Book I, Chapter 12: Administration

CHAPTER XII

ADMINISTRATION

THE Company’s Charter, renewed in 1834, was to expire in 1854. A fresh renewal was contemplated, and the usual inquiries into the past administration of the Company were instituted by Select Committees of both Houses of Parliament. The evidence taken by the Select Committees, and published in the shape of Blue Books, are the most valuable materials for the history of India during the early years of Queen Victoria’s reign.

A Select Committee of the House of Lords sat in 1852; examined Cosmo Melvill, Sir George Clerk, John Stuart Mill, and other important witnesses; and submitted their Report in June 1852. And a Select Committee of the Lords sat again in 1852–53; and submitted three Reports in August 1853. Among the witnesses examined by this Committee were Lord Hardinge, Lord Gough, Sir Charles Napier, Sir Edward Ryan, Sir Erskine Perry, Sir Charles Trevelyan, Frederick Halliday, George Campbell, Alexander Duff, John Marshman, and Horace Hayman Wilson—names well known in India.

Similarly, a Select Committee of the House of Commons, consisting of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lord John Russell, Sir Charles Wood, Cobden, Gladstone, and other Members sat in 1852. They examined Lord Elphinstone, Lord Ellenborough, Lord Hardinge, Sir George Clerk, Cosmo Melvill, Henry Thoby Prinsep, and other witnesses; and submitted their Report in June 1852. And a Select Committee of the Commons, consisting of the Members named above and other Members like Macaulay, Lord Stanley, and Lord Palmerston, sat during the Session of 1852-53. They examined Sir George Clerk, Sir Edward Ryan, Sir Erskine Perry, Sir Charles Trevelyan, Frederick Halliday, Hay Cameron, Merttins Bird, Dr. Royle, John Sullivan, John Marshman, and other witnesses; and submitted six Reports between May and August 1853.

We do not propose to give within the limits of the present chapter anything like a summary of this evidence, submitted with eleven Reports, and covering four thousand folio printed pages. All that it is possible for us to do is to place before the reader the views and opinions of some of the most eminent men of the day on some of the most important questions of their time. There is a distinct advantage in reviewing the Indian administration of the early Victorian Age by help of the opinions of those who took a share in that administration. We not only clearly understand the system which was followed, but we also see how the system worked. We not only learn the rules which guided the administrators, but we also get a living picture of the administration itself, from the very men who spent twenty or thirty or forty years of their lives in carrying on the work, amidst the vast population of the Indian Empire.

DOUBLE GOVERNMENT.

The India Act of 1834, following Pitt’s India Act of 1784, organised a double government for India. The powers of administration were left with the twenty-four Directors of the East India Company; the powers of control were placed in the hands of a Board of Control consisting of men appointed by the Crown. The Company ceased to be traders, and stood forth simply as administrators in India from 1834. And it was declared that all the powers of the Directors of the Company should be subject to the control of the Board, except in respect of the appointment of servants and officers specified in the Act. The Court of Directors originated everything; the Board of Control controlled everything. For convenience of work, the twenty-four Directors divided themselves into three Committees, viz. the Committee of Finance, the Committee of Political and Military Affairs, and the Committee of Revenue and Judicial matters.[^1]

There was, however, one important subject in which the Court of Directors had no power of initiative. The Board of Control made peace or war without consulting the Directors, acting through a Secret Committee of the East India Company. “All proceedings of a great political nature, involving peace and war, may be said to be under the immediate direction of the Minister of the Crown, acting in communication with the chief authority in India through the Secret Committee of the East India Company, which so far acts entirely independently of the Directors of the East India Company.”[^2]

It thus happened that India was often involved in war through the action of the President of the Board of Control—a Member of the British Cabinet—without the knowledge of the Court of Directors. If the Court of Directors had any power in the matter, Lord Auckland’s Afghan War, “which ended in the loss of 15,000 men, and an expenditure of many millions of money, might have been prevented.” “The Court of Directors have no knowledge whatever of the origin, progress, or the present state of the war in Burma. I have twice asked for the papers, and I have been given to understand that it was not thought desirable to communicate them to the Court.”[^3]

It is scarcely necessary to point out that, by this unsatisfactory arrangement, Imperialist British Ministers like Lord Palmerston could, and did, involve India in expeditions and wars for the Imperial interests of England; and the Court of Directors had to find money for such wars undertaken without their consent or knowledge. The Court of Directors have many sins to answer for; and they hastened their own end by the annexations of Indian States effected by an untrue interpretation of the ancient law of India. But it should be said in justice to that body that for the worst Indian wars of the early Victorian Age—the wars in Afghanistan, in Sindh, and in Burma—the Court of Directors are not answerable.

Leaving aside this undoubted defect in the constitution of the Government, the double system answered well enough in practice. It kept the Directors of the Company under a necessary control, and it avoided the evil of vesting Crown Ministers with irresponsible and despotic powers. The wisest and ablest Governor-General of the period declared that “the system of double government is much wiser than bringing the Crown more prominently forward.”[^4] And the most thoughtful and far-seeing English philosopher of the nineteenth century approved of the system. John Stuart Mill had been for thirty years an Assistant Examiner of Indian Correspondence, from 1823 to 1852, and he therefore spoke with authority on the system under which he had worked.

JOHN STUART MILL’S EVIDENCE.

“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.”

“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.”

To carry on the Government of India solely through a Secretary of State “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.”[^5]

Fifty years have passed since John Stuart Mill gave this opinion, and our experience of these fifty years proves the foresight and wisdom of the great philosopher. The administration of India has certainly improved in many respects, within these fifty years, owing to larger experience ; but there can be little doubt that the irresponsible government of the Secretary of State has also been attended with many hurtful results. There is no real control over the Secretary of State’s action, similar to that which was exercised on the Court of Directors by the Board of Control ; no periodical inquiries are made into the present administration, as inquiries were made into the Company’s administration at every renewal of their Charter ; and no jealous and salutary criticism, like that to which the Company was subject, restrains and corrects the action of the present Indian Government. And the results of this irresponsible administration have not been altogether happy. To confine ourselves to financial matters only, the annual revenues of India averaged thirty millions sterling in the last five years of the Company’s administration; and out of this sum, only three and a half millions were remitted to England for Home Charges. By the last year of Queen Victoria’s reign, 1900–1901, the revenues had been nearly doubled, amounting to fifty-five millions excluding railway and irrigation receipts, although the extent of the empire remained much the same,[^6] and the wealth and income of the people had certainly not increased. And a sum exceeding seventeen millions was remitted to England as Home Charges. This enormous economic drain (increased fivefold in less than fifty years) would have been impossible under the rule of the East India Company.

OPINION OF BRITISH MERCHANTS.

British merchants and manufacturers always desired India to be well governed, but never had, or could have, that “strong interest in good government” which alone could ensure it. They naturally looked primarily at their own trade and manufacturing interests; and they believed that if the East India Company were abolished, and India were placed directly under a Crown Minister, it would be possible to secure further facilities for British trade with India, by means of pressure brought on the Crown Minister. It does not surprise us, therefore, that Manchester, Birmingham, and Liverpool differed from the opinion of Lord Hardinge and John Stuart Mill, and suggested the government of India through a Crown Minister.

The City of Manchester, in Public Meeting assembled, “believe that no security can be given for the reform of abuses in India, but by a thorough reform of its home administration of government; and entertain the opinion that the Court of Directors and Proprietors of the East India Stock should be entirely disconnected from the Government of India, which, for the future, should in this country consist of a Minister and a Council appointed by the Crown, and directly responsible to the Imperial Parliament.”[^7]

The Liverpool East India and China Association pointed out the necessity of " improved means of internal communication for produce and merchandise to and from the seaports of India"; protested against the excessive land-tax of India and against the suppression of the gold standard; asked for a better administration of justice and of the police; exclaimed against delays in the Customs department; and " would in all humility suggest the expediency of extending to India in some form the immediate authority and supervision of the Board of Control."[^8]

The inhabitants of Birmingham in Public Meeting assembled, “believe that no security can be given for the reform of abuses in India, but by a thorough reform of its home administration, and prayed that the Parliament would “abolish the existing system of a double government, and establish a home administration appointed by the Crown, and directly responsible to the Imperial Parliament.”[^9]

The administrative policy of the British Empire is determined, not by philosophers and statesmen, but by the merchants, manufacturers and the voters of Great Britain. And when the manufacturers and merchants of Great Britain desired a Crown Government for India, the introduction of that form of government was only a question of time.

DEMAND FOR REPRESENTATION.

Faintly, and from far across the seas, was heard the first demand for representation from the people of India.

The Madras Native Association and the Native Inhabitants of the Presidency of Madras suggested that the Council of Madras “be composed of officials and non-officials in equal number, six or seven of each; the former to be nominated by the Government on taking their place at the Council Board in virtue of their office, the Advocate-General being one; and the latter to be selected by the Governor out of a list of eighteen or twenty-one persons chosen by the votes of the rate-payers in Madras, and of persons eligible to serve on the grand and petty juries, or in such other manner as your Honourable House may deem preferable. That as the official members, in conjunction with the casting vote of the Governor when requisite, could always carry any point of absolute importance, there could be no hindrance to the safe working of the suggested plan, while a sufficiency of information on all subjects would be afforded.”[^10]

The Members of the Bombay Association, and other Native Inhabitants of the Presidency of Bombay, submitted “that the time has arrived when the Natives of India are entitled to a much larger share than they have hitherto had in the administration of the affairs of their country, and that Councils of the Local Governments should, in matters of general policy and legislation, be opened, so as to admit of respectable and intelligent Natives taking a part in the discussion of matters of general interest to the country, as suggested by Lords Ellenborough, Elphinstone, and others.”[^11]

The Members of the British Indian Association and other Native Inhabitants of the Bengal Presidency submitted for the consideration of Parliament “the propriety of constituting a Legislative Council at Calcutta, composed of seven members—three selected from among the most respectable and qualified Native Inhabitants of each Presidency to represent the Natives thereof—one member appointed by the Governor of each Presidency from among the senior Civil Officers on its establishment to represent the interests of the Government—and one member appointed by the Crown.”

While Indian Associations thus put forward their cautious and almost timid claims for representation, they also urged their claims for a larger share of employment in the higher offices, according to that famous clause in the Act of 1833 which was so much applauded in the House of Commons, and so consistently ignored in India. And English witnesses testified to the violation of the promise made to the Indian people. Hay Cameron, Legal Member of the Governor-General’s Council from 1843 to 1848, was emphatic on this point.

Lord Monteagle.—As far as declaration goes, could there be any much stronger declaration of the general eligibility of the Natives than that which is contained in the 87th clause of the last Act?

Hay Cameron.—No, it seems to me very strong and very clear. . . .

Lord Monteagle.—Taking the clause in the larger sense in which you interpret it, have the practical results been such as to realise the expectations of the framers of the clause?

Hay Cameron.—No, quite the reverse. Not a single Native that I am aware of has been placed in any better position in consequence of that clause in the statute, than he would have been in, if no such clause had been enacted.

The evidence of Sir Charles Trevelyan was still more emphatic. He referred to the Imperial nations of the past—to the Macedonians and the Romans—and showed how lasting empires had been founded by placing conquered nations “on a complete footing of equality” with the conquerors; and he gave his opinion that “the best mode of retaining our Empire over India is by employing the Natives in posts of trust and emolument; but that for that purpose they should be educated so as to qualify them better to perform those duties.”[^12]

The Act of 1833 was passed in the full tide of true Liberalism, only a year after the first Reform Act was passed in England. Since then, true Liberalism had ebbed, and the tide of Imperialism had swollen in England, and a regard for the people had abated in India. Francis Robinson, who had been a judge and a Member of the Board of Revenue in India, testified to this melancholy fact.

“There is a strong feeling of dislike,” he said, “on the part of the ruling race in India to the people who are ruled over; the fact was known no better to any man than to the late Lord William Bentinck who first attempted to stem the current of that feeling, and to raise the Native population in the scale of society.”

“Do you wish the Committee to understand,” Francis Robinson was asked, “that the regard paid to the feelings of the Natives has or has not been increased greatly since particular attention was drawn to the subject by the measures of the Governor-General, Lord William Bentinck, himself?”

“I think,” answered Francis Robinson, “there has been a reaction upon that point. Since the time of Lord William Bentinck there has been a reaction.”[^13]

Two decades had passed since the reforms of Lord William Bentinck. He had endeavoured to open out new positions of trust and responsibility to the people by the creation of such posts as those of Principal Sudder Amins, Deputy Magistrates and Deputy Collectors. But after he had left India, little further progress was made. The number of Indians employed in Civil Administration in 1828, the year of Lord William’s arrival in India, and in 1849, i.e. twenty-one years after, is shown in the following statement.[^14]

Less than three thousand Indians found employment in Government services in British India in 1849. Less than a thousand of them held any posts of honour, trust, and responsibility.

EXECUTIVE ADMINISTRATION.

The principal changes introduced by the Act of 1833, which came into operation in April 1834, provided that Bengal and Agra should be formed into separate Governments. Bengal still remained directly under the Governor-General, Lord William Bentinck; while Sir Charles Metcalfe was appointed the first Governor of Agra. A Legal Member was added to the Governor-General’s Council, and Macaulay was the first Legal Member who was sent out to India. Hitherto each Province—Bengal, Madras, and Bombay—had enacted its own Regulations; henceforth the Governor-General, with the aid of his Council, was enabled to pass Acts applicable to all India.

Bengal still remained without a separate Governor; the Governor-General of India was also the Governor of Bengal; and Henry Thoby Prinsep was gazetted Secretary both to the Government of India and to the Government of Bengal.[^15]

Madras and Bombay were, in theory, made more directly subordinate to the Governor-General, but unfortunately there was little inclination to interfere with the virtual independence of the administration of those Provinces. “The Governor-General in Council in Calcutta very seldom interferes with the internal arrangements of the Madras and Bombay Governments; he does so in finance when an expenditure in money is required, and in Legislative Acts; but in revenue, police, and judicial matters, he seldom, if ever, interferes.”[^16]

When the Punjab was annexed in 1849, it was made into a fifth Province, and was placed under a Board consisting of the two Lawrences and Mansel, as has been described in a previous chapter. The Board was disestablished after three years, and John Lawrence was made chief Commissioner of the Punjab in 1852.

Each of the Provinces was divided into districts; and district officers, combining in themselves criminal, revenue, and executive duties, still conducted the administration in the primitive method organised by Warren Hastings and Lord Cornwallis in the previous century. The more important criminal cases were tried by judges, who, with their Indian subordinates, disposed of all civil cases.

JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION.

Each Province had two superior Courts, the Sudder Court consisting of the Company’s civil servants, and the Supreme Court consisting of judges appointed by the Crown. There was a consensus of opinions that the Courts should be amalgamated.

Sir Erskine Perry, who had been puisne judge, and then Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Bombay between 1841 to 1852, thought it “extremely desirable to amalgamate them, and one of the first institutions for the improvement of India would be to let all the justice of India run in the Queen’s name. . . . The system which I suggest would, to a great extent, prevent that collision of Courts which now takes place.”

Sir Edward Ryan, who had been puisne judge, and then Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Bengal between 1827 and 1842, also thought that “the amalgamation of the Supreme Court and the Sudder Court is desirable. The notion which I entertain is this, that it would be desirable to unite the Queen’s Judges with the Company’s Judges in one Court, and such Court should be an appellate Court for the Presidency in which it is established.”

Sir Edward Gambier, who had been puisne judge, and then Chief Justice of Madras between 1836 and 1850, said: “Every suggestion which I might make would probably have reference to what I think a most desirable measure, the union of the two Courts at the Presidency, the Supreme Court and the Sudder Adalat Court.”[^17]

The opinion of the Bar was as emphatic as that of the Bench, and John Farley Leith, an English barrister who had taken up practice in the Privy Council in London after retiring from Calcutta, described the advantages of the proposed amalgamation very clearly. “There should be associated with the Company’s Officers, who are members of the Covenanted Civil Service of India, professionally educated English judges. . . . The Covenanted Service Judges would bring into practical use all their experience and knowledge of the institutions of the country and the people, their manners and their usages, and you would then have an educated, practical lawyer to exercise his judgment on the facts and law, guided by a legal mind accustomed to accurate investigation and logical reasoning.”[^18]

The British Indian Association of Bengal also submitted " that the Sudder Court and the Supreme Court should be amalgamated as soon as possible.”[^19] In accordance with this strong and unanimous opinion the Courts were amalgamated, and converted into the High Courts of Calcutta, Madras, and Bombay, when the Company’s Charter was renewed.

A Law Commission had been appointed after the passing of the Act of 1833, and Macaulay, the first Legal Member of the Governor-General’s Council, was its first President. The Commission first set to work to frame a Penal Code for India. Macaulay had the Code Napoleon and other materials before him; and the Indian Penal Code was drafted and submitted in 1837. It was then submitted to legal authorities in England and in India, and the observations of the Indian Courts were reviewed in 1847 by the then remaining members of the Law Commission, Elliot and Hay Cameron. The matter then slept for some time, and the draft was subsequently so altered by Bethune, then Legal Member, that it came to be called the Bethune Code.[^20] The Code, however, was not passed into law till after the abolition of the East India Company’s government.

The Law Commission of 1848, then consisting of Elliot and Hay Cameron, also prepared a Criminal Procedure Code; but that too was not passed into law till after the extinction of the Company’s administration. It was Lord Canning, the first Viceroy of India under the Crown, who passed the Penal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code of India, as well as a Code of Civil Procedure.

In the absence of codified law, the Company’s judges and magistrates performed their work as best they could; and Indian officers, appointed to responsible judicial posts, displayed an ability, judgment, and capacity for judicial work, which won the admiration of the highest authorities. Sir Edward Ryan was “very much struck with their capacity and their power of administering justice”; and Sir Erskine Perry cited and supported the opinion of two leading barristers practising in India that “the judgments of the Native judges were infinitely superior to the judgments of the Company’s judges who sat in appeal.”[^21]

Nevertheless the Indian judges were still badly paid. A European judge, said Sir Erskine before the Lords’ Committee, received about £3000 a year, a Munsiff received £120. And examined by the Commons’ Committee in the same year, Sir Erskine stated his opinions still more emphatically.

“I think as connected with the judicial service, in point of both intellectual and moral capacity, there is no judicial employment to which they might not attain. In the case of Zilla judges, where I was suggesting the employment of English barristers, I think it would be very advisable for the Native interests, and for the good government of India, that Natives should be associated with English judges in those posts. . . . I think the great instrument you have in your hands for securing good conduct in your Native officials is the same which you have applied to the English officials in India. By all accounts you have a very trustworthy English service throughout the country; you have obtained it by giving them very large remuneration; by applying the same principle to the Native employés you would secure exactly the same kind of service in my opinion.”[^22]

It is greatly to the credit of Sir Erskine Perry that, although he was merely a judicial officer in India, he could see beyond the precincts of law courts, and judge the character of the people by their ordinary transactions in their daily sphere of life. Immediately after the remarks which we have quoted above, we find Sir Erskine’s views about the commercial integrity of the people of India.

“Their commercial integrity has always been very famous; it is quite remarkable what a principle of mercantile honour has prevailed among them, such as to give security to their paper from one end of India to the other; the sanctity of mercantile books was such that in the Native courts of justice, the production of the books was quite conclusive as to the veracity of any transaction in dispute.”

And we are tempted here to quote the testimony of another Englishman, a contemporary of Sir Erskine Perry, who knew the people of India, not so often in law courts or in commercial offices, as in their village homes. The name of Colonel Sleeman is still remembered in India as a high and distinguished officer who travelled from province to province and from village to village to secure order, to repress crime, and to stamp out the criminals known as Thugs. “I have had before me,” said Colonel Sleeman, “hundreds of cases in which a man’s property, liberty, and life has depended on his telling a lie, and he has refused to tell it.”[^23] Few Englishmen, who have mixed with the people of India only in law courts and offices, will subscribe to this opinion; few of them who have known them in their village homes will deny it. For it is a simple truth, which every observer can verify for himself, that in their everyday life, in their family relations, as in their social and commercial transactions, the vast population of India are as simple and honest, faithful and truthful, as any nation on earth.

POLICE ADMINISTRATION.

The least successful feature in British administration in India was, and is to this day, the Police. Frederick Halliday, who became soon after the first Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal, described the Police administration of India in his time at great length.

“The truth is, that the subordinate officers of the Police are generally very much underpaid, and being exposed to great temptations, are extremely corrupt. . . . Immediately under the Magistrate or Deputy Magistrate there is a Daroga or Thanadar who, till comparatively late years, was paid at the rate of 25 rupees (50s.) a month; he has large powers, and is stationed in the centre of a jurisdiction of 200 to 300 square miles. . . . Under the Daroga is an officer called the Muharrar or clerk, whose business it is to take down depositions in writing, and to keep the records belonging to the Police Station; he also undertakes precisely the same duties as the Daroga whenever the Daroga is not present, or when deputed by the Daroga to perform them; his salary is 8 rupees (16s.) a month. There is also a Jamadar, whose salary is 8 or 10 rupees (16s. or 20s.) a month, and who performs similar duties (except those of writing), subject to the directions of the Daroga; and there are some ten to twenty-five constables or Barkandazes, who receive from 4 to 5 rupees (8s. or 10s.) a month, and who, upon a pressure of business, are sometimes deputed alone to make investigations into occurrences under the orders of the Daroga. Below all these, who are paid officers of the Government, there are the watchmen of the village.” Further on Halliday said: “I cannot say that crime is diminishing. It is diminishing in atrocity; for instance, Dacoities (robberies by gangs) in the Lower Provinces are as numerous as ever; in the immediate neighbourhood of Calcutta more numerous; but they are greatly diminished in cruelty and atrocity.”[^24]

Another witness, Robert Torrens, who had served as Magistrate, Judge, and Commissioner of Police in India, referred to the combination of the Police and Judicial duties in the same officer as a source of much evil.

Lord Harrowby.—The same man has to hunt out the crime and the criminal and to decide upon the crime afterwards?

Torrens.—He has.

Lord Harrowby.—That is objectionable, not only in theory, but found to be so in practice?

Torrens.—I think, highly so; in my experience it has been so.[^25]

VILLAGE COMMUNITIES.

It is somewhat remarkable that no British administrator of this period seriously endeavoured to improve the police and general administration of the country by accepting the co-operation of the people themselves and their Village Communities. India had been the earliest home of Village Communities, and for centuries and thousands of years these self-governing Communities had maintained order and peace, and settled disputes in villages, even when there was anarchy in the realm.

In Madras Province, it was reported as early as 1812, that “under this simple form of Municipal Government the inhabitants of the country have lived from time immemorial. . . . The inhabitants give themselves no trouble about the breaking up and divisions of kingdoms; while the village remains entire, they care not to what power it is transferred, or to what sovereign it devolves; its internal economy remains unchanged.”[^26]

In the Province of Bombay, it was reported in 1819 that “these communities contain in miniature all the materials of a State within themselves, and are almost sufficient to protect their members if all other governments are withdrawn.”[^27]

And in Northern India, Sir Charles Metcalfe had stated in 1830 that “the Village Communities are little republics, having nearly everything they want within themselves. They seem to last where nothing else lasts. Dynasty after dynasty tumbles down, revolution succeeds to revolution, Hindu, Pathan, Moghal, Mahratta, Sikh, English, are masters in turn, but the Village Communities remain the same. . . . The union of the Village Communities, each one forming a separated little State in itself, has, I conceive, contributed more than any other cause to the preservation of the people of India through all revolutions and changes which they have suffered, and it is in a high degree conducive to their happiness, and to the enjoyment of a great portion of freedom and independence.”[^28]

It is a lamentable fact that these ancient and self-governing institutions have declined, and virtually disappeared, under the too centralised administration of British rulers. Some degree of trust in the leaders of the villages, some powers in revenue, criminal and police administration, and a careful and sympathetic supervision for the prevention of abuses, would have enabled these Communities to render good service to the present day. No system of successful self-government has been introduced after the old forms were effaced; no representatives of the village population help the administration of the present day; and an alien Government lacks that popular basis, that touch with the people, which Hindu and Mahomedan Governments wisely maintained through centuries.

EDUCATION.

Western Education is perhaps the greatest of blessings India has gained under British Rule. It was not without much hesitation that the Directors of the East India Company consented to impart English education to the people of India. When in 1792, Wilberforce proposed to add two clauses to the Charter Act of that year for sending out schoolmasters to India, he encountered the greatest opposition in the Court of Proprietors, and the clauses were withdrawn. And the proposal gave rise to a memorable debate among the Directors.

“On that occasion, one of the Directors stated that we had just lost America from our folly in having allowed the establishment of schools and colleges, and that it would not do for us to repeat the same act of folly in regard to India; and if the Natives required anything in the way of education they must come to England for it.”[^29]

The only educational institutions, therefore, founded up to 1792, were a Mahomedan College founded by Warren Hastings at Calcutta in 1781, and a Sanscrit College founded by Lord Cornwallis at Benares in 1792. The objects of these institutions, however, were mainly to train law officers—Maulavis and Pandits—to help English judges in the judicial administration of the country. The disinclination to spread education among the people continued for twenty years more; and it was in 1813 that the British Parliament for the first time ordered a sum of £10,000 to be appropriated to the education of the people of India in the three Provinces. Nothing, however, was done to apply this fund for ten years more, i.e. till 1823.[^30]

In the meantime, private enterprise had started English education in Bengal. “There were two persons who had to do with it; one was Mr. David Hare, and the other was a Native, Ram Mohan Roy. In the year 1815 they were in consultation one evening with a few friends, as to what should be done with a view to the elevation of the Native mind and character. Ram Mohan Roy’s proposition was that they should establish an Assembly or Convocation, in which what are called the higher or purer dogmas of Vedantism or ancient Hinduism might be taught. . . Mr. David Hare was a watchmaker in Calcutta, an ordinary illiterate man himself, but being a man of great energy and strong practical sense, he said, the plan should be to institute an English school or college for the instruction of Native youth. Accordingly he soon drew up and issued a circular on the subject, which gradually attracted the attention of the leading Europeans, and among others, of the Chief Justice, Sir Hyde East. Being led to consider the proposed measure, he entered heartily into it, and got a meeting of European gentlemen assembled in May 1816. He invited, also, some of the influential Natives to attend. Then it was unanimously agreed that they should commence an institution for the teaching of English to the children of the higher classes to be designated the Hindu College of Calcutta. A joint Committee of Europeans and Natives was appointed to carry the design into effect. In the beginning of 1817 the college, or rather school, was opened; and it was the very first English seminary in Bengal, or even in India, as far as I know.[^31]

In 1832, i.e. ten years after the educational grant of £10,000 had been ordered by Parliament, the Bengal Government appointed a Committee of Public Instruction. The Committee established Mahomedan Colleges at Agra and Delhi with Sanscrit classes attached; and they also commenced an extensive system of printing Sanscrit and Arabic classics and translating European science into those languages. And the Committee made an annual grant to the Hindu College of Calcutta, which had been established six years before, and this assured its usefulness and success.[^32]

Mountstuart Elphinstone was a friend of English education, and presided at a public meeting in Bombay in 1820, and a society for the promotion of education was formed. He obtained a grant of £5000 for this society for printing works and purchasing prizes, and all education in the vernacular languages was conducted during the next sixteen years through the agency of this society. An inquiry into the state of education in Bombay disclosed that in 1832 there were 1705 schools and 35,143 scholars in that province.[^33]

Elphinstone’s proposal to found a college at Bombay for the training of young civilians, with a department for the training of Indian officials, failed to obtain the sanction of the Directors of the East India Company. The first English school was opened in Bombay in 1828, the year after Elphinstone’s departure; and the great Elphinstone Institution of Bombay was not opened till 1834.

In Madras, a few educational institutions supported by missionaries were in existence in 1828, but there were none supported by the Government. A Hindu named Pachiapa had left a large charity for religious uses; and Mr. Norton, Advocate-General of Madras, succeeded in collecting about £70,000 or £80,000 under his will. In 1839 a central educational institution was founded out of this money, and a Board of Indian Members was appointed for the management of the charity.[^34] The Pachiapa College still continues to be one of the most flourishing and successful educational institutions in Madras.

An English college was established at Delhi through the exertions of Sir Charles Trevelyan.

The arrival of Macaulay in India gave a fresh impetus to English education. With his support and assistance Lord William Bentinck passed the famous Resolution of March 7, 1835, by which the English language was established as the language of superior education in India. The Committee of Public Instruction was enlarged; Macaulay was appointed its President; Sir Edward Ryan, Hay Cameron, and other members were added; and three distinguished Indian gentlemen of the time, Radha Kant Deb, Rosomoy Dutt, and Nawab Tahawar Jung, were also enrolled as members.[^35]

The generous desire to foster English education in India was not, however, shared by all successors of Lord William Bentinck. Lord Ellenborough, who went out to India as Governor-General in 1842, was very mistrustful as to the effects of English education in India, and he attributes the same timid opinions to Dwarkanath Tagore, one of the foremost Indian publicists of the time.

“I recollect having had a visit from the late Dwarkanath Tagore, who was the most intelligent Native that ever appeared in this country, and one of the most intelligent in his own country. I had read in the newspaper that morning a speech which Dwarkanath Tagore had made on the subject of the education of the Natives of India; and when he called upon me, I said: ‘I see you have been making a speech about education.’ He said: ‘Have they printed it?’ I said: ‘Yes, they print everything, but you and I know in this room we need not talk as if we were talking for publication, but we may say exactly what we think. You know that if these gentlemen who wish to educate the Natives of India were to succeed to the utmost extent of their desire, we should not remain in this country for three months.’ He said: ‘Not three weeks;’ and perfectly true was his judgment.”[^36]

Lord Ellenborough’s successor, Lord Hardinge, was an abler administrator and a wiser statesman. He established a hundred schools in the different Districts of Bengal for imparting education in the vernacular, as a preliminary step to higher education in English. And he passed the famous Resolution for the selection of candidates for public employment from those who had been educated in the institutions established. Pandit Iswar Chandra Vidyasagar, the most distinguished educationist and literary man of his time, helped Lord Hardinge in making excellent selections.

Lastly came the famous Educational Despatch of 1854, which virtually accepted the system built up by Bentinck and Hardinge, and laid down rules for a system of education in the vernaculars of India, leading up to higher education in English. The principle is clearly enunciated in these words: “While the English language continues to be made use of, as by far the most perfect medium for the education of those persons who have acquired a sufficient knowledge of it to receive general instruction through it, the vernacular languages must be employed to the far larger class, who are ignorant of, or imperfectly acquainted with English.”[^37]

For the promotion of higher education in English the Despatch approved of the establishment of Universities in India. “The time has now arrived for the establishment of Universities in India, which may encourage a regular and liberal course of education by conferring academical degrees as evidences of attainment in the different branches of art and science, and by adding marks of honour for those who may desire to compete for honorary distinction. The Council of Education, in the proposal to which we have alluded, took the London University as their model; and we agree with them, that the form, government, and functions of that University, (copies of whose Charters and Regulations we enclose for your reference), are the best adapted to the wants of India, and may be followed with advantage, although some variation will be necessary in points of detail.”[^38]

Arrangements were made through grants in aid and in other ways, to impart education through the vernaculars to the generality of the people. And encouragement was also given to the indigenous schools for imparting elementary knowledge to the great mass of the people.[^39]

The Universities of Calcutta, Madras, and Bombay were founded accordingly by Lord Canning; and the system sketched out in this famous Despatch is the system which is pursued in India to the present day. Universities have since been founded at Allahabad and Lahore; and over four million boys were attending educational institutions in British India in the last year of Queen Victoria’s reign.

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION.

Most of the four million boys who attend schools in British India at the present day only receive an elementary education in reading, writing, and arithmetic; and this elementary education was not originated by British administrators, but is indigenous in India. Sir Thomas Munro and Mountstuart Elphinstone reported, after inquiries made early in the nineteenth century, that elementary education had been much more diffused in India from time immemorial than it had been in Europe; and that Indian boys, attending their indigenous schools, showed great powers of mental calculation in simple arithmetic.[^40] The Brahmans and the upper classes of India considered it a part of their religious duty to give some education to their children, and the classes engaged in trades and commerce trained their boys in letters and in accounts, to befit them for their hereditary duties. British administration has recognised, helped, and subsidised this ancient system of elementary education ; but the help given is still inadequate. One of the most pressing wants of the present day is a more liberal help to village primary schools and a wider extension of primary education to cultivating classes, so that every cultivator and labourer in India may find it possible to learn reading, writing, and arithmetic in his own village at a nominal cost. Sir Erskine Perry complained of the smallness of grant in 1853, and pointed out that with such an inadequate grant the Government could not “place schools in every village.” The educational grant continues to be inadequate to the present day, and the duty to “place schools in every village” remains still unfulfilled.[^41]

FEMALE EDUCATION.

The education of girls has not kept pace with the education of boys, if it be judged by the test of attendance in schools. In a country where girls are generally married between the age of ten and fourteen, they seldom attended schools in olden times, and can do so only in very small numbers at the present time; their education must be largely carried on by a system of tuition at home. Drinkwater Bethune, Legal Member of the Governor-General’s Council, made a very praiseworthy and successful endeavour to start a girls’ school in Calcutta, to which he devoted £10,000 from his own personal funds ; [^42] and Bethune School is to this day the most successful institution for girls in India, and teaches up to the highest standard of University Examinations. The Indian Universities, following the example of the London University, bestow degrees on women, and lady graduates take their degrees in Calcutta, Madras, and Bombay. In Primary Schools little boys and girls are often taught together, and the total number of girls attending schools in the last year of Queen Victoria’s reign in British India was somewhat under half a million.

As has been said before, this figure is not a correct index to the spread of female education in India. Girls and girl-wives, belonging to the upper classes, generally receive education at home. And among the lower and unlettered classes, women receive instruction in religious truths and moral duties and in their national traditions and literature, to a much larger extent than in Europe. It may be safely asserted that the mind of the unlettered Indian woman in her village home is at least as well instructed in her religion, as well informed in her national traditions and literature, as the mind of the poor European woman who knows her Bible, and reads occasional stories in penny magazines.

PUBLIC PRESS.

A large mass of correspondence between the Court of Directors and the Indian Government, which was published in 1858 as a Return to an Order of the House of Commons, enables us to trace the interesting history of the Public Press in India.

As early as 1791, under the administration of Lord Cornwallis, one William Duane was arrested by the Bengal Government for deportation to Europe for writing an offensive paragraph in The Bengal Journal. The Supreme Court held that the Government was within its rights; William Duane was warned and released; but he repeated his attack in The World, and was sent to Europe in 1794.

Notices were taken of other attacks in subsequent years, and in 1799 some regulations were passed by the Government of Lord Wellesley to keep the Press in order. No paper was to be published until it had been previously inspected by a Government Official. And the penalty for offending against this and other rules framed was “immediate embarkation for Europe”! The regulations were approved by the Court of Directors.

Many editors were censured for objectionable articles and paragraphs between 1801 and 1818, and many offending writers were compelled to apologise to the Government. New and milder Regulations were passed in 1818 by the Government of the Marquis of Hastings. But editors were still prohibited from publishing “animadversions” on public measures, “discussions” tending to alarm the Native population, as well as “private scandal and personal remarks” tending to excite dissension.

For a number of years after these Regulations were passed, the Government took notice of offensive writings in numerous instances; and Lieutenant-Colonel Robinson was ordered by the Commander-in-Chief to a court-martial in 1822 for writing a violent letter to the Government, in defence of what he had written in the Calcutta Journal under the anonymous title, " A Military Friend.”

In Madras and Bombay also, notice was frequently taken of writings in the Press.

“A free Press,” said the Directors in 1823, “is a fit associate and necessary appendage of a representative constitution. Wherever a Government emanates from the people, and is responsible to them, the people must necessarily have the privilege of discussing the measures of the Government; and whenever the people choose representatives to make laws affecting their persons and property, the right of animadverting on the mode in which this trust is discharged belongs, of course, to the party delegating it. But in no sense of the terms can the Government of India be called a free, a representative, or a popular Government; the people had no voice in its establishment, nor have they any control over its acts.”

“The Governments in India exercise a delegated authority, derived from the Court of Directors and the Board of Control. The Government of India resides in this country [England], and is, of course, responsible to the English public, in common with the Government of England. It is in this country, therefore, and not in India, that its measures ought to be discussed.”[^43]

Such was the opinion held by the Directors in 1823 with regard to the Public Press of India. It must be stated, however, that what was known as the Public Press of India then, was the Press of the small European community in India. It neither represented nor defended the interests of the people; and the people of India had no Press of their own of any influence, at that time or for thirty years after. And thus it happened that, when Lord William Bentinck strove for the advancement of the people of India, and employed them in responsible offices under the Company, he was attacked by the Press of India as no Governor-General has since been attacked.

Lord William’s principal adviser, Macaulay, shared a similar fate; and he refers to the Public Press of India of his time in these memorable words: “That public opinion means the opinion of five hundred persons who have no interest, feeling, or taste in common with the fifty millions among whom they live; that the love of liberty means the strong objection which the five hundred feel to every measure which can prevent them from acting as they choose towards the fifty million.”[^44]

Lord William Bentinck’s successor, Sir Charles Metcalfe, signalised his short administration by giving liberty to the Press, such as it was, in 1835. This truly liberal and bold measure gave violent offence to the Directors of the East India Company. They wrote:—

“This proceeding is in opposition to all our previous orders, to the solemn decisions both of the Supreme Court at Calcutta and of His Majesty’s Privy Council, delivered, in both cases, after full arguments on both sides of the question, to the recorded opinions of all preceding Governments of Bengal, Madras and Bombay.”

“We are compelled to observe that this proceeding must be considered the more unjustifiable, inasmuch as it has been adopted by a Government only provisional.”

“We should then be prepared at once to avail ourselves of the power entrusted to us by Act of Parliament, and disallow your new law when passed, were we not aware that the immediate repeal of such a law, however ill-advised and uncalled for its enactment may have been, might be productive of mischievous results. We shall therefore wait for the deliberate advice of the Governor-General in Council after the arrival of Lord Auckland, your present Governor-General, before we communicate to you our final decision. But you are in possession of our sentiments, and we shall not be sorry to find, that by returning to the former system you have rendered our interference unnecessary.”[^45]

Fortunately, Sir Charles Metcalfe was not the man to be moved from his convictions by the “sentiments” of the Directors, and not likely to return to the former system on account of their threats. And when Lord Auckland came to India two years after, people both in England and in India had already been reconciled to the liberty of the Press, and the good work of Metcalfe was not undone.

Twenty years after, during the troubles of the Indian Mutiny, it was considered necessary to warn one English newspaper,[^46] for articles likely to inflame the minds of the people; and three Indian newspapers were prosecuted. The publishers of two of them[^47] were discharged on their expressing their regret and entering into recognizances. The publisher of the third[^48] was found not guilty and acquitted. Some restraints which were then placed on the Press were subsequently withdrawn.