British Administration

INTRODUCTION

British administration in  India. till  1858  was mainly that  of the  East India Company. Though the British Government passed Acts  from time to time, and interfered  with and  regulated the  Company's administration,  the  complete takeover by the Crown took place in 1858. Also, the Company, which began as a purely commercial corporation, gradually attained the status of a Government or While  the British started tmding  operations from  1600 A.D., other foreign powers like the Portuguese, the Dutch and the French were already in the trading business. So the British  were in  competition with other European powers to capture the trade in the East. Simultaneously, they competed.to acquire territorial supremacy. This was possible because of the collapse of the Moghul Empire and  the mutually destructive wars between princes and nawabs. For instance, through the  Carnatic  wars,  the  English secured  the  Northern Circars which were previously  administered by  the French. By winning the Battle of Plassey in Bengal in 1757 and through the Treaty of Allahabad, the british got   in 1765, the Diwani  of  Bengal, Bihar  and Orissa  and the  right  of administering  these provinces andcollecting their revenue. In  a  hundred years, from the Battle of Plassey (1757) to the Sepoy  Mutiny (1857), the British  virtually captured the whole of India and  India soon became the brightest jewel in the British Crown.
In  a  hundred years, from the Battle of Plassey (1757) to the Sepoy  Mutiny (1857), the British  virtually captured the whole of India and  India soon became the brightest jewel in the British Crown.

THE NATURE OF ADMINISTRATION

Characteristic Features of the East India Company
The East India Company, established on 31* December 1600, was a monopoly, mercantile Company, which  was granted by the British crown the right-to trade in  the eastern  parts.  A  trading station,  with a number of factors was  called Factory. A settlement (number of factories) was under ah Agedt. Factor was the term  applied to an agent  transacting business as a substitute  for  another in mercantile  affairs.  Employees were  graded as &;,irentices, writers, factors and merchants. Recruitment of officials, their  nomenclature,  terms and conditions  of  service were  governed by  rules  and practices apptopriate to commercial  business. Generally, patronage  was the  method  of  recruitment  and promotion in  the services. Patronage was in  the hands  of the Proprietors or Directors of the Company.
In the early years  of  Company rules, officials were  frequently  moved  around, from one district to another. They had no training on the job and  learnt the hard way by trial and error. They were ignorant of the laws, customs and languages of  the local people. Given very low salaries, the Company's  servants were known to be corrupt. The system of governance was  commercial in  character. It  was basically government by Council. The Council had executive and  legislative powers with the  overn nor or the  Governor-General  having  the  casting vote.  With the acquisition of more territorial  sovereignty and the need to take prompt decisions, more power came to be concentrated in the head or Chairman of the Council, but the fundamental  principle of collective rule and responsibility remained. It  was also a  government by Boards. ,After the Board of trade,  the next in importance was the Military bard. But the Board of Revenue bad the longest history  and the most distinguished record of work.  Later, there was also  the Railway Board. The Board  made  possible  counseling, discussion, deliberation and even  legislative and judicial activities. Questions of policy and principle,conduct and action were settled in the Board. It was  a  government by record.  When transactions were commercial, records were  brief and  manageablg. But  political dealings made record  keeping cumbersome and voluminous. Notes, minutes, despatches and reports became an integral  part of British administration. All this was in  necessary because only through written  reports and records  could control be exercised by officials in  the  governmental hierarchy.  With the  Company  headquarters in  far away England, record keeping helped check absolutism and uncontrolled power.
The East India Company  mismanaged  administration of acquired  territories in India. One example of it  is through  Clive's Double or Dual Government of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa. While the Company took over direct responsibility for defending these  territories  from outside attack,  internal  matters,  like  revenue collection was still  left to the Nawab and his officers who  worked on behalf of the Company. This was  because the Company did not  know the local customs and practices and felt comfortable  leaving  the  existing  system  of  revenue collection  intact. But this resulted in exploitatiorl of the worst kind as maximum revenue was extracted  from the people. Though it was done in the name of the Company,  which  got a bad name on  this  account, the Nawab and his men pocketed a lot and grew rich at the cost of the Company.
 

The Regulating Act of 1773

This Act  deserves  special  mention because it was the  first actron on the part of  the  British  Government to regulate  the  affairs of the  Company in  India. The  Company,  through a Charter, had only been given trading rights by the British Crown. When it  acquired  territories in  India and slowly but surely  converted itself  into a ruling  body,  the  Parliament  could not accept  and  regularise  this development.  Moreover, it  was  believed  that  whatever  lands the Company acquired  were in  the  name of and  on  behalf of  the King.  Therefore, the administration of these territories had to be controlled by the Crown.
Again, merchants and traders could hardly equal the task of administration. This was proved by the growing level of corruption and mismanagement of territorial acquisitions:  While  the  shareholders of  the Company  were  looking  for bigger dividends because the Company was playing a double role of trading and ruling,the Company  was  making big losses and had to be bailed out.  To  tide  over a critical  period when finances  were low because of Indian  wars  and  growing demand for increased dividends, the Company asked the British Parliament for a loan of E 1,400,000. This  gave  Parliament a long-awaited  chance to assert its right to control the political affairs of the East India Company. They granted the loan on condition that administration in India would be according to directions of the British Parliament. Hence, the Regulating Act of 1773 was passed.

Changes Introduced by the Regulating Act in England
 

The Court of Proprietors of the Company was reformed. Formerly, a shareholder, holding a stock off 500 and over, became a member of the Court of Proprietors. The Regulating Act raised it to the minimum to E 1000. This made the Court of  Proprietors a compact, better organised body to discharge both  its duties  and responsibilities.
Changes were also made in the. Board of Directors. It was now to consist of 24 members elected by the  Court  of  Proprietors every 4 years, 6 directors retiring every year - instead of all the Directors being elected every year as before. This gave the Board some continuity and facilitated better management.

Changes Introduced by the Regulating  Act in India
The Governor of Bengal was now designated as the Governor-General of Bengal and Governors of other provinces in India were subordinate to him. The Governor- General  was  to be-assisted by a council  of  four  members  sent from England. Decisions were to be taken by majority vote  and the Governor-General Warren Hastings had a casting vote. The British territories in India came to be controlled from Bengal and that in turn was subject to control from England.
The Regulating Act set up the Supreme Court at Calcutta with Lord Chief Justice and three judges. This was the Supreme Court of Judicature, the highest court in British India. It had power to exercise civil, criminal, admiralty and ecclesiastical jurisdiction. It had jurisdiction over British subjects and Company's servants. But its relations with the existing courts were not defined.

Effects of the Regulating Act
The  changes in  the  Company's  organisation in  England  made it more effective managing body at headquarters.The Act created a  centralised administration in  India,  making the Bombay  and Madras Governors subordinate to the Governor-General of Bengal. There was a felt need for a uniform policy for the whole of British India, thus, avoiding much wasteful expenditure.
'The  creation of the Supreme Court made for better justice to British subjects. The Regulating Act brought in  a  system of checks and balances. It made the Governors  subordinate  to  the  Governor-General, the  Governor-General subordinate to his Council and the Supreme Court effective in its control over the Governor-General in Council.
The Regulating Act laid the foundation of a Central administration and instituted a  system  of  Parliamentary  control. It  marked the  beginning of the  Company's transformation from a  trading body to  a  Corporation  of  a new  kind, entirely administrative in its object and subordinate to Parliament.

Defects of the Regulating Act 

 
Though the Act was expected to regulate and centralise administration to  provide better justice and bring in a system of checks and balances, it was found to have serious  drawbacks in  practice.  For example, it had the following defects relating to the Supreme Court:
i) The  ambiguity  of  jurisdiction between the  Supreme  Council,  and the Governor-General in  Council  was  a  drawback in the Act of 1773. The Regulating Act entrusted the entire civil and military administration of the diwani prot-inces to  the  Governor-General and Council. But the  Supreme Court  was  also autborised to take cognizance of cases not only against British  but also  native \employees of the Company. It  could  punish all persons who  committed' acts of oppression either in  the exercise of civil jurisdiction or in  the  collection of revenue. But the Act did not specify whose authority would be final in case of a conflict between the Council and the  Court.  These  difficulties arose because the Company  which was the virtual  sovereign of the diwani  provinces was not declared to be so by Parliament.
ii) The  Regulations passed by the  Governor-General in  Council had to be registered by the Supreme Court before they were executed as law. Court's refusal  to do it  could amount to  hamper the  smooth  working of the administration and there was no explanation provided to this effect.
iii)  The Act  did not clearly specify which  law had to be applied while trying cases. The Court applied English law in all cases even where Indians were charged with offences. This was resented by the Indians.
iv)  The Provincial and other Courts were not recognised. All these defects did much  harm. The British  Government corrected these  defects through the Amending Act of 1781.

The drawbacks relating to the Governor-General-in-Council included:
The Governor-General was answerable to the Directors and was held responsible for all acts pertaining to the administration in India. But he was not given a free hand as he was bound by the  majority decisions  of his council. Though this is understandable as part of the system of checks and balances, yet it resulted in the Council  taking  decisidns for'which  the  Governor-General  alone  was  held
accountable. There was constant friction between the Governor-General and his Council, as a result, administration suffered.
Though the Governors were subordinate to the Governor-General,  yet, in actual practice,  they  acted  independently of Bengal.  They justified  their action by saying, the matter was urgent and decisions could not be delayed. In this way, the idea of unity and uniformity sought by the Act was defeated in practice. According to  the Regulating  Act, the East India Company  was to supply all
c&espondence  relating  to  military,  administrative  and  financial matters to the British Government. This indirect control  did not work satisfactorily in practice and  the  Proprietors and  Directors  followed  a  policy  based  on  personal consideration of his rather than administrative need.

The Amending Act of 1781

This Act  amended the jurisdiction of the  Supreme  Court. It was  deprived of its right to action arising in the collection of revenue. Landholders, farmers or other persons connected iri,land revenue work were not covered by the Supreme  Court.
In the same way,  no person, just by virtue of being the Company's  employee, could  be  subjected  to  the  Court's jurisdiction.  Even though  the  Court's jurisdiction extended  over all the inhabitants of Calcutta, the Court had to take into account personal.laws of Hindus in case of Hindus and Quranic law in case of Muslims.
The Amending Act recognised the appellate jurisdiction o'f the Governor-General and Council and confirmed their judicial authority to entertain all such pleas and appeals as they had done all along as a Court of record. The Governor-General and Council  were  further devested  with  "power  and authority, final time to time, to frame regulations for the provincial  courts and councils". Their legislation under this Act, was not to be subject to registration in the Supreme Court of Judicature, but was required to be finally approved by his Crown.

Pitt's India Act 1784

The shortcomings of the regulating  Act soon became manifest. To remedy these defects was not easy because it involved a complete separation of commercial and political functions of the Company which was viewed with disfavour in England. The urge for a change was very strong and it could not be suppressed for long. In 1783, a bill was introduced  by Dundas,  but it failed. In the  same year, Fox
introduced  two  bills  but these  were  rejected  in  the  House of Lords. When William Pitt came to head the Government he was determined  to introduce a bill on India  and see it through. At the first attempt, it was defeated by a narrow majority  and on second attempt after Pitt's  party was returned to power it was introduced.
Pitt's India Act provided for a body of six commissioners popularly known as the Board of Control. It consisted of one Secretary of State, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and four Privy Councillors appointed by the king and holding office during his 'pleasure.  Three of the  six formed  a  quorum  and the  President possessed a casting vote in case opinion was equally divided. The Secretary of State was to preside over the meetings of the Board,  which in his absence, done was by the Chancellor of the Exchequer or a Senior Commissioner.
The Board of Control was empowered to superintend,  direct and control the Company's'affairs in India with regard to civil,  military and revenue  work. The Directors of the  Company had  to  deliver  to  the  Board,  copies of all correspondence with the compahy. The orders of the Board on civil and military government or revenues of India became binding on the Directors. According to the Act, the Board could transmit, through a secret committee of three Directors, secret orders to India on the subject of war, peace, or diplomatic negotiation  with any of the country powers.
The Proprietors lost  most  of their  powers. They  could no longer  revoke  or modih a decision  taken by the  Directors with the approval of the Board of Council.
The Directors retained their control of commerce and right to patronage except in the appbintment of the Governor-General of the Governors of Madras and Bombay and the Commanders-in-Chief of the three Presidencies. The arrangement made by Pitt's  India Act operated till 1858. Indian Government was subjected to a  system of dual control in which the Company could  initiate proposals subject to the revising and directing authority of the Board. The Act reduced the number of members of the Governor-General's  Council to three. One of them was to be the Commander-in-Chief. The Act clearly  indicated the  subordinate  character  of the Governments  of Bombay and Madras and made independent action on their part,  impossible. The Governor-General-in-Council  had the power  and authority to superintend, direct and  control other  Presidencies in all matters. The entire diplomatic relations of the Company in India as also  the  finances necessary to support  them were entrusted to the  Governor-General-in-Council. The subordinate  governments were directed not to disobey any of the orders of the Supreme government on the ground of competence. They had to obey such orders in all cases except when they  received positive orders and instructions from the Directors  or the Secret Committee.  They also had  to send  true  and  exact copies of all such orders, resolutions or acts to the Governor-General-in-Council.
Pitt's  India  Act  invested  the  Governor-General-in-Council  with  much discretionary power to deal with emergencies. Though they  had to obey orders from  home,  they  could  act  on their  own when  the  situation warranted  it. Generally, in matters of war and peace, the Governor-General-in-Council was to be guided by instructions of the Court of Directors.
Hence, through Pitt's India Act, the Control of the Crown over the Company, of the  Company  over  the  Governor-General-in-Council and of the  supreme government  over the  subordinate Presidencies  was greatly  improved  and fairly well defined.

The Amending Act of 1786 

 
The Amending Act of 1786 took care of the problem related to the Councils of the Governor-General  and  Governors. The Act  invested  the Governor-General or Governor  with  power to override the decision of his Council  and act without  its concurrence in extraordinary cases involving in his judgment  the  interests of the Company or the safety and tranquility of British India.
If  the  Governor-General or Governor had to  use this extraordinary power, to overrule the majority,  both sides had to put in writing their respective positions on the issue under dispute. If the Governor-General or Governor finally chose to act in his own way, he was personally to bear the responsibility of the  measure adopted without the concurrence of the Council.

Revenue Department When the Company acquired Diwani provinces in  1765, the collection of revenue was left to  Indian officers who  acted as agents for the  British. This arrangement continued till 1769 when the Governor-General and Council appointed Supervisors in all districts to acquire knowledge of revenue resources and report on abuses in the  current system. But since their  powers  were  limited and they  failed in  their duties, a new  management was created. There was to be a Controlling Council of Revenue at Murshidabad and another at Patna. Since these lacked co-ordination, a Controlling Committee of Revenue was set up in 1771 at Calcutta with powers to inspect, control and direct revenue affairs. In  1772, the Company decided to stand forth as diwan and carry out all revenue administration through  its own  men. So a  Committee  of  Circuit was  formed which  worked along with  the Controlling  Committee of Revenue.  Finally in 1772, it was decided to have a Revenue Department  at Calcutta in place of these various bodies. The Department had a Secretary, an Assistant  Secretary, and a sub-secretary,  a  Persian  TransIator,  an  Accountant-General  and  several Assistants.
In  addition to  Department  Secretaries to Government who acted  under the direction and control of the Council, there were three inferior Boards to take care of details of execution.  These were:
1)  The Committee of Revenue formed in  1781 to take care of revenue, justice and police.
2)  The Board of Ordinance, formed in 1775 to manage military stores.
3)  The Board of Trade formed in 1774 for commercial transactions. In 1785, these were reconstituted as the Board of Revenue, the Military Board and the Board of Trade.

THE CIVIL SERVICE

With responsibilities  of ruling  territorial  possessions  in  India,  the  British Governors and Councillors needed assistants in the Central offices and in districts. They also had to study the manners and customs of the people, collect necessary facts  and make  timely recommendations.  To begin  with, the  men to  fill this important role in public service were drawn from the ranks of writers, factors and merchants of the Company. It was not till 1769 that some of these officers were appointed supervisors over  large areas and charged with responsibilities. Though most of the men  did  not prove  equal  to their  tasks there were a few like John Shore, Charles Stewart, Charles Grant and Jonathan Duncan who did outstanding work. The Court of Directors continued to send every year fresh batch of writers without  realising that a revolutionary change had taken place in the Company's role and functions and. therefore, better equipped  men were required. None of the Acts of Parliament between 1773 and 1793 looked into the education and training of civil servants inIndia.
To the open question as to whether administration would be efficiently conducted by only 1ndians;a mixed agency or exclusively by the British, Cornwallis provided the  answer by deciding on the policy of complete  Europeanisation. All higher positions in Government service were filled by the Company's British covenanted servants. The Charter Act of 1793 took care of this and provided the Charter or Rights of civil  servants.  Promotion  was by  seniority.  Duties of different departments were defined. Salaries were proportionate to responsibility.
Wellesley realised that civil servants of the Company had to discharge functions of Magistrates, Judges, Ambassadors, etc. To discharge these duties efficiently they had to be not only well acquainted with  the languages, laws  and usages of the people but  be well-informed on the  British  Constitution and be well  versed in Ethics, Civil Jurisprudence, the laws of nations and general history. To provide all these, Wellesley set up the College of Fort William in Calcutta. The civil servants of Bombaypd Madras had to undergo training at the College like those of Bengal for three years.
The three year course provided for instruction in liberal arts, classical and Modern History and Literature, Law of Nations,  Ethics and Jurisprudence. The  syllabus also included  Indian languages,  different  codes and  regulations. The college aroused mental and intellecual powers of the civil  servants and imbroved theirmorals to a considerable extent. But the College was short-lived. After seven years it continued as only a language school.
In 1805, the Hailey bury college was set up in England and that really spelt the end of the College at Fort William. The young recruits to the covenanted Civil Service had to spend two years at Hailey  bury and for the next 50 years the ICS was the product of the Hailey bury College.
The syllabus drawp up by Wellesley for his College was followed at the Hailey bury College.  The young  civil servants had to continue their  mathematical and classical  education for two years  under expert  guidance. They had also to read Political  Economy, principles of jurispendence,  elements of Indian  history and rudiments of Indian legal codes and regulations and Indian languages.
But  admission was still on the  basis  of patronage.  Each of the  Company's Directors  could  nominate one  candidate while Chairman and Deputy Chairman could nominate two candidates each. Though there was an entrance test, it was so simple, that no one ever failed it. Though candidates did equip themselves with liberal education, the standard at Hailey bury was not really high or else it would have resulted in a high  rate  of failures. The admission system, though modified later, was at best, one of qualified patronage.
Despite this, the College had a good name and its products were known for their corporate outlook and spirit comradeship yvhich they brought to India. These may in  far-flung part. of India  still  upheld  old Hailey bury ties. They set healthy traditions especially in honesty  and integrity. But at the same time they felt high and mighty and some did become despotic in outlook and dictatorial in behaviour.
In  1837, an arrangement was made for  the  preliminary  examinations to .Hailey bury College. Yet it did not achieve the expected results. The men who came out to India  were not of the level of competence demanded by the work.-Meanwhile, opposition  was  developing in  England against patronage since 1833,  when  the Company lost the last vestige of commercial monopoly. The Northcote Trevelyan Report submitted to Paliament in  1854 suggested that patronage must give place to open  competitive examination. Among those happy to promote merit  system was Macaulay. Once  the principle of competition was accepted, the  necessary regulations had to be framed. For this an expert body  was appointed of which Macaulay  was Chairman.  The  committee  recommended that  candidates be between ages 18 and 23 and the examination should be  in subjects of liberal study.the introduction of the competatitive test means end of Hailey Bury College.First  competitive  examination  was  held in  1855. From 1858  the exams were
conducted by the British Civil Service Commission. It must be noted that the Civil Service established a great reputation for itself as a most  efficient,  honest  and  upright  organ of government. But civil  servants  had limited functions to perform. They were essentially concerned with law and order and revenue administration.