Book II, Chapter 2: Mayo and Northbrook

CHAPTER II

MAYO AND NORTHBROOK

LAWRENCE was made a peer on his retirement, and he had a worthy successor in India. Lord Mayo was an Irish nobleman of ancient descent, and possessed all the kindly sympathies and generous impulses of his countrymen. His genial and affable disposition disarmed opposition; his strong capacity for work secured efficient administration; and his faithful adherence to the interests of peace enabled him to continue the policy of his predecessor. His dignified demeanour impressed all, and he moved among the princes and chiefs of India, a king among men.¹

Born in Dublin in 1822, Lord Mayo had entered Parliament in 1847, and had served as Chief Secretary for Ireland on three occasions before he went out to India. He was Mr. Disraeli’s selection, and as the Conservative Government fell towards the close of 1868, people expressed a doubt if the succeeding Liberal Ministry would uphold the choice. It is needless to say that Mr. Gladstone declined to listen to party clamour, or to rescind the appointment. And during the three years of Lord Mayo’s Viceroyalty in India, he had the hearty support of the Liberal Ministry.

Lord Mayo took charge of the Indian Administration at Calcutta on January 12, 1869. And we can form some idea of his Viceregal work in India if we pause awhile to take note of his “Cabinet,” and his seven departments. Lord Mayo himself held the “portfolio” of the Foreign Department, and the Public Works departments. The able jurist, Fitz James Stephen, was the Legal Member of his Council, and presided over the Legislative department. Sir Richard Temple, with his varied Indian experience, was his Finance Member. Barrow Ellis was the Home Member, and Sir John Strachey the Revenue Member. Each Member dealt with the current duties of his department, and only brought important matters to the notice of the Governor-General. Once a week he held his Council, consisting of all the Members, and “in this oligarchy all matters of Imperial policy are debated with closed doors.”²

In this brief but pithy sentence we detect all the strength and all the weakness of Indian administration. The “oligarchy” comprised the ablest British officials in India, but has never, within a half century of the Crown administration, admitted an Indian within its body. Neither the revenue, nor the finance department, nor any other department, has ever been entrusted to an Indian. The people of India have no place within the Cabinet; no consultative body of representatives has been organised to advise the Cabinet; no constitutional method has been devised to bring the Cabinet in touch with the people. The best of Governments, composed of the ablest of administrators, must fail of success when the people are so rigidly excluded from the administration of their own concerns.

Only two months after his arrival in India, Lord Mayo received the new Amir of Afghanistan in the famous Umbala Darbar. Sher Ali, who had now secured his position as the ruler of Kabul, came in the hope of obtaining a fixed subsidy from the Government of India. Lord Mayo presented him with the sum of £100,000 which had been already promised, gave him hopes of help and support when desirable, but rightly declined a fixed subsidy. “We have distinctly intimated to the Amir,” wrote Lord Mayo, “that under no circumstances shall a British soldier cross his frontier to assist him in coercing his rebellious subjects. That no fixed subsidy or money allowance will be given for any named period. That no promise of assistance in other ways will be made. That no treaty will be entered into obliging us under every circumstance to recognise him and his descendants as rulers of Afghanistan. Yet that, by the most open and absolute present recognition, and by every public evidence of friendly disposition of respect for his character, and interest in his fortunes, we are prepared to give him all the moral support in our power; and that in addition, we are willing to assist him with money, arms, ammunition, native artificers, and in other ways, whenever we deem it desirable so to do.”³

This was strict adherence to the “Masterly Inactivity” of Lord Lawrence; and Lord Mayo acknowledged this in a letter to Lord Lawrence, written immediately after the Umbala Darbar. “I adhered rigidly to the line laid down—i.e. no treaty engagements which may, hereafter, embarrass us, but cordial countenance and some additional support as it may seem advisable. I believe that when you sent Sher Ali the money and arms, last December, you laid the foundation of a policy which will be of the greatest use to us hereafter. I wish to continue it.”⁴

But Lord Mayo did something more than merely continuing the policy of his predecessor. He developed it in order to secure peace in the Indian frontiers on a firm foundation. His distinctive foreign policy was to establish a ring of friendly and independent kingdoms on the frontiers of India, without interfering with their internal administrations, and without seeking to bring them under British domination. “I have frequently laid down,” wrote Lord Mayo, “what I believe to be the cardinal points of our frontier policy. They may be summed up in a few words. We should establish with our frontier States of Khelat, Afghanistan, Yarkand, Nepal, and Burma, intimate relations of friendship. We should make them feel, that although we are all powerful, we desire to support their nationality. That when necessity arises, we might assist them with money and arms, and perhaps even in certain eventualities with men. We should thus create in them outworks of our Empire, and by assuring them that the days of annexation are passed, make them know that they have everything to gain and nothing to lose by endeavouring to deserve our favour and support.”⁵

In pursuance of this clear, sound, and sensible policy, Lord Mayo sent Douglas Forsyth to discuss and settle matters with Russian Ministers at St. Petersburg in October 1869, and the Oxus was fixed as the northern boundary of the Amir’s dominions. Lord Mayo also succeeded in inducing the Shah of Persia to demarcate the boundary between his kingdom and Beluchistan. And he authorised a British officer to settle the internal dissensions in Beluchistan. Towards Nepal he maintained a firm and friendly attitude; and in Upper Burma he restrained the warlike propensities of the king, and established closer commercial relations. Happy it were for India if the firm and friendly attitude towards surrounding countries had been always maintained by Lord Mayo’s successors.

In the internal administration of India, and especially in financial matters, Lord Mayo’s success was less pronounced. Sir John Lawrence, a stern economist, had failed to secure a surplus; and Lord Mayo succeeded only by adding to the taxes. The fault lay not with them, but with British Ministers, who had thrown burdens on the Indian revenues which Great Britain ought to have shared. The Public Debt of India in 1870 was 102 millions sterling, and the interest on this heavy debt had to be paid. Lord Mayo increased the Income Tax from 1 to 2½ per cent. and then to 3⅛ per cent.; and he enhanced the duty on salt in Madras and in Bombay to secure a surplus.

But more permanent alterations were effected under the administration of Lord Mayo in the Indian financial system. In the first place, the principle was clearly recognised and carried into practice, that Reproductive Works should be undertaken by loans, so that the annual revenue might be devoted entirely to current expenditure. This policy led to large and unjustifiable expenditure on railways, as we shall see in a subsequent chapter; and no adequate sinking fund was provided to reduce the increasing Debt.

The second change was what is known as Lord Mayo’s Decentralisation Scheme. Previous to his time, there were no fixed allotments for the different Provinces of India, and Provincial Governors sought to obtain as much as they could for their own Provinces. He who clamoured most, got most; and Sir John Lawrence had found the utmost difficulty in restraining Sir Bartle Frere from undertaking vast and expensive works for Bombay. By the Constitution of December 14, 1870, Lord Mayo made fixed grants to Provincial Governments for the period of five years, and Provincial Governors administered their own Provinces, as best they could, within the allotments made. There was still a scramble for larger grants once in five years when the allotments are made, but a scramble once in five years was better than a yearly competition among the Governors.⁶

But in a few years it was found necessary to modify this scheme, and to give each Province a fixed share in the Land Revenue and other sources of revenue, instead of a fixed grant.

The third and the most unfortunate financial change introduced under Lord Mayo’s administration was a large increase in Provincial taxes, as distinguished from Imperial revenues. As far back as 1861 the Finance Minister of Lord Canning had referred to the necessity of relieving the Imperial revenues of India by empowering each Province to levy Local Rates within its limits. In 1865 the Finance Minister of Sir John Lawrence had pointed out in his Budget Speech, that the actual proceeds from Local Rates in the year 1864-65 was 2½ millions sterling. Lord Mayo’s Decentralisation Scheme led to large additions to these Local Rates.

When allotments were made for the different Provinces under the Decentralisation Scheme, each Province was allowed less than its requirements, with the express desire that the deficit should be made good by increased Local taxation. The Imperial Exchequer was relieved by multiplying the centres of taxation, as well as by adding to the volume of the taxes. The old sources of the revenues continued; while each Province now imposed new cesses, mostly on land, to add to its own Provincial revenues. This scheme, which will be more fully explained in a subsequent chapter, had been considered and rejected by Lord Lawrence. Its unfortunate adoption by Lord Mayo largely added to the State-demand from the soil, and thus unsettled the rule, which had been adopted in 1855 and 1864, of limiting assessment to one-half the rental.

In the midst of these manifold labours the life of the indefatigable worker was cut short by the knife of an assassin. Lord Mayo went on a visit to the Andaman Islands, a penal settlement; and on February 8, 1872, he was stabbed to death by a convict, in the prime of his life, and in the fulness of his vigour and manhood.

Happily, he was succeeded by another statesman equally eminent, and equally true to the policy of peace. Lord Northbrook was born in 1826, in a family distinguished in Europe for careful and successful commercial transactions. He had acquired a knowledge of India as Under Secretary of State for that dependency. He had adopted the sound views of Lawrence and Mayo on the Indian frontier question. And in his financial administration he had the help and advice of his cousin, Sir Evelyn Baring, who, as Lord Cromer, has since earned a reputation second to none in the British Empire.

Lord Northbrook’s administration, like those of his two predecessors, was a reign of peace. But the administration of a country like India is never unattended with difficulties; and in the second year of his rule Lord Northbrook had to announce to the Secretary of State his serious apprehensions of an impending famine in Bengal.⁷

The terrible mortality caused by the Orissa famine of 1866, and by the famine of Northern India in 1869, was still fresh in the minds of the people; and Lord Northbrook was determined to prevent a repetition of such fatal results in 1874. Ample and timely measures of relief were undertaken; and for once in the history of India, the measures adopted were completely successful. Bengal, with its Permanent Settlement and low rental, was more resourceful than any other Province in India; the people were able to help themselves to a greater extent than elsewhere; and the measures of relief were, therefore, more efficacious in preventing deaths. The inquiries made after the famine, showed that no mortality whatever was due to the famine.

The misrule of the Gaekwar of Baroda was another source of trouble. He was charged also with having instigated an attempt to poison the British Resident. Lord Northbrook gave him a fair trial. Three Englishmen and three Indian Princes formed the tribunal, and Sergeant Ballantyne went out from England to defend the Gaekwar. The tribunal was not unanimous in its verdict, and Sergeant Ballantyne believed to the end of his life that the Gaekwar was guiltless of the alleged attempt. But he had proved himself unfit to rule, and Lord Northbrook, faithful to the Queen’s Proclamation against further annexations, placed a young boy of the ruling house on the throne of Baroda. The experience of a generation has vindicated the wisdom of the measure. Baroda, under its own Government, is one of the best administered States of India. The young prince has lived to prove himself one of the most enlightened rulers in the country.

The Prince of Wales, now his Majesty Edward VII., visited India in the winter of 1875-76, as his brother, the Duke of Edinburgh, had done five years before. And the people of India showed their affection to the royal house by demonstrations of loyalty as sincere as they were universal.

But the fair sky of India was slowly darkened by a little cloud which had arisen in the West. The arduous endeavours of Canning and Lawrence, Mayo and Northbrook, to maintain the peace of India among strong and friendly powers, and to adjust the finances of a poor and resourceless country, were little appreciated in England. Once again the idea rose in the minds of British Imperialists that Russia must be checked in the East. Once again the thought came to them that India should be made to pay for this Imperial game.

Sir Bartle Frere, as Governor of Bombay, had vainly urged a Forward Policy in 1864; his attack on Lawrence’s frontier policy had fallen into Lawrence’s hands, and had been effectively answered. Sir Henry Rawlinson had once again raised the question in 1868, Lord Lawrence had once again replied. But now, when an Imperial reaction had set in in England, Sir Bartle Frere saw his chance; and his famous memorandum of 1874 revived the question. This third endeavour succeeded, because the times were propitious.

Sir Bartle Frere urged in June 1874 that British agents should be placed at Herat, Kandahar, and Kabul; and that instead of maintaining a strong and friendly Afghanistan, a preponderating British influence should be established in that country. The veteran Lord Lawrence replied in November 1874 that the policy advocated by Sir Bartle Frere would be likely to facilitate rather than stop the advance of Russia; that it would turn the Afghan races against the British; that British officers stationed in Afghanistan would be assassinated; that the assassination would be followed by fresh wars. With almost prophetic vision the old seer sketched out in 1874 the very events which actually happened five years after. But his warnings were disregarded; and his unequalled experience and knowledge of the Afghans and the Punjab frontier were ignored. Sir Bartle Frere replied to Lord Lawrence in January 1875; and Lord Salisbury, who had once scoffed the alarms of the forward school with the keenest sarcasm, now accepted the views of Sir Bartle Frere. Lord Salisbury had succeeded the Duke of Argyll as Secretary of State for India when the Conservatives came into power in 1874. And he wrote to Lord Northbrook, suggesting the establishment of a British Agency at Herat, then at Kandahar, and eventually at Kabul.⁸

Lord Northbrook was faithful to Lord Lawrence’s views. He had read Lord Lawrence’s reply to Sir Bartle Frere. And he had written to Lord Lawrence to express his complete agreement.⁹

When, therefore, Lord Northbrook received Lord Salisbury’s Secret Despatch in February 1875, he replied by telegraph that the time and circumstances were unsuitable for taking the steps proposed. And in June 1875 he sent a formal reply to Lord Salisbury’s despatch showing that the policy which had been pursued since the days of Lord Canning, and pursued successfully, was to create a strong Afghanistan, over whose ruler British influence was powerful enough to keep him from foreign aggression. The letter¹⁰ was signed by Lord Northbrook and the Members of his Council—Lord Napier of Magdala, Sir Henry Norman, Sir Arthur Hobhouse, Sir William Muir, and Ashley Eden.

Lord Salisbury’s rejoinder, dated November 1875, is one of the least creditable documents which have ever been penned by a British Minister.

“The first step, therefore, in establishing our relations with the Amir upon a more satisfactory footing, will be to induce him to receive a temporary Embassy in his capital. It need not be publicly connected with the establishment of a permanent Mission within his dominions. There would be many advantages in ostensibly directing it to some object of smaller political interest, which it will not be difficult for your Excellency to find, or, if need be, to create.”¹¹

Lord Northbrook’s reply to this strange despatch was strong as it was dignified. He urged that if a permanent Mission was to be sent to Afghanistan, it was better to candidly inform the Amir of its true nature and object. But the step was not necessary.

“We are convinced that a patient adherence to the policy adopted towards Afghanistan by Lord Canning, Lord Lawrence, and Lord Mayo, which it has been our earnest endeavour to maintain, presents the greatest promise of the eventual establishment of our relations with the Amir on a satisfactory footing; and we deprecate, as involving serious danger to the peace of Afghanistan, and to the interests of the British Empire in India, the execution, under present circumstances, of the instructions conveyed in your Lordship’s despatch.”¹²

The same mail which brought this earnest and dignified remonstrance to England, conveyed also Lord Northbrook’s resignation of his high office.

With Lord Northbrook’s administration ended the period of peace and reforms which had commenced in 1858. With Lord Lytton’s administration began an era of restless Imperialism.

Footnotes