CHAPTER VII

THE LAST CHARTER

Lord Dalhousie's essay on the Government of India-Its influence upon legislation in Parliament-No one anticipated that the Act of 1853 would be the last Charter Act-Brief review of the history of the Company between 1600 and 1784-The Act of 1833 describedPolitical constitution of India examined-Lord Dalhousie's views on the powers of the Governor-General-How far they were adoptedHis legislative proposals The decision of Parliament upon them— The new Legislative Council introduced-Objections raised to the Law Commission in England - Independence claimed for the Council in Calcutta-Sir Charles Wood's fears-Lord Dalhousie's action severely criticised-Was the Council allowed to be a Court of inquest ?—Did it challenge the authority of Government and of the Court? Did it disturb the public mind?-Remarks on the controversy-Lord Dalhousie's views on the Government of Bengal— Arguments brought forward against its severance from the charge of the Governor-General-The difficulty about patronage-The question of military control - Halliday appointed LieutenantGovernor of Bengal-Lord Dalhousie's views about the presidencies of Madras and Bombay-Abolition of Fort William College, and introduction of system of examinations-Service rules and privileges -Changes in constitution of Court of Directors-Military changes introduced by the Charter Act.

THE catalogue of reforms introduced by Lord Dalhousie into the structure of the Government of India, and into the department of Home affairs, is not exhausted by the account given in the last chapter. To him India owes its Legislative Councils, the detachment of Bengal from the direct control of the Governor-General,

and other changes which will now be explained. It does not detract from his title to credit for these measures that they were sanctioned by Her Majesty's Government and by Parliament, for they were suggested by the Governor-General in a masterly essay consisting of 167 paragraphs, dated the 13th of October, 1852, and entitled "The Government of India." Of it he writes in his diary on the 17th of October in these

terms

I have been hard worked by a paper which I have been preparing for the President and Chairman, suggesting the changes and improvements which I think ought to be made in the administration of India by means of the new Act. I have been obliged to write it as I could find time from the current business. During last week and this I got five continuous days' work at it, and in that time I began and finished it.

The home authorities had specially asked the Governor-General to give them his opinion on the changes to be introduced when, as they loosely described it, "a new Charter is granted to the Company." It is clear from a letter written by Sir J. Hobhouse on the 4th of January, 1851, that Lord John Russell's Government were anxious to avoid too much discussion of Indian affairs. We are threatened," he wrote, "with a great movement when the Indian Committee. comes to be proposed. Whether it will be asked for next Session I do not know. As at present advised I see no great reason for any inquiry at present. The new Charter will not be wanted until 1854, and it will be quite time enough to introduce the Bill the year before. If the Committee must be appointed, I should say that 1852 would be quite time enough to call for it, and then, I trust, the matter will be in other hands." Three weeks later he added the opinion that "if any

change is to be made in the provision of the Act of 1833-34, that change should be made by the Government of the day according to the best advice at their command. In fact, the Company's Charter was a commercial Charter, which was taken away, or superseded by the last Act, and, excepting the payment of dividends on Indian stock, the whole law by which the Government of India is vested in the Company involves only political questions more suited to a Cabinet than to a Committee of Parliament." This view was evidently shared by Lord Derby, who informed the House of Lords that the withdrawal of the governing powers of the Company would entail the restoration of their commercial Charter. The force of this remark will become apparent at a later stage of this narrative.

Few chapters in the history of public affairs in England reflect more light upon the accidents and, it may be added, the mistakes of our legislature than that which deals with the passing, on the 20th of August, 1853, of the East India Company Act, 16-17 Vict. c. 95, continuing the territories in India until further notice under the Government of the Company in trust for Her Majesty, her heirs and successors. It has been seen that Hobhouse, although opposed to a preliminary Committee of inquiry, guarded himself by a reference to "other hands" and "the Government of the day." This cautious reservation was a shadow cast by coming events, and the storms which presently swept over the field of British politics turned men's thoughts into other directions than India. Thus it happened that the Act, hotly disputed at first, was passed without much difficulty, and without even waiting for the reports of the Committees, which, after all, "the Governments of the day" were obliged to appoint.

On

the 21st of February, 1851, Lord John Russell and his cabinet tendered their resignations to the Queen. Then, writes Hobhouse, Lord John "came back on Monday the 24th of February, but resigned his commission again, and Stanley was master of the field the Tuesday and Wednesday following, and did not give up his commission until Thursday afternoon." Once more Lord John Russell was in office, but Hobhouse, now Lord Broughton, added "at least for the present.' The present did not last long. The ministry, thanks mainly to the fact that public attention was engrossed by the Great Exhibition, staggered on for a few months, and survived by only. a few weeks the retirement of Lord Palmerston from its ranks. While it lasted nothing was done in the direction of a Committee of inquiry. The first letter which Mr. Herries, as a member of Lord Derby's ministry, wrote to Lord Dalhousie is dated the 8th March, 1852, and on the 2nd of April Lord Derby moved in the House of Lords the appointment of a select Committee to inquire into the operation of Act 3 and 4 William IV. c. 85, and to report their observations thereon. He indicated, however, his own preference for a continuance of the existing system as best calculated to secure, "a matter of infinite importance," the exclusion of Indian affairs "from political squabbles and party contests." Lord Ellenborough followed with an attack upon the Directors, and the appointment of a Committee of thirty members was agreed to, including Ellenborough, Canning, Hardinge, Gough, and Broughton. On the 19th of April Herries carried through the House of Commons a similar motion for a Committee of thirty-one members, and in doing so paid a graceful tribute to the administrative success achieved by Lord Dalhousie.

The Committee had not long been at work when Parliament was dissolved in July. When the new House met in November, 1852, the Committee was re-appointed, five new members, including Macaulay, Stanley, and Palmerston, taking the place of those who had lost their seats and were "no longer available." Once more their labours were interrupted, for in December Lord Derby resigned on the defeat of Disraeli's budget, and Lord Aberdeen formed a coalition ministry of Whigs and Peelites, with Wood at the Board of Control. By this time the volume of evidence taken by the Committees was considerable, but their minutes of evidence had been "reported" without further "observations." The new Government was soon obliged to come to a conclusion as to whether it would await the final observations of the Committees or proceed at once with legislation. Mr. Bright complained of "a good deal of vacillation on the part of the Government," and a letter from Hogg repeats the rumour that "the Cabinet was divided as to whether it would not be wiser merely to pass a short Act continuing the existing powers for another year." Be that as it may, all doubts were set at rest when, on the 3rd of June, 1853, Sir Charles Wood, in a speech which lasted more than five hours, introduced and explained the provisions of his East India Company Act. Thus it happened that by different routes successive governments arrived at the point indicated by Hobhouse in January, 1851. The question had to be decided by the Cabinet, and not by a Committee of Parliament; and in

1

1 Speaking in the House on the 9th of June, 1853, Mr. T. Baring, Chairman of the Committee, said he rejoiced to see the Bill introduced, and he considered that there were quite sufficient data for the House to go upon without waiting for the conclusions of the Committee, which would still continue its inquiries.