great, because there is generally no interest in the subject, unless it can be made a party subject; and if it be made a party subject, it is in danger of being decided by party interests.

Then do you consider it to be just as advantageous for the Directors to appeal to the House of Commons, as to appeal to the Court of Proprietors? I do not think the appeal to the Court of Proprietors is of any value except as an instrument of publicity. It is plain that they might have a perfect power of publicity given to them, without appealing either to the Court of Proprietors or to Parliament.

How? They might have the liberty of printing and producing papers, and it might be in their power to lay papers before Parliament.

Have they not that power at present? Only if they are moved for.

If papers were moved for in Parliament, would not a conflict most probably arise upon the subject of those papers? It might, certainly, although papers are very often moved for with no such intention, and with no such effect.

Is it in your opinion desirable that the Court of Proprietors should have the power of calling for papers under the present constitution of the Government of India? I think anything which leads to the production of papers or to the discussion of any questionable matter, is always useful, although I do not think the discussions in the Court of Proprietors afford much advantage in the way of good government. They occur rarely, and when they do occur the matter is commonly discussed without much knowledge of the subject, and commonly from other interests than those of the people of India.

Have the Court of Proprietors at the present moment any interest in the prosperity of the people of India further than as it may be connected with their dividends? None whatever.

Is not it desirable that they should have the power to call in question the actions of the Court of Directors and of the Government of India? The Court of Proprietors is a mere public meeting, at which persons of a particular class are admitted to speak and vote, and I think any public discussion on a public subject has the chance of doing more good than harm.

Would it, in your opinion, be desirable that the papers and correspondence of the Secret Committee should be laid before the Court of Proprietors? There are many transactions of Government, and particularly those of war and diplomacy (the peculiar functions of the Secret Committee), which until the transactions are completed never are, and generally cannot be, consistently with the public interest, laid before the public.

That is an exception to the general benefit which you propose to be derived from public discussion? Yes; but in European matters it is usual to give publicity even to this class of transactions after the emergency has ceased; and this is equally advantageous in Indian affairs. In fact it is usually done; for it hardly ever happens that the papers relating to Indian wars and treaties are not published almost as soon as they conveniently can be.

That is, through the medium of Parliament? Yes, generally.

When those secret papers are ultimately laid before the Court of Directors, are they not laid in extenso? Sometimes.

Not always? Not always.

Sometimes important papers relating to a transaction are withheld altogether, are they not? Sometimes.

What advantage is derived from the power of the Court of Proprietors to call for any papers? It sometimes causes papers to be made public sooner than they otherwise would be, or which, perhaps, might not have been made public at all; but the papers might have been called for by Parliament, if they had not been called for by the Court of Proprietors.

Does not it give to the Court of Directors the power of giving to the world any papers that they may wish to be circulated? No doubt it does.

In that way is it not very useful to the Court of Directors, whenever they wish to make an appeal to public opinion? I think it might be useful. It certainly affords them the means of doing so without the imputation of wishing to make a party opposition to the Government.

In point of fact, is not it their great object in general to avoid the production of such papers? I think there is no unwillingness whatever on their part to produce papers.

Do not the Court of Directors generally try to check such a motion on the part of the Court of Proprietors? Not at all, as far as I have observed, unless the papers relate to transactions still under consideration. In that case, as in similar cases in Parliament, it is often thought desirable that the papers should not be produced till the final decision of the public authorities has been come to.

That is in all pending negotiations? There is often an indisposition to give papers as long as the subject is under consideration; but when a decision has been passed, and the transaction completed, I am not aware that there is ever any objection made to lay the papers before the Proprietors, if the Proprietors desire to have them.

What is the usual number of persons attending a Court of Proprietors? The quarterly courts are commonly not very numerously attended, being mostly for routine business, unless notice has been given of some motion which excites general interest; but special courts I have known very numerously attended.

When you say “very numerously,” what number of persons do you mean? I do not know that I ever counted the number, but I think I must have seen as many as 200 or more.

But usually it is a very small number? Perhaps at quarterly courts there may not be more than 50 or 60; and sometimes a discussion has been kept up when there were (exclusive of the Directors) not more than eight or ten Proprietors in the room.

Are those discussions generally conducted by persons who have an Indian reputation, and who have been connected with the service in India, or by gentlemen who appear to have bought their qualification for the purpose of giving them an opportunity of making speeches and having them reported? There are marked instances of both.

Is not the latter the more common case? I should say, I think, that when motions have been brought forward hostile to the proceedings of the Government of India, they have been oftener by persons who had been previously connected with India, than by persons whose connexion with India Stock may be supposed to have been formed for that purpose.

Assuming that two such bodies as the Court of Directors and the Board of Control ought to exist, is it, in your opinion, desirable that the patronage of India should reside in the body which is inferior in authority? As between the two, it is in the Court of Directors, the weaker body, that I think the patronage should reside, for the reasons which I have already given. It seems to me very important, and at the same time difficult, that a body, every act of whom connected with the Government of India may be overruled, should nevertheless feel themselves, and be felt by others, to have a very important part in the Government, and a very important share of the responsibility of good or bad government. I do not see how they could keep their position, or be considered as the Government of India at all, if the patronage of India, such as it is, that is, the appointment of youths to rise through the lower to the higher offices, were taken away from them to be given to the other authority. If the authority which had the patronage were that which gives the final orders, the Board of Control would be considered as the Government, and the Court of Directors would have no influence at all.

Would there not also be a danger in that case that the appointments would have a political character, which you consider it so extremely desirable to avoid? That is also a very strong objection to vesting the patronage in the Minister of the Crown.

If the patronage were withdrawn from the Court, in what way should it be disposed of, in your opinion? I think in that case the only proper system, and one which I should myself consider as intrinsically the best, would be to bestow it by public competition; by concours, as some offices are given in France; to give it to the best qualified among all persons of requisite age and education who might compete for it.

By public examination? By public examination.

By the sale of commissions, or without sale? Certainly not by sale.

If you had such competition as that, you could not have only one Board of Examiners for so many different classes of offices, amounting sometimes to 400 or 500 to be given in one year; but it would be necessary that you should have different Boards of Examiners; and in that way persons rejected by one Board might be admitted by another. Would there not be great danger of not getting the best men by that process? No doubt such a Board might make mistakes; but probably not more than are made, for instance, in the classification of candidates for honours at the Universities, which is generally supposed to be conducted very fairly.

But there it is done by a single Board; but you could not bring 400 or 500 gentlemen before the same Board, and bring them all into one place? Not at one time; but I see no impossibility in even a larger number being examined by the same Board in the course of a year.

This is not a change which you suggest, but you think it would be the best system if any change were made? If there were a change I think that would be the best change, and I think it desirable in itself if it could be done without interfering with the position of the Court of Directors, or of some body similar to them, as a substantive part of the Indian Government.

Do you think it would be desirable to give any portion of the existing patronage to be competed for in the way you have described? I think the more the better.

Supposing it to be considered best to keep the patronage in the hands of the Court of Directors, do you think it would be desirable to set off any portion of that patronage to be competed for in the way you have described? I am not prepared to give a decided opinion. There would be advantages, perhaps preponderating ones, in such an arrangement, provided the Court of Directors retained sufficient patronage to make them be still considered substantially the Government of India.

When you speak of competition, do you mean a bonâ fide public competition open to all the world, or would you require any particular qualifications or previous course of education on the part of the candidates? I would admit persons to compete in whatever manner they had been educated, and at whatever place.

And in whatever condition of life they might be? And in whatever condition of life.

By whom and in what manner is it desirable, in your opinion, that the Governor-general should be appointed? I think the present mode unobjectionable. I think that the Governor-general should be nominated, as he is, by the Crown, and not by the Court of Directors, but subject to a substantial negative voice on their part. It is a great security against jobbing in India, that appointments to office are not made by the same persons who appoint the candidates. They are made by a great officer who has no previous connexion, or a very slight one, with the service, and is scarcely under any private motive to favour individuals; and I believe that in consequence the appointments are generally made with a remarkable degree of integrity and purity.

Would you think it inexpedient to appoint the Lieutenant-governors of Bombay and Madras from the civil service; and would you consider it more expedient that they should continue to be appointed by the Crown in the same manner in which you think it desirable that the Governor-general should be appointed? That is part of the question what should be the constitution of the subordinate governments. There are at present two systems of subordinate government on trial in India: the old system of a Governor in Council at each Presidency, and the system now on trial at Agra of a Lieutenant-governor.¹⁹ There is hardly experience yet to judge which of those systems ought to be finally adopted.

But as long as you continued to leave a considerable amount of patronage at the disposal of those Governments at the different Presidencies, do you think it would be expedient to select the Governors out of the civil service of the Company? I think they should be selected by the Crown as long as the present Governments of Bombay and Madras are continued. It does not follow that civil or military servants of the Company may not be appointed; in fact, a large proportion of the governors of Madras and Bombay have been servants of the Company, though appointed by the Crown, and they have been some of the very best.

Are there any special reasons for maintaining an exclusive body, such as the civil service of India, from whom all the higher offices in the administration of the Government, except the heads of the different Governments must be selected? What is to be said in favour of an exclusive service, is the necessity of special professional training: the necessity that those appointed to higher situations should have served in the lower, and should have risen by degrees. In fact, there is no other mode of training properly qualified officers. To take a person fresh from Europe, and appoint him to one of the higher situations, would be as objectionable as taking a person from the army, or from a merchant’s counting-house, and making him at once a Judge of the Court of Queen’s Bench.

Do you think that civil offices should be thrown open to Europeans not in the regular service; that is, to uncovenanted servants? As a general rule, I think not; Europeans not in the regular service can hardly be competently qualified. The maintenance of a sort of professional body called the Civil Service, is recommended by the necessity of a training in the subordinate offices, and if persons are often appointed who have not gone through that training, the object is sacrificed. In fact, the appointment of Europeans not in the regular service, unless quite exceptional, would be tantamount to giving up the principle of sending out young men as candidates, instead of sending persons out to fill particular offices.

Do you happen to be acquainted with the services of the late Mr. Greenlaw, who was an uncovenanted servant, and who died in the year 1844?²⁰ I know his name, but I am not particularly acquainted with his services. He held an office to which uncovenanted servants have not usually been appointed.

Are you aware that he was a man of very great ability, and of very eminent public service? I believe he was.

To what grade in the service can uncovenanted servants rise? I am not aware how much of the restriction upon their employment is the effect of law, and how much only of practice, nor am I aware how far the exclusion in practice extends, especially as it has of late been in many instances relaxed; but generally speaking, the European uncovenanted servants are not eligible to anything beyond what would be here considered as clerkships, not to offices of importance and authority.

Not to judgeships? Certainly not; the natives are very largely eligible to judicial offices.

Do you think that the indiscriminate admission of uncovenanted Europeans to civil appointments would interfere very much with the employment of the natives? Very much.

Would it not be liable to this further objection, that the Governor-general would have the selection, as well as the promotion of Europeans in office? I presume that if uncovenanted servants were appointed at first to inferior situations, they would usually be in the first instance selected by heads of offices, rather than by the Governor-general.

Have you ever considered the expediency of filling the subordinate offices in the Foreign Department, with trustworthy Europeans? I presume clerkships are meant; undoubtedly it is of very great importance that the officers so employed should be trustworthy. I believe there is no restriction on the employment either of Europeans, half-caste, or natives to those offices; their qualifications depend upon the care taken by heads of offices in selecting them.

Was it not necessary on one occasion to make almost a clearance of the persons employed? I have no such instance in my recollection, but I cannot say that it was not so.

Are high civil offices thrown open to Europeans in the military service? Many high offices are so; I think the distinction which is made is a very just one; the offices to which military servants are not, except in very rare cases, appointed, are those connected with the administration of the existing somewhat elaborate system of Regulations, for which a person is incompetent, unless he has in the subordinate offices acquired a technical and precise knowledge of the system. But in all offices which do not require this, military men are now largely employed; they are very much employed in the Political, that is, the Diplomatic Department, and also in the civil administration of countries which have not been brought regularly under our laws; and when a territory is newly acquired, and it is necessary rather to ascertain the existing state of the country, and improvise rules for its temporary management, or to frame a system for the future administration of such countries, than to administer a previously existing system; then military men of known ability are very commonly selected, as is the case at present in the Punjaub, where the President of the Board of Administration, Sir Henry Lawrence, is a military man, and as was the case with Sir Thomas Munro, and many others.²¹ Very large use is thus made of military men with talents for civil administration; I have known instances of their being even made Collectors in the Regulation provinces; but those cases are rare, and I believe the motive to them was, that there were not at the time a sufficient number of civil servants in the Bombay Presidency. At that time Sir Henry Pottinger, Major Barnewall, and Colonel Robertson were made Collectors.²² Generally speaking, the situations to which military men are not appointed, are those which require a previously acquired special knowledge of the existing Regulations, and the existing modes of administration.

Would you admit the natives of India to the covenanted civil service? I think it of the greatest importance to admit the natives to all situations for which they are fit; and as they are constantly becoming fit for higher situations, I think that they should be admitted to them; but it would probably be better to do this without appointing them to the regular service. The covenanted service, from its constitution, is a service of gradual rise. A member of that service is not appointed to a particular situation to remain in it during his whole period of service, but looks for promotion after a certain time, and hopes to rise to the highest appointments; therefore, as long as the natives are not considered fit for the highest appointments, it would be hardly desirable to admit them to the regular covenanted service, because, if their promotion stopped short while that of others went on, it would be more invidious than keeping them out altogether. It seems preferable that the covenanted service should not be considered as having an exclusive right to appointments. If a native, being qualified in point of integrity, and having, as many of them have, a previous knowledge of that which a European has to learn, is fit for one of the higher appointments, let him have it without going through the covenanted service.

Is not a native rendered eligible for any appointment under the last Charter Act?²³ The last Charter Act took away all legal disabilities; but there is a practical exclusion, and so there must be, until the natives are very much improved in character.

But legally a native of India is eligible for any appointment? He is.

He is not excluded because he is a native of India, but he is excluded because he has not passed through Haileybury?²⁴ That would exclude him from the covenanted civil service.

Do you think that the natives of India are admitted to as large a share in the civil government of the country as they ought in their present state of education and knowledge to possess? There is a great and growing desire to admit them to all offices for which they are considered sufficiently qualified in point of trustworthiness. Hitherto they have not been admitted to any situations in which there is not a controlling European authority over them; but there is hardly any situation, admitting of that control, to which they are not now eligible; or if there be any such, there is a constant tendency to open such situations to them. They have now, especially in the Bengal and Agra provinces, almost the whole of the administration of justice in the first instance, subject to appeal to Europeans. They are also largely employed as deputy collectors, that is, in the branch of the Government, on which the prosperity of the country depends more than on any other; and those situations are sought for by natives of the highest rank and connexions. There was a remarkable proof of this some years ago in the North West Provinces. When the Nawab of Rampoor died, who was the descendant of Fyzoolla Khan, the chief who ruled over the portion left in existence of the Rohilla power, which was crushed by Warren Hastings, when this Nawab died, leaving no direct heirs, the collateral, who was next in succession, was a deputy collector in our provinces,²⁵ and two other near relations of the deceased Nawab happened to be deputy collectors also. The new Nawab went from being a deputy collector under our Government, to succeed to his own principality, and he immediately commenced introducing the improvements which he had learned under our system.

Have those native officers of the Government Europeans placed under them? As deputy collectors they have no Europeans under them as subordinate officers, but only natives.

If the natives of India were to occupy a very large portion of the higher civil and military appointments of the country, do you suppose that we should continue to maintain the dependence of India upon this country? If the natives were allowed to wield the military force of India, I think it would be impossible to maintain British ascendency there; but I think it would be perfectly possible to open to them a very large share of the civil government without its having any such effect.

Without having any European supervision? I do not think you could make a native Governor-general, but I think natives might in time be appointed to many of the higher administrative offices.

Do you think they might be members of Council? Not, I should think, at present; but in proportion as the natives become trustworthy and qualified for high office, it seems to me not only allowable, but a duty to appoint them to it.

Do you think that in those circumstances the dependence of India upon this country could be maintained? I think it might, by judicious management, be made to continue till the time arises when the natives shall be qualified to carry on the same system of Government without our assistance.

Would you make any change in the functions of the Governor-general, with a view of relieving him from any portion of his duties? I would relieve him from all details; certainly from the government of Bengal. It appears to me that the proper function of the Governor-general is rather to superintend the Government of India in all its departments than to carry on any portion of it in detail. I would give him only the external relations of India, and the business of legislation, along with a general power of receiving appeals from the subordinate Governments, and of interfering, whenever necessary, in the higher departments of their administration, with such portion of the higher patronage as it may be desirable for him to possess.

Would you establish a separate government for Bengal, or would you put it on the same footing as that of the North West Provinces, leaving the Lieutenant-governor in the nomination of the Governor-general? It is difficult to give a positive opinion at present. If I were to recommend either plan, it would be the Agra system, which works extremely well.

Is not there this reason for the Agra system having worked very well, that during the portion of it which we had immediately under our eye, namely, the latter portion since the year 1844, it has been administered by a man of acknowledged superior ability and activity, Mr. Thomason?²⁶ It is more particularly during the time of Mr. Thomason that it has been administered with such eminent success; and the expediency of continuing the system depends upon the possibility, as may be shown by experience, of providing a succession of such men. Unless this can be provided, I think it would be desirable that all the subordinate Governments should have Councils.

If the Lieutenant-governor of Agra were selected on the same grounds on which the members of Council are selected, would there not be very great danger of the Government not being equally well conducted? The members of Council are selected from the same class of persons as the Lieutenant-governors.

When Mr. Thomason was appointed Governor, was not he taken quite out of his turn, and was he not a much younger man than those who would be named members of Council? He was; no doubt, because there was nobody senior to him who was thought so well qualified.

No one would have been named a member of Council so young as Mr. Thomason? Probably not.

Do you think it expedient to assimilate the Governments of Bombay and Madras to that of Agra? Either that, or to assimilate the Government of Agra to them.

Do you think it desirable that the Governor-general should be attended by his Council when he removes from Calcutta? If the practice which has existed for some years were to continue, that the Governor-general should be a much larger portion of time absent from Calcutta than present there, I think decidedly the Council ought to go with him; and in that case it would become a serious question whether the seat of Government should not be transferred to the interior. If the absence of the Governor-general from Calcutta were only to be occasional, I see no reason why the present system should not continue.

Do not you think there would be great advantage in sending out Governors-general very much younger than they have usually been—men who might be expected to remain 15 or 20 years in the country? It is to my mind doubtful. One of the advantages of the present mode of appointing the Governor-general is that he takes out with him the latest English ideas and sentiments. He is under the influence of the most recent, which in politics are generally the best opinions.

Would he not have the same, if he went out at thirty instead of at fifty? He would; but if he remained a longer time, he would perhaps not retain the advantage.

If he remained a longer time, would he not have the advantage probably of acquiring the language, and the means of communicating personally with individual natives; and would he not, if he were successful in his administration, acquire very great weight and influence throughout India, particularly with the native states? I think he has all the influence now with the native states that he thinks fit to exercise; I think he can do anything he pleases with them.

Might he not possibly obtain more influence than would be desirable? His permanent interests would always be in this country; I am not contemplating the case of his being able to usurp an independent Government there, certainly; but I do not think that danger much to be apprehended.

Not if he were to remain there a great number of years, and thereby very much to increase his influence? I should think the danger not great of a European, who might at any time be recalled, acquiring a degree of influence over the army and the natives, which would enable him to set up an independent government.

Is not that, to a certain degree, the case in all countries similarly situated? I am not aware of any parallel instance.

Does not his influence, in point of fact, mainly depend upon the great power of the country which he is known to represent? He is considered the representative of the irresistible English power.

Would you still maintain the Legislative Member of Council, and if you maintained him, would you assign to him the same duties? It seems to me very important to maintain that office, that there may be at least one person to devote himself specially to so important a part of the business of government as Legislation.

Do you think there would be any advantage in having for administrative purposes, a fifth member of Council sent from England, holding such a position as an Under Secretary of State, and who should remain there for about as long as the Governor-general himself remains? I see no necessity for such an officer, in addition to the Governor-general; the appointment of the Governor-general is intended to contribute European ideas to the Government, and the ordinary members of Council contribute Indian ideas; if the Governor-general is properly appointed, I do not see any use in sending out another officer for administrative purposes.

Is it not the practice for the new Governor-general, when he goes out, to take out with him a private secretary, who may be of very great assistance to the Governor-general in the mere details of his office? Sometime it is; sometimes the private secretary is elected in India.

Would you think it desirable to add to the Council of India civil servants from Madras and Bombay? That would depend upon the nature of the functions assigned to the Supreme Government; if the Governor-general in Council were to exercise a general superintendence over all the Presidencies, without conducting the administration of any; if he were regarded as a supreme authority, to be referred to in cases of difficulty who should have the power of interfering in the affairs of the subordinate Governments, and should receive general reports of their proceedings, but should not be necessarily a part of the ordinary government of India, except as to legislation and great political transactions; in that case I think it would be important that all the Presidencies should be represented in the Supreme Council; that there should be a member from Madras, and another from Bombay, as well as from Bengal and Agra. For the purposes merely of legislation, I am not sure that there is any necessity for this addition to the number of the Council. On any enactments which relate particularly to Madras and Bombay, it is usual for a reference first to be made to the Madras and Bombay Governments; if indeed the whole proposition does not originate with them, by a draft Act being sent up by them, as it often is, for the approval of the Council.

Is it necessary that the Government of India should have some local knowledge in the decision of questions of pecuniary outlay relating to the subordinate Presidencies? It is necessary, no doubt, that they should have local knowledge; but that knowledge should be supplied to them by the Report sent by the local Governments, or elicited by the inquiries which the Supreme Government has power to make. All that is necessary as a qualification for the members of Council, is the habit of considering questions of a similar kind.

Would not it be desirable that the Council itself should be inspired by some local interest, to enable it to give full weight to the several reasons and arguments sent up from the subordinate Presidencies? That depends upon the degree to which the interference of the general Council at Calcutta extends. If Bombay and Madras continue to have local Governments which exercise a considerable amount of power, and the members of which deliberate in common, recording their opinions on the administration of their respective Presidencies, it does not seem to me necessary that there should be members from Madras and Bombay to advise the Supreme Council; but if there were merely lieutenant-governors at Madras or Bombay, it would be necessary.

Are you aware that no sum beyond 5,000 rupees can be expended by the local Governments without the consent of the Government of India, and that, moreover, not even a shifting and a change in the salaries of a Board can take place which involves an increase of salary to any one of the members, though the sum upon the whole should not exceed for the Board the sum which was before paid? I am not prepared to say, not having considered the subject, whether those restrictions are carried too far. Their object is partly to preserve uniformity of system as to salaries and establishments throughout India, in order that one portion of the service may not have reason to complain that others are treated better than themselves; and partly for the sake of the general finances of India; since the duty of keeping the expenses within the means rests with the authority which controls the affairs of all India, and not with any sectional department.

Do you think it would be conducive to the general public service, if the Court of Directors were to make this alteration (which they might do of their own authority) as regards the composition of the Council, namely, always to have in the Council a military member, and another member who had been engaged in the Judicial Department, and another who had been engaged in the Revenue Department; and in making provisional appointments, to make the succession provisional dependent upon the coming away, or upon the death of the member whom they particularly wished to replace by the person to whom the provisional appointment was given; so that a revenue member would succeed a revenue member, and a military member would succeed a military member; and the Council would always represent those three great departments? The point would be well worth consideration; but it must be remembered that many members of the service had both revenue and judicial experience. In fact, as a general rule, almost all persons who rise to be members of Council have in some degree combined both those functions.

Must not considerable public inconvenience be caused by this state of things which once happened, that the military member of the Council died, and he was succeeded by a gentleman taken from the judicial department who had a provisional appointment, and the Council was left without a military member, while it had two who were acquainted with law? I think the suggestion involved in the question has much to recommend it; but I am not prepared to give a positive opinion.

Must it not have been so originally, because formerly the members of Council consisted of the heads of departments? That was according to the first constitution of the Council, when it was much more numerous.²⁷

Was not it at that time a Council consisting of the heads of departments, and were not they in the Council only because they were the heads of departments? I believe it was so, but only under a very ancient constitution of the Council; certainly not since the time of Warren Hastings.

Would you think it desirable to re-establish the Law Commission?²⁸ I would. I think it of great importance, not only to have an officer forming part of the Government whose business it should be to attend to legislation pro hâc vice, but also that what the Legislature certainly intended in the last Charter Act should not be left uncompleted. The intention of the Legislature in appointing the Law Commission was, that the whole law of India and the constitution of the courts of justice should be deliberately considered, and, as far as necessary, remodelled; that great improvements should be made in the procedure of the courts, and that the substantive laws should be consolidated and reduced to a code. This has been in a very small degree performed as yet, because there has not, I think, been sufficient importance attached to it by any of the authorities. I think it very desirable that the subject should be revived.

The home Government at this moment exercise an absolute control over the Government in India. Within what limits do you think that control should be exercised? There are very few acts of the Government of India which it is possible for the authorities here to set aside when they are once done. Some very important things they can do: they can put a stop to pecuniary jobbing when they detect it; they can cancel improper appointments, and control salaries and establishments; and they can, and often do, redress the grievances of individuals. But in most of the political measures of a general character, they have very little power of interfering with effect or advantage, after the thing is done. They have, however, a great power of making useful comments, which may serve as instructions for subsequent cases of the same kind; and it seems to me the greatest good that the home authorities can do is to comment freely on the proceedings of the local authorities, to criticise them well, and lay down general principles for the guidance of the Government on subsequent occasions.

Do they exercise that function at present as frequently and as successfully as they have done heretofore? I think the defect, perhaps a natural one in a Government constituted like that of India (and it is a defect of most Governments), is that there is an aversion to lay down any principle that goes beyond the particular occasion. Governments are almost always disinclined to commit themselves to opinions, except on a specific point, and as narrow a one as possible; but when an opinion is given, even confined to a specific point, and reasons are assigned for it, they necessarily involve some principle, and that principle, whether expressly stated or involved by implication in the decision, must serve as some guidance for future occasions.

Do you think that the home Government are more disinclined to laying down general principles than they used to be? I think, perhaps, they are; I think there is less disposition to lay down general principles than there was formerly, perhaps in consequence of the greater interest now taken by individual members of the Court in the proceedings, and the greater application of their minds to them than formerly; for that very reason, there is a greater number of objections, and it is more difficult to frame any statement of principles that shall command a majority.

Are there any further improvements in the constitution of the legislative and administrative body at Calcutta which you can suggest? I am not prepared to make any other suggestions.

Do you see any difficulties likely to accrue from the unlicensed liberty of the press? I think both the dangers and the advantages of the free press in India have been very much overrated: that the dangers were overrated is proved by the fact; it was anticipated by many people, that if full license were allowed to the press, it would drive us out of India altogether.

Do not you believe that there is this difference in the character of the Indian press, as compared with the press of this country, that whereas in this country the tone of the press is decidedly superior to that of ordinary conversation on the subjects of which it treats, in India it is the exact reverse of that; and that if any one were to form an opinion of the general state and tone of European society from the comments made by the Indian press, he would form a very unfair estimate of the general character of European society in the country? I cannot speak from much actual knowledge of the Indian press; my impression certainly is, that the English newspapers in India are of very little use to good government, except in promoting inquiry, and drawing the attention of the Government to facts which they might have overlooked. From the little knowledge I have of the Indian newspaper press, I should say that its comments are seldom of any value.

Is not the style such as does not prevail in good society; would not it give to those who read habitually the leading articles in those papers an impression that the tone of society is very inferior to what it is? I am not sufficiently acquainted with the Indian press to be able to answer the question.

Are you aware that in point of fact, the tone of society in India is as good as it is in this country? I know nothing to the contrary.

You said that not only were the dangers that were expected to accrue from the establishment of a free press in India exaggerated, but also that the expected advantages were exaggerated. Is that your opinion? It is. As long as the great mass of the people of India have very little access to the press, it is in danger of being an organ exclusively of individual interests. The English newspaper press in India is the organ only of the English society, and chiefly of the part of it unconnected with the Government. It has little to do with the natives, or with the great interests of India.

Does not the Government of India labour under this particular disadvantage, that they have no means of defence against unworthy imputations which the press throws out; not being represented in the press? Certainly. It is the practice of the Indian authorities both in India and in England to look on while their proceedings are the subject of unmeasured obloquy by the newspapers and in public discussions, without taking any means of getting a correct statement made of their measures, and of the grounds upon which they have been adopted.

Is there not this difference in India as compared with England, that whereas in England, if an attack is made upon the Government, there is a Government paper that undertakes to rebut it; in India there is no such opportunity of stating the truth? I think the same observation applies to attacks upon the Indian administration in this country; it is very seldom that any portion of the press takes up the cause of the Indian Government.

Do you not think, with reference to the Court of Proprietors, that it might be some advantage if it was necessary that a quorum should be present previously to allowing any public discussion to go on, namely, that there should be, say 40 persons present, instead of having only five, as is the case sometimes now; would it not put some restriction upon their meetings? I have not much considered what would be the effect of such a regulation; but I apprehend that when it is important that a discussion should take place, it would seldom be difficult to obtain as many as 40, or some rather smaller number to be present.

In the course of your examination yesterday you spoke of it as a merit of the Government of India, that it was very much a Government of record, and that everything that was done was to be found upon paper.²⁹Have you ever heard it objected that that system of record and putting everything upon paper at length, is carried to an extent that is practically inconvenient and cumbersome? It is only cumbersome in the sense of making a very great mass of records; but the system of indexing is so perfect that it is easy to refer to everything.

Is it not the fact that it does not necessarily increase the quantity of writing; but it causes all that is written to be sent home? Indian functionaries are obliged to write so quick, that they generally write at great length.

Does not it entail a very large staff of clerks and manual assistants? No doubt it must cause a considerable increase in the establishments, but the expense is amply compensated by the advantage.

Are you acquainted with the manner in which the business is conducted at the Government offices in this country? I have no practical acquaintance with it.

Do you believe that the number of hands compared with the amount of business transacted, and consequently the expense of conducting the business, is much greater in proportion, in the Indian offices, than it is in the offices of the Crown? I am unable to judge. But as the natives in India are paid at a much lower rate than Europeans in England, the number of hands may be much greater without causing greater expense.

Must there not of necessity be a great deal more writing, in consequence of the double Government, and the necessity of keeping a reserved copy in case of any accident happening to the other? Certainly.

Has not the direction given about the year 1829 or 1830, that every gentleman who wrote a letter should write an abstract of it in a book, failed of producing any effect in diminishing the size of the letters? It has made very little, if any, difference.

Is not the present system very nearly identical with that of the Foreign Office in this country, or, at least, ought it not to be so, according to the order given? I am not acquainted with the system of the Foreign Office.

Is it not the practice in the Indian correspondence to collect discussions upon a number of subjects into one letter? The system of separate letters has been much more resorted to in the last 20 years, in consequence of orders sent out when Lord Ellenborough was President of the Board;³⁰ it has, however, been prescribed to the Governments of India, that they should, in addition to separate letters on subjects of sufficient importance to require them, also write quarterly letters, reporting miscellaneous subjects on which there have been no separate reports, because it was found that previous to that time, many subjects went unreported altogether; and the only way to insure a report of them was, by requiring that there should be letters written which should embrace everything not separately reported.

Has the effect of that rule been that letters which deal with multifarious business are the exceptions, and that letters on separate business are the rule? There is a much greater number of letters on separate subjects, than of miscellaneous letters; but the miscellaneous letters often extend to a greater number of paragraphs.

Is it your opinion that the education adopted in this country, for the civil servants of the Indian Government, is the best that could be adopted? I have great doubts of the necessity or expediency of an exclusive system of education for the civil service. I should be much more inclined to fix a standard of qualification, and admit all persons to receive appointments, if upon examination they are found to come up to that standard, placing the standard high, but allowing them to acquire the knowledge in any way and at any place.

You are not inclined to think that it should be a necessary preliminary that the candidates should have been educated at Haileybury? I am inclined to think the contrary.

Would there be the same facilities of acquiring the requisite knowledge at other places, which there are at Haileybury? If qualifications were required which could be obtained best at Haileybury, there would still be sufficient inducements to seek them there; but I would not make it compulsory. I am not aware of anything necessary for the candidates that can be learned nowhere except at Haileybury.

Does not Haileybury afford particular facilities for obtaining the necessary qualifications? It affords facilities, but they are so costly that it would be possible to obtain them at less expense elsewhere. I speak with deference to the opinions of persons who know more of Haileybury than I do; but my opinion is decidedly against, in any case, requiring as a qualification for employment that the person should have acquired his knowledge at some particular place or in some particular way. I would raise the standard of acquirements as high as possible; but having done that, I would admit a person who possessed the knowledge, in whatever manner he had acquired it.

Would your observation equally apply to the necessity of military education at Addiscombe,³¹or would you think that, in the case of military officers, it would be desirable still to continue that system? As it is necessary to have a special professional education for military purposes, it has been thought necessary everywhere to have institutions for the purpose; and some of the necessary professional qualifications perhaps cannot be acquired except by something like a college. But I would allow a person to acquire it at any institution at which it can be acquired; for instance, at Sandhurst, and at Woolwich.

All that you would require is, that there should be a certain degree of excellence to which they should come up, leaving the parties examined to have had their preliminary education where they may deem it expedient? Certainly.

Are you of opinion that the education acquired at Addiscombe is of a very superior kind? I have every reason to think so.

Do you consider that the acquaintances formed in consequence of persons educated for India belonging to the same college are advantageous, by affording facilities of communication in carrying on their duties in after life? It does not at all follow that they are placed in contact with one another afterwards; if they are, it is accidental, and there is the counterbalancing disadvantage that they begin too soon to associate exclusively with one another.

[1 ]Pratap Singh (d. 1847) had been made head of state by the British in 1819, and was deposed in 1839. For the official account, see “Copies or Extracts of Correspondence and Papers Relating to, and Explanatory of, the Deposition of the Raja of Sattara, and the Appointment of His Brother as His Successor,” PP, 1843, XXXVIII, Pt. 1, 109-Pt. 2, 675. The resident (referred to below) was Charles Ovans (ca. 1793-1858), who was instrumental in dethroning the Raja, and then was impeached before the Court of Directors. The Governor of Bombay 1838-41 was James Rivett Carnac (1745-1846); members of Council who expressed opinions included William Wilberforce Bird (d. 1857) and Thomas Campbell Robertson (1789-1863).

[2 ]For dissents in this case, by Directors John Cotton (1784-1860), John Forbes (1801-40), John Shepherd (d. 1859), and Henry St. George Tucker (1771-1851), see ibid., pp. 604-19.

[3 ]Henry Dundas (1742-1811), 1st Viscount Melville, was a member of the Board of Control from 1784 and, although not President until 1793, had effective control of Indian affairs until 1801.

[4 ]Charles Forbes (1774-1849), an active member of the Court of Proprietors of the East India Company, had been head of Forbes and Co. in Bombay, and Tory M.P. 1812-32; his son (who died in 1840) was John Forbes (see n2 above).

[5 ]The relevant figures are given in “Return (in Part) to an Order of the House of Lords, dated 29th April 1852, Relative to the Affairs of the East India Company,” Sessional Papers of the House of Lords, 1852, XI, 264.

[6 ]Of the 413, 311 had two votes, 60 had three, and 42 had four, for a total of 970, rather than 910 (ibid.).

[7 ]Charles Watkin Williams Wynn (1775-1850), M.P. 1797-1850, long-time Member of the Board of Control, and its President 1822-28, Speech on the East-India Company’s Charter (13 June, 1833), PD, 3rd ser., Vol. XVIII, cols. 741-51, esp. 744.

[8 ]I.e., 3 & 4 William IV, c. 85 (1833).

[9 ]Act 14 of 1843, “An Act for Regulating the Levy of Customs Duties, and the Manufacture of Salt in the North-western Provinces of the Presidency of Bengal” (5 Aug., 1843), PP, 1845, XXXIV, 111-13.

[10 ]The three Presidencies of Fort William in Bengal (Calcutta), Madras, and Bombay then formed the leading provincial governments in British India. Established by the end of the seventeenth century, each Presidency government originally consisted of a Governor and Council, with the Governor of Fort William, designated as Governor-General under the Regulating Act of 1773, exercising supervisory powers over the other two Presidencies. Under the Charter Act of 1833 the Governor-General was appointed Governor-General of India with increased powers, while continuing for the time being to act as Governor of the Presidency of the Lower Provinces of Bengal (the Upper Provinces being formed into a separate administration later known as the North-Western Provinces). Within each Presidency the most important unit of administration was the Zillah (Zila) or District, usually headed by an official known as the Collector and Magistrate.

[11 ]Sessional Papers of the House of Lords, 1852, XI, 264, gives the number of voters as 1,765; of these 93 had seen civil and 160 military service in India, for a total of 253.

[12 ]The practice was instituted by Sect. 1 of 13 George III, c. 63 (1773).

[13 ]The Committee adjourned, to resume at 1 p.m. on the next day.

[14 ]See the evidence of William Wilberforce Bird and of James Cosmo Melvill (1792-1861), Secretary to the East India Company 1836-58, PP, 1852-53, XXX, 95-124 (esp. 98), and 7-72 (esp. 68).

[15 ]See “Dispatch Accompanying the Government of India Act, 1833 (3 & 4 William IV, c. 85), No. 44 (10 Dec., 1834),” printed in Courtenay Peregrine Ilbert, The Government of India (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1898), pp. 492-532, esp. 493-4 (Sects. 4-5) and 497-8 (Sects. 15-16). Attributed to James Mill by tradition in the East India House.

[16 ]Richard Colley Wellesley (1760-1842), Marquess Wellesley, was Governor-General 1798-1805. His advocacy of freer trade between India and Britain and his educational projects brought him into repeated conflict with the Court of Directors.

[17 ]William Pitt (1759-1806) was Prime Minister 1783-1801 and 1804-06; his government was especially strong during the wars with France following the French Revolution.

[18 ]When in 1832 the King of Oudh was pressed by money-lenders, the Board of Control obtained a mandamus from the Court of King’s Bench to compel the Court of Directors to send a despatch insisting that the debts be repaid, but in the face of the Directors’ continued opposition, the Board did not persist. Mill refers to the matter in his “India Bill, I” (July 1853), CW, Vol. XXIV, p. 1191.

[19 ]By 5 & 6 William IV, c. 52 (1835) the North-West Provinces were established as a Sub-Presidency, at Agra, under a Lieutenant-Governor, subordinate to the Governor-General at Bengal.

[]Charles Beckett Greenlaw (1784-1844), Secretary to the Bengal Marine Board at Calcutta from 1829 to 1844, and a well-known advocate of steam navigation.

[21 ]Henry Montgomery Lawrence (1806-57), who had served with distinction in the Kabul campaign and the Sikh wars, was the President of the Board of Administration in the Punjab 1849-53. Thomas Munro (1761-1827), after service in the first Mahratta war, spent some years in civil administration, and after further military and civil service, was Governor of Madras 1820-27.

[22 ]Henry Pottinger (1789-1856), who served during the Mahratta wars, became Collector at Ahmadnagar (and eventually Governor of Madras); Robert Barnewall (d. 1848), who rose to the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel in the Bombay Army in 1831, was Assistant Collector of the Eastern Zillah north of Mahi in 1819, and Political Agent in Kathiawar from 1821 to 1832; Archibald Robertson (d. 1847), after an Indian military career beginning in 1800, became Collector of the Eastern Zillah north of Mahi in 1817, Collector of Khandesh 1823-26, and, after his return to England, a Director of the East India Company from 1840.

[23 ]By Sect. 87 of 3 & 4 William IV, c. 85.

[24 ]Haileybury College, Hertford, was founded in 1805 to train the nominees for the Indian Civil Service, who were required to spend two years there studying mathematics, natural history, classical and general literature, law and jurisprudence, history, political economy, and one Indian language and its literature.

[25 ]Warren Hastings (1732-1818), the first Governor-General of Bengal 1774-85, had defeated the Rohillas in 1773. After Fyzoolla (Faizulla) Khan, the Rohilla chief, died in 1794, there was a struggle between his sons for the succession; eventually his grandson, Ahmad Ali, succeeded with British aid. He died childless, and was succeeded in 1840 by his cousin, Muhammad Saiyid Khan (d. 1855).

[26 ]James Thomason (1804-53), Lieutenant-Governor of the North-Western Provinces (of which Agra was capital) 1843-53.

[27 ]By Sect. 7 of 13 George III, c. 63 (1773).

[28 ]For the Commission and the Commissioners, see “Penal Code for India,” above; the code they proposed had still not been enacted.

[29 ]See p. 33 above.

[30 ]Edward Law (1790-1871), Earl of Ellenborough, was President of the Board of Control 1828-30 (and 1834-35, 1841, and 1858; he was Governor-General 1842-44); the instruction is in “Letter from the Board of Control to the Court of Directors” (13 Oct., 1829), India Office Library and Records, Letters from the Board of Control to the Company, E/2/35, pp. 370-9.

[31 ]Addiscombe, the military equivalent of Haileybury, was founded in Surrey in 1809; the two-year course, initially for artillery and engineering cadets (and after 1816, infantry cadets as well), who were nominated by the East India Company’s Directors, included mathematics, fortifications, military and civil drawing, and surveying.