Page images

Munsifs were relieved of performing the duties of Nazirs, and were authorised to appoint Nazirs on their establishments.

In 1847 the rule empowering judges to fine Munsifs and Sádr Amíns was repealed, as no longer adapted to these officers "in the more elevated judicial position" occupied by them. In 1852 the rules of procedure for the trial of original civil suits in the Courts of Judges and Principal Sádr Amíns were extended in their entirety to the Courts of the Sádr Amíns and Munsifs, who were also for the first time empowered to try suits in which vakils or officers of their Courts were parties. In 1868 the law relating to native judges in the Lower and North-Western Provinces was again amended and consolidated by Act XVI of that year. The principal changes made by this Act were that the office of Sádr Amín was abolished; the designation of Subordinate Judge " was substituted for that of "Principal Sádr Amín"; and the jurisdiction of Munsif was extended to all original suits cognisable by the Civil Courts of which the subject matter does not exceed in amount or value one thousand rupees. Act XVI of 1868 was amended by Act of 1870, and both these Acts were repealed by the Bengal Civil Courts Act VI of 1871, which has finally amended and consolidated the law relating to the District and Subordinate Civil Courts in the territories respectively under the Governments of the LieutenantGovernor of the Lower and North-Western Provinces of the Presidency of Fort William in Bengal."

[ocr errors]

This expansion in the powers and functions of Indians in the subordinate judicial service was due mainly to the judicial reforms of Lord William Bentinck. The liberal spirit in which the policy was conceived is to be noticed in Regulation V of 1831, Regulation IX of 18331 and Regulation VIII of 1836.2

1 Office of Deputy Collector open to Indians was created.
2 Office of Sádr Amín was created.



In order to carry out effectively an Indian policy such as was laid down by the great rulers of this period, a civil service efficient and honest on the one hand and closely associated with the people of the country on the other was imperative. In the days of the eighteenth century when the Company began to take over political responsibilities, a writer of the Company was almost forced to add to his miserable pittance by actions of very questionable honesty. A few succeeded in rising above their temptations and showed a strength of character and a capacity to rule such as no deliberate system of training could have created, but the majority fell by the wayside. The reforms of Lord Cornwallis, however, had begun to bear fruit. Since his time, the Company's servants had been well paid and therefore had no cause to be worried by financial difficulties. Moreover, in accordance with the terms of the East India Company Act of 1793, the principal posts in Government employ below that of a member of Council were reserved for the officers of the covenanted service, and therefore good work was usually rewarded by official advancement. And those were the days of personal rather than office rule, when the district officer was powerful and was rarely subjected to interference from headquarters. The responsibilities of a civil servant were very great, but they acted as an incentive to laborious days and a strict observance of duty. The chief object of a civil servant was the happiness of the people under his charge. Many, besides Canning, have paid their tribute to the honesty and efficiency of the Company's servants in those days, but their high reputation needs no external expression of opinion. It is emphasised

not only by the happiness of the people but by the sentiments expressed in their official memoranda. It has only been possible to reproduce in this volume a few of these documents; and it may be urged that our chief difficulty has been in the work of selection from much that is admirable and lofty both in tone and in matter.

The problems that faced the authorities during this period, therefore, were different from those of the preceding age. They were matters of detail, though doubtless important detail, and were connected, in the main, with three questions, the training of the Company's servants, the organisation of the service, and the methods of recruitment. The method of training has been explained by Mr. Warden,1 in his evidence submitted before the Select Committee of 1832. "After receiving the best classical education which England affords, a person appointed to the Civil Service in India must keep four terms at the college of Haileybury, an institution established in 1806 for the purpose of affording to civil servants instruction in those branches of education which are likely to be most useful in their official career in India. He is required to produce a certificate to the Court of Directors, from the Principal of Haileybury, that he has, during the prescribed period, been a member of the college, and duly conformed to its rules and regulations. His age must not be under fifteen, nor exceed twenty-two years." On his arrival in India the young civil servant had first to prepare for an examination in Indian languages. For this purpose he received instruction, at Calcutta and Madras in a college, and in Bombay from native teachers.

This method of training the Company's servants both in England and India was severely criticised on several grounds. The exclusiveness of the Company's college at Haileybury and the narrowness of its training were discussed with some force by Mr. Sullivan of the Madras Civil Service.

1 Mr. Warden was a member of Council in the Bombay Government.

The Training of Civil Servants at Haileybury

Source.-Evidence of Mr. John Sullivan, of the Madras Civil Service, before the Select Committee. Dated February 21, 1832.

The collection of a number of young men of the same age, and destined for the same scene, in the same college, has always appeared to me to be a capital mistake in the existing plan of education. It deprives young men of the opportunity of forming a general acquaintance with the men who are hereafter to figure upon the public stage in this country. To rivet the affections of those who go early in life to India to persons and things in England should always, I imagine, be a main object of their education. To have belonged to one of the national universities is itself considered an honour; and to have participated in the honours and rewards which emanate from these establishments is a privilege which is always highly valued. The academical honours of Haileybury are not, I imagine, much valued. The young men who go there from school are by the rules of the college cut off from all society except what is to be found within the walls of the college until they embark for India; they are in consequence almost strangers in India, and upon their arrival in India they again associate almost exclusively with those who were their fellow-collegians at Haileybury.

A set of young men educated at the different national universities would meet in India for the first time under more favourable auspices; there would be among them a greater variety of ideas, more incentives to emulation and, what is of higher consequence, more effectual checks upon extravagance and misconduct, because the discipline of the regular universities is, and from their composition always must be, more perfect than at Haileybury. The association of the younger undergraduates at Oxford and Cambridge with their seniors, and with the various classes which compose their societies, cannot but operate more beneficially upon the minds of juniors. At Haileybury all are young, younger most of them than the junior undergraduates at the universities. Mischief is the consequence of this congregation of youths, for it seems to be pretty generally admitted that at no public seminary in England is discipline so completely relaxed as at the East India College.

There seems to be almost a natural association in the minds of Englishmen between India and wealth. This notion is naturally fostered at Haileybury; habits of extravagance are in consequence contracted there which cling to the young men throughout their Indian career, to their own detriment and that of the Government whose servants they are.

The Select Committee, however, urged that the civil servants had been better educated since the establishment of the college than before; and the fact that the more important posts in India had been filled by those who had been most distinguished at Haileybury added some weight to the contention that the period of training at the college was of some distinct value. The college was not closed until January, 1858, in accordance with the provisions of an Act passed in 1855.

The system of training the Company's servants in India was condemned in the strongest terms. The Select Committee observed that the college at Fort William had been " a source of more debt than knowledge in the Civil Service " and were by no means favourable to its continuance. That the college was both extravagant and ineffective is obvious from the following remarks made by Lord William Bentinck and Sir Charles Metcalfe :

The Training of Civil Servants in India

Source.-(i) Minute of Lord William Bentinck. Dated December 27, 1828.

I have now to beg the attention of Council to the paper which shows that the average expense of the education of each writer during the last three years was 6621 rupees or £660 per annum; to which must be added a further charge (since most properly discontinued) of 4000 rupees, or £400, to each writer for outfit, repayable by retrenchment of the excess of allowances above 500 rupees per mensem. This debt is without interest. It must also be recollected that this charge of £660 for education in India follows no inconsiderable expense under the same head in England.1 The sum above stated, even for a single year, forms no small amount, as compared with the

1 The cost of Haileybury College is given in the evidence of Mr. Peter Archer in 1832 before the Select Committee:

[ocr errors]

The total expense attending the establishment at Haileybury, including the building account, from 1805-6 to 1830-1, in twentyfive years, amounts to £363,439 17s. 4d. Exclusive of the building, it has been £267,081 14s. 10d. The number of persons appointed writers has been 940, and the cost, including the building account, has been £368 12s. to each person appointed. Exclusive of the building account, the expense of the education of each writer has been £284 2s. 6d.

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »