These
measures
of the local
government were reinforced by orders from the court of directors
dated 21 September, 1785, which were published in Calcutta on 12
June, 1786; under them the Committee of Revenue was reconstituted
and officially declared to be the Board of Revenue.
government were reinforced by orders from the court of directors
dated 21 September, 1785, which were published in Calcutta on 12
June, 1786; under them the Committee of Revenue was reconstituted
and officially declared to be the Board of Revenue.
Cambridge History of India - v5 - British India
It is sufficient to point out
that while Hastings and Barwell assumed that the sovereign possessed
the land, and Francis and his school were equally convinced that the
zamindar was the real owner, no one thought, with the possible
exception of Ducarel, of what might be the claim of the ryots to the
possession of the land, and of the khudkasht ryot 4 in particular.
The settlement problem, though of the first importance, was not
peremptory; the quinquennial settlement had still some time to run.
At this juncture, Monson died, and the governor-general recovered
his lost authority in the council. Almost the first use that Hastings
made of his restored authority was to take up the business of the
coming settlement, a duty which he had felt to be ‘paramount, and
which he could now approach with effect. In August, 1776, he
had laid before the board certain proposals connected with the
necessity of preparing for the approaching settlement, suggesting that
all provincial councils and collectors should submit an estimate of
the land revenue that might justly be expected from their districts.
This idea was eventually agreed to and a circular letter to that
effect issued.
On 1 November ? the governor-general suggested that an "office"
7
2
1 The Original Minutes of the Governor-General and Council of Fort
William, etc. , published in London, 1782.
Op. cit. II, 417.
3 Mill, History of British India, 5th ed. iv, 24.
4 The Zemindary Settlement of Bengal, vol. 1, para. 2, and appendix viii,
vol. I, pp. 198-9. (Calcutta, 1879. )
5 Letter to L. Sulivan, 21 March, 1776, also to John Graham, 26 September,
1776.
6 Governor-General's Proceedings, 30 August. 1776.
7 Idem, 1 November, 1776.
## p. 425 (#453) ############################################
THE AMINI COMMISSION
425
"
or, in modern parlance, a commission should be formed whose duty
should be to tour throughout Bengal "to procure material for the
settlement of the different districts". The reports from the various
district officers had revealed the disastrous effect of an assessment
based on faulty information, and Hastings was determined to avoid
that evil, if possible, in making the approaching settlement. His
proposals were strenuously, even
violently, opposed by Clavering and
Francis, who feared that the powers given to the amins, or Indian
officers, of, the commission to enable them to obtain the requisite
information would be used in a method prejudicial to the good name
of the Company. This fear, which was not without basis, was ex-
pressed in their usual intemperate fashion, and was made to serve as
an attack on the governor-general's character; for he was accused of
diverting the constitutional powers of the Supreme Council for his
own gratification by means of the casting vote.
Hastings met these unfounded allegations with more than his
wonted courtesy and self-control, entering into detailed explanations
of the information required, and the necessity for it, but his deter-
mination was as inflexible as ever : on 29 November D. Anderson and
C. Bogle, two of the most promising of the younger officers of the
Company, were selected as members of the commission: the
accountant-general, C. Croftes, was shortly afterwards added, and the
cost of the commission was estimated at something less than 4500
rupees per mensem. Thus was established that commission whose
report, presented in March, 1778, is perhaps the most valuable con-
temporary document in the early revenue history of Bengal under
the Company's administration. The information collected and its
style of presentment reflect the greatest credit both on the professional
capacities of its authors, and on the choice and acumen of the gover:
nor-general. The report lost no force from the dispassionate and
unassuming tone in which it recounted with studied moderation the
wholesale alienation of lands and deliberate oppression of the ryots
by the zamindars, who not infrequently continued to collect taxes
which the indulgence of government had abolished. The report
therefore exposed the inaccuracy of much that Francis had asserted :
it also included a large collection of
the original accounts in the Bengal, Persian, and Orissa languages.
preserved as records they will be highly serviceable as references in settling
disputes . . . and may lay the foundation of regular and permanent registers.
Meanwhile the court of directors wrote to express their displeasure
with the governor-general, and their support of the minority; they
censured the use which Hastings had made of the casting vote, and
expressed surprise that "after more than seven years' investigation"
further information about the collections was still required.
If
1 Governor-General's Proceedings, 6 December and 27 December, 1776.
2 Printed ap. Ramsbotham, op. cit. pp. 99-131.
## p. 426 (#454) ############################################
426
REVENUE ADMINISTRATION OF BENGAL, 1765-86
No definite decision was taken in the matter of the new settle-
ment. In the face of much conflicting evidence the directors decided to
Inark time; accordingly, on 23 December, 1778, they sent orders for
the land revenue to be settled annually; it is not easy to say what else
they could have done. In 1779 the trouble 1 between the Supreme
Court and the Company's diwanni adalats, which had been simmer-
ing since 1774, boiled over. The Kasijora case, with its disgraceful
incidents, compelled the immediate interference of the council. The
Supreme Court refused to yield, and the quarrel threatened to split
the entire administration. A solution was found by the chief justice
in consultation with the governor-general. Sir Elijah Impey was
offered and accepted the chief judgeship of the sadar diwanni adalat
with an additional salary of about £ 6500: he thus united in his own
person the authority of both jurisdictions. His action was severely
criticised by Francis and Wheler at the time, and by later critics.
But the law officers of the crown in England found nothing incorrect
in Impey's action which "put an end to an intolerable situation
and anticipatea by many years the policy which extended the
appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court over the provincia!
courts”?
It will be remembered that the plan drawn up by the Board of
Revenue in 1773, placing the collections under six provincial councils
of revenue, was expressly declared by the governor and council to
be temporary. No opportunity occurred for introducing a permanent
scheme until Hastings had regained his control of the council, when
a commission of enquiry was appointed to prepare the way for a
permanent measure. In July, 1777, the governor-general and council
promulgated to all the provincial councils except Patna a modified
scheme for the settlement of the revenue for the current year. The
scheme contained ten paragraphs and bore strong impress of the
board's debates during the previous three years, in that it gave the
zamindar a position of increased importance at the cost of the ryot.
The councils were empowered to use their own discretion in making
fresh settlements with those zamindars who refused to agree to a
renewal of the existing terms, and where possible the zamindar was
to be invited to co-operate in making the settlement. In April, 1778,
a circular letter was sent to all provincial councils requiring a list of
all cefaulting zamindars to be posted at every district headquarters,
while defaulters were warned that failure to meet obligations might
result in the sale of the zamindari, or its transference to others who
were willing to take over the existing arrangement and to pay the
arrears. These instructions were repeated each May in 1778, 1779
and 1780.
In December, 1780, Francis sailed for Europe. The field was now
a
1 Mill, op. cit. IV, 218-54; Beveridge, op. cit. pp. 436-40.
Roberts, History of British India, p. 213.
## p. 427 (#455) ############################################
CENTRALISATION OF 1781
427
clear; Hastings had an undisputed authority; his adversaries "had
sickened, died and fled". 1 Tenax propositi, if ever man was, Hastings
continued his endeavours to reorganise the collections, and shortly
there was issued
a permanent plan for the administration of the revenue of Bengal and Bihar,
formed the 20th February, 1781, by the Hon'ble the Governor-General and
Council in their Revenue Department. 2
The main alteration involved cannot be described better than in
the words of the introductory minute. After recalling the temporary
nature of the provincial councils, the easy prelude of another per-
manent mode, and referring to the Revenue Board's proceedings of
23 November, 1773, where the board's intention is "methodically
and completely delineated", the alteration is stated to consist sub-
stantially in this : that
all the collections of the provinces should be brought down to the Presidency
and be there administered by a Committee of the most able and experienced
of the covenanted servants of the Company under the immediate inspection of,
and with the opportunity of constant reference for instruction to, the Governor-
General and Council.
"By this plan”, wrote Hastings, “we hope to bring the whole administration
of the revenues to Calcutta, without any intermediate charge or agency, and to
effect a saving of lacs to the Company and to the Zamindars and ryots. " He
added complacently: "Read the plan and the minute introducing it; it will not
discredit me, but the plan will put to shame those who discredit it”.
Shore, after a year's experience of the plan in working, did not
hesitate emphatically to condemn it.
The new scheme 3 consisted of fourteen paragraphs. Its object was
to reduce the expense of the collections and to restore the revenue
of the provinces as far as possible "to its former standard"; an inde-
finite reference. To this end a new committee of the revenue was
ereated consisting of four members assisted by a diwan; the first
members of this committee were David Anderson, John Shore, Samuel
Charters, and Charles Croftes; Ganga Govind Singh was appointed
diwan. The members of this committee took oath to receive "no
lucrative advantage" from their office, except of course, from their
salary which was made up of 2 per cent. on the monthly net receipts *
and divided proportionally among them. The provincial councils and
appeal courts were abolished, and collectors replaced in all the dist-
ricts. The superintendentship of the Khalsa was abolished and its
functions transferred to the Committee of Revenue; the office of the
rai raian was placed under the Supreme Council and its holder was
specifically forbidden to “interfere in the business transacted by the
diwan of the Committee". Finally, the kanungos were reinstated "in
1 Gleig, op. cit. I, 329, 330.
. Governor-General's Proceedings, 20 January, 1781.
3 Colebrooke, op. cit. pp. 213-16.
4 Idem, pp. 215, 216.
## p. 428 (#456) ############################################
428
REVENUE ADMINISTRATION OF BENGAL, 1765-86
the complete charge and possession of all the functions and powers
which constitutionally appertain to their office”.
The scheme bears all the signs of being prepared in a secretariat.
On paper it possibly appeared extremely reasonable and efficient; in
practice it broke down at every point. The information, valuable as
it was, collected by the commission of 1776, could not, and, by its
authors, was not intended to take the place of that information which
only trained district officers could furnish, but Hastings was bent on
concentration. In 1773, the result of his grouping the various districts
into six divisions under provincial councils resulted in a loss to the
Company's government of much valuable local knowledge and
experience. His plan of 1781 carried concentration still further.
The re-appointment of Collectors appears to suggest an idea of decentra-
lisation. This however was not the case. The collector was denied any inter-
ference with the new settlement of the revenue. The new collectors were
merely figureheads, and the distrust which the council showed in their appoint-
ment could lead to nothing but discouragement. 1
The truth of this comment is exemplified by two quotations
selected at random from the Committee of Revenue's proceedings
for April, 1783. John David Patterson, collector of Rangpur, wrote
on 3 April, 1783, to ask for instructions as to what action he might
take in his district.
There is nothing but confusion; there is no Kanungo to be found, he is
fled the country; the ryots wanting to withhold their payments; the Farmer
seizing everything he can lay his hands upon and swelling up his demands by
every artifice. . . . No pains shall be spared on my part to get at the truth
altho' it is wading through a sea of chicanery on both sides. . . .
On 13 March William Rooke, collector of Purnia, wrote with even
greater detail to the same effect; he reported that the farmer
has repeatedly flogged those who preferred any complaint to me. . . . In the
course of the last ten days a numerous body of ryots from all quarters have
beset me on every side, uncommonly clamorous for justice. Their complaints
exhibit an almost universal disregard and setting aside of their pottahs, an
encrmous increase exacted from them, etc. :
and the letter concludes with a request to be informed of "the degree
of interference which is expected of me by you". The Committee of
Revenue was accustomed to such letters. Within one month of the
establishment of the new scheme it had pointed out that much of
the work of the settlement should be left in detail to the collector.
Shore had ruthlessly exposed, in his minute of 1782, the inefficiency
of the whole scheme. Space unfortunately permits only of a small
quotation from this illuminating criticism, in which he showed that
there could be no check on oppression or extortion, that the real state
.
1 Ascoli, op. cit. pp. 35, 36.
2 Haringtop, op. cit. II, 41-3.
## p. 429 (#457) ############################################
SHORE'S CRITICISM
429
of any district could not be discovered, and that it was impossible
to discriminate truth from falsehood.
I venture to pronounce that the real state of the districts is now less known
and the revenues less understood than in 1774. . . . It is the business of all,
from the ryot to the diwan, to conceal and deceive. With respect to the
Committee of Revenue, it is morally impossible for them to execute the busi-
ness they are entrusted with.
Shore concluded that the committee "with the best intentions and
the best ability and the steadiest application, must after all be a tool
in the hands of their Diwan” and that the system was fundamentally
wrong. Shore's opinion was afterwards endorsed in 1786 when the
Governor-General in Council, in instructing the Committee of
Revenue to appoint collectors for certain districts, observed
from experience we think it past doubt that situated as you are at the Presidency,
you cannot without a local agency secure the regular realisation of the reve-
nues, still less preserve the ryots and other inferior tenants from oppressions. 1
The scheme of 1781 further restored to their old position and
perquisites the sadar kanungos, whose claim to appoint their own
deputies had been correctly contested by the collector of Midnapur,2
wu pointed out that the Committee of Circuit had ordered the
registration of all deputy kanungos as servants of the Company. The
collector of Rangpur in 1784 was similarly restrained from exercising
any control over the deputy kanungos without the express orders of
government. The claim of the kanungos to their arrears of fees was
sanctioned to the extent of over 1,10,000 rupees, and they regained
the full control of their deputies in the districts; their triumph was
complete, and the evil situation exposed by Baber and others in 1772
was restored.
The picture, however, is not entirely black. In 1782 an office,
known as the zamindari daftar, was established for the management
of the estates of minor and female zamindars; it also afforded pro-
tection to zamindars of known incapacity. This was a wise and
beneficent step which anticipated the work of the present court of
wards. The growing influence of officers with district experience can
be seen in the orders issued by the Committee of Revenue to all
collectors in November, 1783, directing them to proceed on tour
throughout their districts in order to form by personal observation
an estimate of the state of the crops and their probable produce for
the current year. In the past, district-officers had in vain sought
permission to tour through their districts, but this had always been
peremptorily refused by the board. The wholesome influence now
exerted on the board by practical men who had served in districts
1 Colebrooke, op. cit. pp. 243-4.
2 Committee of Revenue's proceedings, 12 September, 17 September, 8
November, 1781.
3 Idem, May and September, 1782
## p. 430 (#458) ############################################
430
REVENUE ADMINISTRATION OF BENGAL, 1765-86
>
was to grow stronger. Anderson, Shore and Charters were men who
had had a real mufassal training, and Croftes had been a member of
the 1776 commission. They knew that "in every pargana throughout
Bengal there are some district usages which cannot clearly be known
at a distance", yet which must be known if the administration is to
be just and efficient. In 1786 a great and beneficial change comes
over the revenue administration of Bengal; it is not too much to
attribute this to the district experience of the members of the com-
mittee appointed in 1781. For five years they laboured under the
evils and difficulties of attempting to administer a system which was
over-centralised, and which placed secretariat theories before district
experience. In 1786 the district officer comes to his own. Before
discussing these changes in detail some important facts must be
briefly noticed. In 1784 Pitt's India Act was passed. Section 39 of
this act directs that the conditions governing the collection of land
revenue shall be “forthwith enquired into and fully investigated” and
that “permanent rules” for the future regulation of the payments and
services due "from the rajas, zemindars and other native land-
holders” will be established. Thus the opinion of which Francis was
the leading advocate, that the zamindar was a landowner, was adopted
by the act and the permanent rules, which Lord Cornwallis was sent
out to put into effect, were, to the great misfortune of the Bengal
cultivators, founded on that assumption. Before the details of the
act could reach India Hastings had resigned his charge; on 8 February,
1735, he delivered over charge to Macpherson and in the same month
sailed for England. His influence on the collection of the land
revenue. in Bengal was unhappy. In 1772 he was mainly responsible
for the defects which marked the quinquennial settlement; 'in 1781,
his further attempt at centralisation reduced the collections to chaos.
He possessed, as has been shown, very little first-hand knowledge of
district revenue work. It has been claimed for him that
he adopted the principle of making a detailed assessment based on a careful
enquiry in each district and . . . he conferred on the raiyats who were the actual
cultivators, the protection of formal contracts.
Neither of these encomiums can be substantiated. The assessment of
1772 was summary and admitted by its authors to have been too high.
The system of putting up the farms to open auction resulted in utterly
fictitious values that were never realised and was soon afterwards
forbidden by the Company. The system of pattahs, or leases, com-
pletely broke down, and failed, then as later, to protect the ryot.
Furthermore, the reinstatement of the kanungos, the abolition of
collectors, the establishment of the provincial diwans, and lastly the
excessive power placed in the hands of the diwan of the Committee
of Revenue, all testify to the incapacity of Hastings in his administra-
.
1
1 Letter from the Burdwan Council, Governor-General's Proceedings; ia
April, 1777.
## p. 431 (#459) ############################################
)
MACPHERSON'S REFORMS
431
tion of the Bengal land revenue; it is not too much to say that in this
respect his achievements compare unfavourably with those of
Muhammad Reza Khan. But Hastings was not a civil servant of the
To judge him, therefore, by the crown standard of a later
date is unjust and unhistorical. The Company's servants were imbued
with one idea : they came to serve the Company first and last; their
intensity of purpose made the East India Company master of India;
and this purpose was not the less strong because it did not profess to
be governed by the restrictions which are attached to an administra-
tive service of the crown. Hastings gave his employers a service and
devotion that was unflinching in its loyalty, that feared no difficulty,
that shrank from no adversary; although he may have failed in his
personal handling of the land revenue, he is entitled to the credit of
having selected some most able officers to deal with this branch of
the administration. Conspicuous among these were Shore, David
Anderson, Samuel Charters, Charles Croftes and James Grant. In
the same week as Hastings handed over charge of the government, a
letter 1 from the court of directors was received calling for an accu-
rate account of the administration at the precise period at which
Hastings resigned his office; a foretaste, had he but known, of the
anxious days ahead.
On 25 April, 1786, the new scheme was published: it spelt
decentralisation. “The division of the province into districts is the
backbone of the whole system of the reforms. ” 2 The collector becomes
a responsible officer, making the settlement and collecting the reve-
nue; the provincial diwans were abolished; and the districts were
reorganised into thirty-five more or less fiscal units, instead of the
previous "series of fiscal divisions over which the earlier collectors
had exercised their doubtful authority";g these thirty-five districts
were reduced in 1787 to twenty-three.
These measures of the local
government were reinforced by orders from the court of directors
dated 21 September, 1785, which were published in Calcutta on 12
June, 1786; under them the Committee of Revenue was reconstituted
and officially declared to be the Board of Revenue. The president of
the board was to be a member of the governor-general's council. The
special regulations drawn up for the guidance of the board may be
read in the pages of Harington and Colebrooke. Its duties were those
of controlling and advising the collectors and sanctioning their settle-
ment. On 19 July the office of Chief Saristadar was instituted to bring
the revenue records, hitherto the property of the kanungos, under the
control of government. This measure was long overdue, and had been
urged by the abler district officers since 1772, as being "no less
calculated to protect the great body of the people from oppression
2
1 Committee of Revenue's Proceedings, 14 February, 1785.
2 Ascoli, op. cit. pp. 38-40.
8 Idem.
## p. 432 (#460) ############################################
432
REVENUE ADMINISTRATION OF BENGAL, 1765-86
than to secure the full and legal right of the Sovereign". James Grant
was selected to be the first Chief Saristadar, being specially chosen
for his interest in and research among the revenue records. For the
first time since the assumption of the diwanni, government had made
a resolute effort to reduce the kanungos to their constitutional position
in the state.
The reforms of 1786 were, therefore, the work of men who desired
to gain the confidence of and to co-operate with the local district
officer. The authors of the reforms were convinced from their own
district experience that the real work of the revenue must be carried
out by trusted officers on the spot; they set themselves to create the
conditions and atmosphere in which those officers could best work.
The period 1765-86 in the administration of the land revenue in
Bengal by the Company's servants is a record of progress from the
employment of untested theories to the establishment of an adminis-
tration based on much solid knowledge. A careful perusal of the
voluminous manuscript proceedings of the Committees of Revenue
during those years reveals a fact too little known, namely, that this
progress was largely the result of unrecognised work by the district
officers of the Company in their own districts where, generally
speaking, they laboured to establish a just and humane collection of
the land revenue. Their advice, based on sound local knowledge, was
too often rejected by their official superiors in Calcutta, by whom,
as well as by the Court of Directors, they were regarded with suspi-
cion and even hostility. Their persistence had its reward; twenty
years after the assumption of the diwanni the first sound and just
administration of the land revenue was established.
NOTE. The reader has doubtless found the various references to boards and
committees of revenue confusing.
In 1769 the Council had delegated its authority in revenue matters to a
"select committee” drawn from its own members. This select committee in
1772 appointed the Committee of Circuit to examine the conditions with a view
to making a new settlement. The Committee of Circuit in August, 1772, pro-
posed that the whole Council should compose a Board of Revenue—this was
established in October, 1772, as the Committee of Revenue, and remained in
existence till 1781, when it was reorganised and composed of members junior
to and subordinate to the Supreme Council, but still retained its name "Com-
mittee of Revenue”. The term “board" is used indifferently by contemporary
writers up to 1781; after 1781 it indicates the Supreme Council when sitting to
hear revenue appeal cases from the Committee of Revenue. The modern Board
of Revenue dates from 1786, when it replaced the second Committee of Revenue.
## p. 433 (#461) ############################################
CHAPTER XXVI
1
THE BENGAL ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEM,
1786-1818
THE Select Committee of 1781 had been directed to find means
for gaining not only "security and advantage" for Britain but "the
happiness of the native inhabitants," and from the discussions of the
years 1781-4 certain maxims of local government had clearly emerged.
There must be a reform of abuses among the Company's servants;
the methods by which they grew rich must be watched; they must
no longer take presents. Their trading activities must no longer
operate to destroy the trade of native merchants and bankers. The
system of monopolies must be restricted. The rights of zamindars
and land-holders must not be superseded in order to increase the
revenues. There must be even-handed justice for Europeans and
Indians alike.
The instructions to Cornwallis embodied the principles thus de-
scribed. In relation to local government three main subjects were
discussed. First, there was the land revenue. It was to be handled
leniently : “a moderate jama, regularly and punctually collected"
was to be preferred to grandiose but unrealised schemes. It was to
be settled “in every practicable instance” with the zamindars. Ulti-
mately the settlement was to be permanent, but at present it was to
be made for ten years. Secondly, there was the question of adminis-
tration. This was to be organised upon a simple and uniform basis.
The frequent changes of recent years had produced injury and
extravagance, and made "steady adherence to almost any one system”
a preferable policy. The higher officers should be Europeans; and
the subordinates Indians, as being more suited to the detailed work
of the province. These higher officers were to be chosen carefully
froni the principal servants of the Company; men "distinguished for
good conduct and abilities, and conversant with the country langu-
ages". They should be adequately paid, partly by salary, partly
by commission. Their districts were to be large; there should not be
more than twenty, or at most twenty-five, in the whole province. In
the -settlement of the revenue, and in the administration of justice,
they were to have wide authority.
Thirdly, there was the judicial system. The instructions contem-
plated the continuance of the existing system of civil justice, under
European judges. In the districts the collectors of revenue were to
be, also, judges of the civil courts; for this would "tend more to
simplicity, energy, justice and economy" In criminal jurisdiction,
too, the existing system was to be maintained. Indian control was to
28
## p. 434 (#462) ############################################
434
BENGAL ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEM, 1786-1818
continue. Although the collector was to enjoy magisterial powers of
arrest, “the power of trial and punishment must on no account be
exercised by any other than the established officers of Mahomedan
judicature". The judicial system indeed was to be informed with.
European ideas of justice, but to be governed by Indian usages. One
point recurred frequently throughout the instructions. There was to
be a general movement for purification and economy. Abuses of all
kinds were to be swept away; peculation was to cease; useless offices
were to be reduced, and the interests of economy and simplicity were
to regulate the various branches of the administrative system. Such
was the task of Cornwallis.
The proposal to make Cornwallis the first instrument of the new
policy was first mooted in 1782 during the administration of 'Shel-
burne;a and his appointment had been one feature of the scheme for
Indian reform proposed by Dundas in the report of the Secret Com-
mittee of 1781. The Fox-North coalition rejected the idea, but Pitt
revived it on their defeat. The negotiations began in April, 1784;3
at the end of the year they seemed to have failed completely; a
renewal in February, 1785, was again a failure; and it was not until
February, 1786, that Cornwallis accepted. Then the union of the
military command with the governor-generalship, and the promise
that the governor-general should be independent of his council,
induced Cornwallis to accept. He finally landed at Calcutta in
September, 1786.
Cornwallis was a man of middle age with extensive military
experience. He had taken part in the campaigns of the Seven Years'
War, and had gained sufficient reputation to secure his appointment
in 1776 to command in America. There, his ultimate failure, after
some brilliant preliminary successes, did not suffice to ruin his career.
Even his opponent, Fox, paid homage to his abilities in 1783, and his
employment under Pitt on the mission of 1785 to Prussia was sufficient
evidence of the trust in which he held him. Of the affairs of India,
he had little knowledge and no experience. He is distinguished as
the first governor-general who did not climb to power from the ranks
of the Company's service. Appointed by the Company, he owed his
nomination to the ministry. His selection was one more evidence of
the new spirit in Indian affairs. It brought India a stage nearer to
incorporation in the overseas empire of Britain.
Inexperience made Cornwallis largely dependent on advisers both
in framing his policy, and, still more, in working it out. The broad
1 The instructions are in a series of dispatches dated 12 April, 1786. They are
to be found in I. O. Records, Despatches to Bengal, vol. XV. One of the most
important of these is printed as Appendix 12 to the Second Report from the
Select Committee of the House of Commons on the Affairs of the East India
Company. Parliamentary Papers, 1810, V, 13.
Cornwallis to Pitt, & November, 1784. Ross, Correspondence, 1, 179.
Ross, op. cit. I, 167.
4 Idem, p. 208.
3
## p. 435 (#463) ############################################
CORNWALLIS'S ADVISERS
435
lines of his action were laid down by the administration; the instruc-
tions of the court of directors gave more detailed guidance. But
much was left necessarily to the men on the spot, and hence the
servants of the Company by their practical knowledge had great
influence on the result: Cornwallis acknowledged plainly his debt
to them. Perhaps the chief of them was John Shore, chosen especially
by the directors to supply the local knowledge which Cornwallis
lacked. “The abilities of Mr. Shore", Cornwallis wrote a month after
his arrival, "and his knowledge in every branch of the business of
this country, and the very high character which he holds in the settle-
ment, render his assistance to me invaluable. ”i And again in 1789
in connection with the revenue settlement, he said, “I consider it as
singularly fortunate that the public could profit from his great ex-
perience and uncommon abilities". 2 In revenue matters Cornwallis
trusted mainly to Shore. He was by far the most experienced of the
Company's servants in this branch, for he had been in its service
since 1769, and had held important revenue offices since 1774. Francis
had brought him to the front, but Hastings also had recognised his
merit.
James Grant is indeed as famous as Shore in connection with the
revenue settlement. But Grant had but little practical experience.
His reputation has come from his wide study of the revenue system,
and the series of published works in which he stated the results of his
learning. He was an expert rather than a man of affairs. As saristadar
he had unrivalled opportunity for studying revenue records, and
Cornwallis retained the office of saristadar till Grant went home in
1789. But in making important decisions he preferred men of experi-
ence to men of learning. After Shore, Cornwallis therefore put
Jonathan Duncan, another experienced collector; and later governor
of Bombay. He was little known in England when Cornwallis arrived,
but "he is held in the highest estimation by every man, both European
and native, in Bengal", wrote Cornwallis in 1787, "and, next to Mr
Shore, was more capable of assisting me, particularly in re
matiers, than any man in this country”. 3 He had, said Cornwallis in
1789, “besides good health . . . knowledge, application, integrity, and
temper", the last “not the least useful”. * Although a junior, he was
recommended by Cornwallis for a seat on the council as early as
1788. 5 And in the last stages of the revenue settlement Cornwallis
found consolation in the approval of Duncan for his differences with
Shore over the question of permanence.
The final decision in that matter was due, however, largely to
Charles Grant. When Dundas decided to support Cornwallis against
enue
")
1 Cornwallis to Dundas, 15 November, 1786. Ross, op. cit. 1, 227.
2 Cornwallis to Court of Directors, 2 August, 1789. Ross, op. cit. I, 545.
3 Cornwallis to Dundas, 14 August, 1787. Ross, op. cit. I, 271.
4 Cornwallis to N. Smith, 9 November, 1789. Ross, op. cit. I, 449.
5 Dundas to Cornwallis, 20 February, 1789. Ross, op. cit. 1, 410-11.
## p. 436 (#464) ############################################
436
BENGAL ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEM, 1786-1818
1
the advice of Shore, it was partly at least owing to the representations
of Charles Grant. He had no personal knowledge of revenue matters,
but he received the greatest share in the confidence of Cornwallis,
and had given him invaluable help during the years 1786-90. When
Grant sailed for home in 1790 Cornwallis recommended Dundas "to
converse with him frequently upon every part of the business of this
Country", and his zeal for the governor-general's interests gave him
considerable influence over Dundas during the years 1790-3. James
Grant (a cousin of Charles),- like Shore and Duncan, specialised on
the revenue side. But Charles Grant was the chief adviser in matters
of trade. His loss "in the commercial line", wrote Cornwallis when
he left India, "is irreparable". He had been secretary to the Board
of Trade in the time of Hastings and had been appointed by the
board in 1781 commercial resident at Malda. He was outstanding
both in experience and integrity. At first, at least, Cornwallis thought
him the only honest man on the commercial side, and trusted very
largely to him in his attempt to reform that branch of the adminis-
tration. In this work Cornwallis had also the help of Charles Stuart,
member of council and president of the Board of Trade (1786-9).
Stuart, however, never gained in the same degree the confidence of
Cornwallis, and he lacked the wide commercial experience of
Charles Grant.
In his judicial work Cornwallis had also an invaluable adviser.
Here the Company's servants could be of but limited use. Cornwallis
took full advantage of their experience in judicial business, but their
experience was relatively small and they lacked expert knowledge.
Some of them-Charles Grant among them-were of great value in
carrying out reforms: but only the judges could help in devising them.
Cornwallis was, therefore, fortunate in the aid of Sir William Jones,
an oriental scholar of reputation unrivalled in his own time, and a
man of great practical ability, who had devoted many years to the
study and practice of the law. In 1783 he had come to India as judge
of the Supreme Court of Judicature at Calcutta, and he brought to his
task the zeal of an enthusiast, and the knowledge of an expert. “A
good system of laws" seemed to him the first necessity of India; and,
following the lead of Hastings, he set himself to this end to codify
the existing Hindu and Muhammadan laws. But he realised also the
need for "due administration" and a "well-established peace". He
gave, therefore, full aid to Cornwallis in his reform of the judicial
administration and in the regulation of the police.
Although the policy that Cornwallis came to enforce in 1786 was
new, it was not wholly new. In every direction Cornwallis built
1 Cornwallis to Dundas, 12 February, 1790. Ross, op. cit. I, 480.
2 Firminger (ed. ), Fifth Report . . . on the Affairs of the East India Com-
pany . . . 1812, 1, p. xiv.
:: Ross, op. cit. 1, 306.
.
## p. 437 (#465) ############################################
CORNWALLIS'S CHARACTER
437
on foundations already laid or begun to be laid by his predecessors,
and especially by Hastings. It was the emphasis rather than the
principle that was new; but the principles were now clearly stated,
and the strength of the home government was used to enforce them.
Every aspect of reform was foreshadowed in the work or in the
projects of Hastings, and hence the solidity of the work of Cornwallis.
Yet even when all allowance has been made, much credit must be
given to Cornwallis himself. Certainly no man of genius, he con-
tributed no new ideas to the work he undertook. He was not an
expert like Jones or Grant, nor a man of wide experience like Shore.
He was not a doctrinaire like Francis, nor an inventive genius like
Hastings. He was content, as Hastings had never been, to plead a
command from home as a final cause for decision, and this respect
for authority was his outstanding characteristic. But in spite of this
he possessed great qualities and stood for important principles. Above
all, he was, beyond reproach, upright and honest. He had not to
fear a sudden decline in favour; he had no pettiness of ambition;
he was not a time-server; and he left behind him a tradition of service
a
which was of lasting value in Indian administration. Loyalty and
integrity there had been before, but it was a loyalty to the Company
and an integrity in the Company's affairs. Cornwallis was a public
servant who upheld national and not private traditions. His service
was to the Crown and not to the people over whom he ruled, and he
thus embodied fitly the new spirit of Indian rule.
To this invincible honesty and desire for the public good, he added
a soldier's sense of duty to his superiors. The command of Dundas
or Pitt, or even of the court of directors, was decisive to him. He had
a belief in the possibilities of justice, a faith in the standards by which
conduct would be judged at home. He was determined that these
standards should not be lowered in India, nor overlaid by native
practices. To secure this he gave the higher administrative posts to
Englishmen, and he was always loth to leave real responsibility in
native hands. Yet he was wise enough to see that this was not enough :
these Englishmen must maintain the English standards. They must
be appointed and promoted for merit, not by patronage. In the interests
of this maxim he was prepared to resist the recommendations of all,
even of the Prince Regent or of the directors. Lastly, every deviation
from honesty must be rigorously punished.
This is the system Cornwallis set out to establish, and no doubt
because it was practical rather than ideal, he came much nearer than
most reformers to a realisation of his aims.
а
When Cornwallis landed in Bengal in September, 1786, important
changes in administration had just taken place.
that while Hastings and Barwell assumed that the sovereign possessed
the land, and Francis and his school were equally convinced that the
zamindar was the real owner, no one thought, with the possible
exception of Ducarel, of what might be the claim of the ryots to the
possession of the land, and of the khudkasht ryot 4 in particular.
The settlement problem, though of the first importance, was not
peremptory; the quinquennial settlement had still some time to run.
At this juncture, Monson died, and the governor-general recovered
his lost authority in the council. Almost the first use that Hastings
made of his restored authority was to take up the business of the
coming settlement, a duty which he had felt to be ‘paramount, and
which he could now approach with effect. In August, 1776, he
had laid before the board certain proposals connected with the
necessity of preparing for the approaching settlement, suggesting that
all provincial councils and collectors should submit an estimate of
the land revenue that might justly be expected from their districts.
This idea was eventually agreed to and a circular letter to that
effect issued.
On 1 November ? the governor-general suggested that an "office"
7
2
1 The Original Minutes of the Governor-General and Council of Fort
William, etc. , published in London, 1782.
Op. cit. II, 417.
3 Mill, History of British India, 5th ed. iv, 24.
4 The Zemindary Settlement of Bengal, vol. 1, para. 2, and appendix viii,
vol. I, pp. 198-9. (Calcutta, 1879. )
5 Letter to L. Sulivan, 21 March, 1776, also to John Graham, 26 September,
1776.
6 Governor-General's Proceedings, 30 August. 1776.
7 Idem, 1 November, 1776.
## p. 425 (#453) ############################################
THE AMINI COMMISSION
425
"
or, in modern parlance, a commission should be formed whose duty
should be to tour throughout Bengal "to procure material for the
settlement of the different districts". The reports from the various
district officers had revealed the disastrous effect of an assessment
based on faulty information, and Hastings was determined to avoid
that evil, if possible, in making the approaching settlement. His
proposals were strenuously, even
violently, opposed by Clavering and
Francis, who feared that the powers given to the amins, or Indian
officers, of, the commission to enable them to obtain the requisite
information would be used in a method prejudicial to the good name
of the Company. This fear, which was not without basis, was ex-
pressed in their usual intemperate fashion, and was made to serve as
an attack on the governor-general's character; for he was accused of
diverting the constitutional powers of the Supreme Council for his
own gratification by means of the casting vote.
Hastings met these unfounded allegations with more than his
wonted courtesy and self-control, entering into detailed explanations
of the information required, and the necessity for it, but his deter-
mination was as inflexible as ever : on 29 November D. Anderson and
C. Bogle, two of the most promising of the younger officers of the
Company, were selected as members of the commission: the
accountant-general, C. Croftes, was shortly afterwards added, and the
cost of the commission was estimated at something less than 4500
rupees per mensem. Thus was established that commission whose
report, presented in March, 1778, is perhaps the most valuable con-
temporary document in the early revenue history of Bengal under
the Company's administration. The information collected and its
style of presentment reflect the greatest credit both on the professional
capacities of its authors, and on the choice and acumen of the gover:
nor-general. The report lost no force from the dispassionate and
unassuming tone in which it recounted with studied moderation the
wholesale alienation of lands and deliberate oppression of the ryots
by the zamindars, who not infrequently continued to collect taxes
which the indulgence of government had abolished. The report
therefore exposed the inaccuracy of much that Francis had asserted :
it also included a large collection of
the original accounts in the Bengal, Persian, and Orissa languages.
preserved as records they will be highly serviceable as references in settling
disputes . . . and may lay the foundation of regular and permanent registers.
Meanwhile the court of directors wrote to express their displeasure
with the governor-general, and their support of the minority; they
censured the use which Hastings had made of the casting vote, and
expressed surprise that "after more than seven years' investigation"
further information about the collections was still required.
If
1 Governor-General's Proceedings, 6 December and 27 December, 1776.
2 Printed ap. Ramsbotham, op. cit. pp. 99-131.
## p. 426 (#454) ############################################
426
REVENUE ADMINISTRATION OF BENGAL, 1765-86
No definite decision was taken in the matter of the new settle-
ment. In the face of much conflicting evidence the directors decided to
Inark time; accordingly, on 23 December, 1778, they sent orders for
the land revenue to be settled annually; it is not easy to say what else
they could have done. In 1779 the trouble 1 between the Supreme
Court and the Company's diwanni adalats, which had been simmer-
ing since 1774, boiled over. The Kasijora case, with its disgraceful
incidents, compelled the immediate interference of the council. The
Supreme Court refused to yield, and the quarrel threatened to split
the entire administration. A solution was found by the chief justice
in consultation with the governor-general. Sir Elijah Impey was
offered and accepted the chief judgeship of the sadar diwanni adalat
with an additional salary of about £ 6500: he thus united in his own
person the authority of both jurisdictions. His action was severely
criticised by Francis and Wheler at the time, and by later critics.
But the law officers of the crown in England found nothing incorrect
in Impey's action which "put an end to an intolerable situation
and anticipatea by many years the policy which extended the
appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court over the provincia!
courts”?
It will be remembered that the plan drawn up by the Board of
Revenue in 1773, placing the collections under six provincial councils
of revenue, was expressly declared by the governor and council to
be temporary. No opportunity occurred for introducing a permanent
scheme until Hastings had regained his control of the council, when
a commission of enquiry was appointed to prepare the way for a
permanent measure. In July, 1777, the governor-general and council
promulgated to all the provincial councils except Patna a modified
scheme for the settlement of the revenue for the current year. The
scheme contained ten paragraphs and bore strong impress of the
board's debates during the previous three years, in that it gave the
zamindar a position of increased importance at the cost of the ryot.
The councils were empowered to use their own discretion in making
fresh settlements with those zamindars who refused to agree to a
renewal of the existing terms, and where possible the zamindar was
to be invited to co-operate in making the settlement. In April, 1778,
a circular letter was sent to all provincial councils requiring a list of
all cefaulting zamindars to be posted at every district headquarters,
while defaulters were warned that failure to meet obligations might
result in the sale of the zamindari, or its transference to others who
were willing to take over the existing arrangement and to pay the
arrears. These instructions were repeated each May in 1778, 1779
and 1780.
In December, 1780, Francis sailed for Europe. The field was now
a
1 Mill, op. cit. IV, 218-54; Beveridge, op. cit. pp. 436-40.
Roberts, History of British India, p. 213.
## p. 427 (#455) ############################################
CENTRALISATION OF 1781
427
clear; Hastings had an undisputed authority; his adversaries "had
sickened, died and fled". 1 Tenax propositi, if ever man was, Hastings
continued his endeavours to reorganise the collections, and shortly
there was issued
a permanent plan for the administration of the revenue of Bengal and Bihar,
formed the 20th February, 1781, by the Hon'ble the Governor-General and
Council in their Revenue Department. 2
The main alteration involved cannot be described better than in
the words of the introductory minute. After recalling the temporary
nature of the provincial councils, the easy prelude of another per-
manent mode, and referring to the Revenue Board's proceedings of
23 November, 1773, where the board's intention is "methodically
and completely delineated", the alteration is stated to consist sub-
stantially in this : that
all the collections of the provinces should be brought down to the Presidency
and be there administered by a Committee of the most able and experienced
of the covenanted servants of the Company under the immediate inspection of,
and with the opportunity of constant reference for instruction to, the Governor-
General and Council.
"By this plan”, wrote Hastings, “we hope to bring the whole administration
of the revenues to Calcutta, without any intermediate charge or agency, and to
effect a saving of lacs to the Company and to the Zamindars and ryots. " He
added complacently: "Read the plan and the minute introducing it; it will not
discredit me, but the plan will put to shame those who discredit it”.
Shore, after a year's experience of the plan in working, did not
hesitate emphatically to condemn it.
The new scheme 3 consisted of fourteen paragraphs. Its object was
to reduce the expense of the collections and to restore the revenue
of the provinces as far as possible "to its former standard"; an inde-
finite reference. To this end a new committee of the revenue was
ereated consisting of four members assisted by a diwan; the first
members of this committee were David Anderson, John Shore, Samuel
Charters, and Charles Croftes; Ganga Govind Singh was appointed
diwan. The members of this committee took oath to receive "no
lucrative advantage" from their office, except of course, from their
salary which was made up of 2 per cent. on the monthly net receipts *
and divided proportionally among them. The provincial councils and
appeal courts were abolished, and collectors replaced in all the dist-
ricts. The superintendentship of the Khalsa was abolished and its
functions transferred to the Committee of Revenue; the office of the
rai raian was placed under the Supreme Council and its holder was
specifically forbidden to “interfere in the business transacted by the
diwan of the Committee". Finally, the kanungos were reinstated "in
1 Gleig, op. cit. I, 329, 330.
. Governor-General's Proceedings, 20 January, 1781.
3 Colebrooke, op. cit. pp. 213-16.
4 Idem, pp. 215, 216.
## p. 428 (#456) ############################################
428
REVENUE ADMINISTRATION OF BENGAL, 1765-86
the complete charge and possession of all the functions and powers
which constitutionally appertain to their office”.
The scheme bears all the signs of being prepared in a secretariat.
On paper it possibly appeared extremely reasonable and efficient; in
practice it broke down at every point. The information, valuable as
it was, collected by the commission of 1776, could not, and, by its
authors, was not intended to take the place of that information which
only trained district officers could furnish, but Hastings was bent on
concentration. In 1773, the result of his grouping the various districts
into six divisions under provincial councils resulted in a loss to the
Company's government of much valuable local knowledge and
experience. His plan of 1781 carried concentration still further.
The re-appointment of Collectors appears to suggest an idea of decentra-
lisation. This however was not the case. The collector was denied any inter-
ference with the new settlement of the revenue. The new collectors were
merely figureheads, and the distrust which the council showed in their appoint-
ment could lead to nothing but discouragement. 1
The truth of this comment is exemplified by two quotations
selected at random from the Committee of Revenue's proceedings
for April, 1783. John David Patterson, collector of Rangpur, wrote
on 3 April, 1783, to ask for instructions as to what action he might
take in his district.
There is nothing but confusion; there is no Kanungo to be found, he is
fled the country; the ryots wanting to withhold their payments; the Farmer
seizing everything he can lay his hands upon and swelling up his demands by
every artifice. . . . No pains shall be spared on my part to get at the truth
altho' it is wading through a sea of chicanery on both sides. . . .
On 13 March William Rooke, collector of Purnia, wrote with even
greater detail to the same effect; he reported that the farmer
has repeatedly flogged those who preferred any complaint to me. . . . In the
course of the last ten days a numerous body of ryots from all quarters have
beset me on every side, uncommonly clamorous for justice. Their complaints
exhibit an almost universal disregard and setting aside of their pottahs, an
encrmous increase exacted from them, etc. :
and the letter concludes with a request to be informed of "the degree
of interference which is expected of me by you". The Committee of
Revenue was accustomed to such letters. Within one month of the
establishment of the new scheme it had pointed out that much of
the work of the settlement should be left in detail to the collector.
Shore had ruthlessly exposed, in his minute of 1782, the inefficiency
of the whole scheme. Space unfortunately permits only of a small
quotation from this illuminating criticism, in which he showed that
there could be no check on oppression or extortion, that the real state
.
1 Ascoli, op. cit. pp. 35, 36.
2 Haringtop, op. cit. II, 41-3.
## p. 429 (#457) ############################################
SHORE'S CRITICISM
429
of any district could not be discovered, and that it was impossible
to discriminate truth from falsehood.
I venture to pronounce that the real state of the districts is now less known
and the revenues less understood than in 1774. . . . It is the business of all,
from the ryot to the diwan, to conceal and deceive. With respect to the
Committee of Revenue, it is morally impossible for them to execute the busi-
ness they are entrusted with.
Shore concluded that the committee "with the best intentions and
the best ability and the steadiest application, must after all be a tool
in the hands of their Diwan” and that the system was fundamentally
wrong. Shore's opinion was afterwards endorsed in 1786 when the
Governor-General in Council, in instructing the Committee of
Revenue to appoint collectors for certain districts, observed
from experience we think it past doubt that situated as you are at the Presidency,
you cannot without a local agency secure the regular realisation of the reve-
nues, still less preserve the ryots and other inferior tenants from oppressions. 1
The scheme of 1781 further restored to their old position and
perquisites the sadar kanungos, whose claim to appoint their own
deputies had been correctly contested by the collector of Midnapur,2
wu pointed out that the Committee of Circuit had ordered the
registration of all deputy kanungos as servants of the Company. The
collector of Rangpur in 1784 was similarly restrained from exercising
any control over the deputy kanungos without the express orders of
government. The claim of the kanungos to their arrears of fees was
sanctioned to the extent of over 1,10,000 rupees, and they regained
the full control of their deputies in the districts; their triumph was
complete, and the evil situation exposed by Baber and others in 1772
was restored.
The picture, however, is not entirely black. In 1782 an office,
known as the zamindari daftar, was established for the management
of the estates of minor and female zamindars; it also afforded pro-
tection to zamindars of known incapacity. This was a wise and
beneficent step which anticipated the work of the present court of
wards. The growing influence of officers with district experience can
be seen in the orders issued by the Committee of Revenue to all
collectors in November, 1783, directing them to proceed on tour
throughout their districts in order to form by personal observation
an estimate of the state of the crops and their probable produce for
the current year. In the past, district-officers had in vain sought
permission to tour through their districts, but this had always been
peremptorily refused by the board. The wholesome influence now
exerted on the board by practical men who had served in districts
1 Colebrooke, op. cit. pp. 243-4.
2 Committee of Revenue's proceedings, 12 September, 17 September, 8
November, 1781.
3 Idem, May and September, 1782
## p. 430 (#458) ############################################
430
REVENUE ADMINISTRATION OF BENGAL, 1765-86
>
was to grow stronger. Anderson, Shore and Charters were men who
had had a real mufassal training, and Croftes had been a member of
the 1776 commission. They knew that "in every pargana throughout
Bengal there are some district usages which cannot clearly be known
at a distance", yet which must be known if the administration is to
be just and efficient. In 1786 a great and beneficial change comes
over the revenue administration of Bengal; it is not too much to
attribute this to the district experience of the members of the com-
mittee appointed in 1781. For five years they laboured under the
evils and difficulties of attempting to administer a system which was
over-centralised, and which placed secretariat theories before district
experience. In 1786 the district officer comes to his own. Before
discussing these changes in detail some important facts must be
briefly noticed. In 1784 Pitt's India Act was passed. Section 39 of
this act directs that the conditions governing the collection of land
revenue shall be “forthwith enquired into and fully investigated” and
that “permanent rules” for the future regulation of the payments and
services due "from the rajas, zemindars and other native land-
holders” will be established. Thus the opinion of which Francis was
the leading advocate, that the zamindar was a landowner, was adopted
by the act and the permanent rules, which Lord Cornwallis was sent
out to put into effect, were, to the great misfortune of the Bengal
cultivators, founded on that assumption. Before the details of the
act could reach India Hastings had resigned his charge; on 8 February,
1735, he delivered over charge to Macpherson and in the same month
sailed for England. His influence on the collection of the land
revenue. in Bengal was unhappy. In 1772 he was mainly responsible
for the defects which marked the quinquennial settlement; 'in 1781,
his further attempt at centralisation reduced the collections to chaos.
He possessed, as has been shown, very little first-hand knowledge of
district revenue work. It has been claimed for him that
he adopted the principle of making a detailed assessment based on a careful
enquiry in each district and . . . he conferred on the raiyats who were the actual
cultivators, the protection of formal contracts.
Neither of these encomiums can be substantiated. The assessment of
1772 was summary and admitted by its authors to have been too high.
The system of putting up the farms to open auction resulted in utterly
fictitious values that were never realised and was soon afterwards
forbidden by the Company. The system of pattahs, or leases, com-
pletely broke down, and failed, then as later, to protect the ryot.
Furthermore, the reinstatement of the kanungos, the abolition of
collectors, the establishment of the provincial diwans, and lastly the
excessive power placed in the hands of the diwan of the Committee
of Revenue, all testify to the incapacity of Hastings in his administra-
.
1
1 Letter from the Burdwan Council, Governor-General's Proceedings; ia
April, 1777.
## p. 431 (#459) ############################################
)
MACPHERSON'S REFORMS
431
tion of the Bengal land revenue; it is not too much to say that in this
respect his achievements compare unfavourably with those of
Muhammad Reza Khan. But Hastings was not a civil servant of the
To judge him, therefore, by the crown standard of a later
date is unjust and unhistorical. The Company's servants were imbued
with one idea : they came to serve the Company first and last; their
intensity of purpose made the East India Company master of India;
and this purpose was not the less strong because it did not profess to
be governed by the restrictions which are attached to an administra-
tive service of the crown. Hastings gave his employers a service and
devotion that was unflinching in its loyalty, that feared no difficulty,
that shrank from no adversary; although he may have failed in his
personal handling of the land revenue, he is entitled to the credit of
having selected some most able officers to deal with this branch of
the administration. Conspicuous among these were Shore, David
Anderson, Samuel Charters, Charles Croftes and James Grant. In
the same week as Hastings handed over charge of the government, a
letter 1 from the court of directors was received calling for an accu-
rate account of the administration at the precise period at which
Hastings resigned his office; a foretaste, had he but known, of the
anxious days ahead.
On 25 April, 1786, the new scheme was published: it spelt
decentralisation. “The division of the province into districts is the
backbone of the whole system of the reforms. ” 2 The collector becomes
a responsible officer, making the settlement and collecting the reve-
nue; the provincial diwans were abolished; and the districts were
reorganised into thirty-five more or less fiscal units, instead of the
previous "series of fiscal divisions over which the earlier collectors
had exercised their doubtful authority";g these thirty-five districts
were reduced in 1787 to twenty-three.
These measures of the local
government were reinforced by orders from the court of directors
dated 21 September, 1785, which were published in Calcutta on 12
June, 1786; under them the Committee of Revenue was reconstituted
and officially declared to be the Board of Revenue. The president of
the board was to be a member of the governor-general's council. The
special regulations drawn up for the guidance of the board may be
read in the pages of Harington and Colebrooke. Its duties were those
of controlling and advising the collectors and sanctioning their settle-
ment. On 19 July the office of Chief Saristadar was instituted to bring
the revenue records, hitherto the property of the kanungos, under the
control of government. This measure was long overdue, and had been
urged by the abler district officers since 1772, as being "no less
calculated to protect the great body of the people from oppression
2
1 Committee of Revenue's Proceedings, 14 February, 1785.
2 Ascoli, op. cit. pp. 38-40.
8 Idem.
## p. 432 (#460) ############################################
432
REVENUE ADMINISTRATION OF BENGAL, 1765-86
than to secure the full and legal right of the Sovereign". James Grant
was selected to be the first Chief Saristadar, being specially chosen
for his interest in and research among the revenue records. For the
first time since the assumption of the diwanni, government had made
a resolute effort to reduce the kanungos to their constitutional position
in the state.
The reforms of 1786 were, therefore, the work of men who desired
to gain the confidence of and to co-operate with the local district
officer. The authors of the reforms were convinced from their own
district experience that the real work of the revenue must be carried
out by trusted officers on the spot; they set themselves to create the
conditions and atmosphere in which those officers could best work.
The period 1765-86 in the administration of the land revenue in
Bengal by the Company's servants is a record of progress from the
employment of untested theories to the establishment of an adminis-
tration based on much solid knowledge. A careful perusal of the
voluminous manuscript proceedings of the Committees of Revenue
during those years reveals a fact too little known, namely, that this
progress was largely the result of unrecognised work by the district
officers of the Company in their own districts where, generally
speaking, they laboured to establish a just and humane collection of
the land revenue. Their advice, based on sound local knowledge, was
too often rejected by their official superiors in Calcutta, by whom,
as well as by the Court of Directors, they were regarded with suspi-
cion and even hostility. Their persistence had its reward; twenty
years after the assumption of the diwanni the first sound and just
administration of the land revenue was established.
NOTE. The reader has doubtless found the various references to boards and
committees of revenue confusing.
In 1769 the Council had delegated its authority in revenue matters to a
"select committee” drawn from its own members. This select committee in
1772 appointed the Committee of Circuit to examine the conditions with a view
to making a new settlement. The Committee of Circuit in August, 1772, pro-
posed that the whole Council should compose a Board of Revenue—this was
established in October, 1772, as the Committee of Revenue, and remained in
existence till 1781, when it was reorganised and composed of members junior
to and subordinate to the Supreme Council, but still retained its name "Com-
mittee of Revenue”. The term “board" is used indifferently by contemporary
writers up to 1781; after 1781 it indicates the Supreme Council when sitting to
hear revenue appeal cases from the Committee of Revenue. The modern Board
of Revenue dates from 1786, when it replaced the second Committee of Revenue.
## p. 433 (#461) ############################################
CHAPTER XXVI
1
THE BENGAL ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEM,
1786-1818
THE Select Committee of 1781 had been directed to find means
for gaining not only "security and advantage" for Britain but "the
happiness of the native inhabitants," and from the discussions of the
years 1781-4 certain maxims of local government had clearly emerged.
There must be a reform of abuses among the Company's servants;
the methods by which they grew rich must be watched; they must
no longer take presents. Their trading activities must no longer
operate to destroy the trade of native merchants and bankers. The
system of monopolies must be restricted. The rights of zamindars
and land-holders must not be superseded in order to increase the
revenues. There must be even-handed justice for Europeans and
Indians alike.
The instructions to Cornwallis embodied the principles thus de-
scribed. In relation to local government three main subjects were
discussed. First, there was the land revenue. It was to be handled
leniently : “a moderate jama, regularly and punctually collected"
was to be preferred to grandiose but unrealised schemes. It was to
be settled “in every practicable instance” with the zamindars. Ulti-
mately the settlement was to be permanent, but at present it was to
be made for ten years. Secondly, there was the question of adminis-
tration. This was to be organised upon a simple and uniform basis.
The frequent changes of recent years had produced injury and
extravagance, and made "steady adherence to almost any one system”
a preferable policy. The higher officers should be Europeans; and
the subordinates Indians, as being more suited to the detailed work
of the province. These higher officers were to be chosen carefully
froni the principal servants of the Company; men "distinguished for
good conduct and abilities, and conversant with the country langu-
ages". They should be adequately paid, partly by salary, partly
by commission. Their districts were to be large; there should not be
more than twenty, or at most twenty-five, in the whole province. In
the -settlement of the revenue, and in the administration of justice,
they were to have wide authority.
Thirdly, there was the judicial system. The instructions contem-
plated the continuance of the existing system of civil justice, under
European judges. In the districts the collectors of revenue were to
be, also, judges of the civil courts; for this would "tend more to
simplicity, energy, justice and economy" In criminal jurisdiction,
too, the existing system was to be maintained. Indian control was to
28
## p. 434 (#462) ############################################
434
BENGAL ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEM, 1786-1818
continue. Although the collector was to enjoy magisterial powers of
arrest, “the power of trial and punishment must on no account be
exercised by any other than the established officers of Mahomedan
judicature". The judicial system indeed was to be informed with.
European ideas of justice, but to be governed by Indian usages. One
point recurred frequently throughout the instructions. There was to
be a general movement for purification and economy. Abuses of all
kinds were to be swept away; peculation was to cease; useless offices
were to be reduced, and the interests of economy and simplicity were
to regulate the various branches of the administrative system. Such
was the task of Cornwallis.
The proposal to make Cornwallis the first instrument of the new
policy was first mooted in 1782 during the administration of 'Shel-
burne;a and his appointment had been one feature of the scheme for
Indian reform proposed by Dundas in the report of the Secret Com-
mittee of 1781. The Fox-North coalition rejected the idea, but Pitt
revived it on their defeat. The negotiations began in April, 1784;3
at the end of the year they seemed to have failed completely; a
renewal in February, 1785, was again a failure; and it was not until
February, 1786, that Cornwallis accepted. Then the union of the
military command with the governor-generalship, and the promise
that the governor-general should be independent of his council,
induced Cornwallis to accept. He finally landed at Calcutta in
September, 1786.
Cornwallis was a man of middle age with extensive military
experience. He had taken part in the campaigns of the Seven Years'
War, and had gained sufficient reputation to secure his appointment
in 1776 to command in America. There, his ultimate failure, after
some brilliant preliminary successes, did not suffice to ruin his career.
Even his opponent, Fox, paid homage to his abilities in 1783, and his
employment under Pitt on the mission of 1785 to Prussia was sufficient
evidence of the trust in which he held him. Of the affairs of India,
he had little knowledge and no experience. He is distinguished as
the first governor-general who did not climb to power from the ranks
of the Company's service. Appointed by the Company, he owed his
nomination to the ministry. His selection was one more evidence of
the new spirit in Indian affairs. It brought India a stage nearer to
incorporation in the overseas empire of Britain.
Inexperience made Cornwallis largely dependent on advisers both
in framing his policy, and, still more, in working it out. The broad
1 The instructions are in a series of dispatches dated 12 April, 1786. They are
to be found in I. O. Records, Despatches to Bengal, vol. XV. One of the most
important of these is printed as Appendix 12 to the Second Report from the
Select Committee of the House of Commons on the Affairs of the East India
Company. Parliamentary Papers, 1810, V, 13.
Cornwallis to Pitt, & November, 1784. Ross, Correspondence, 1, 179.
Ross, op. cit. I, 167.
4 Idem, p. 208.
3
## p. 435 (#463) ############################################
CORNWALLIS'S ADVISERS
435
lines of his action were laid down by the administration; the instruc-
tions of the court of directors gave more detailed guidance. But
much was left necessarily to the men on the spot, and hence the
servants of the Company by their practical knowledge had great
influence on the result: Cornwallis acknowledged plainly his debt
to them. Perhaps the chief of them was John Shore, chosen especially
by the directors to supply the local knowledge which Cornwallis
lacked. “The abilities of Mr. Shore", Cornwallis wrote a month after
his arrival, "and his knowledge in every branch of the business of
this country, and the very high character which he holds in the settle-
ment, render his assistance to me invaluable. ”i And again in 1789
in connection with the revenue settlement, he said, “I consider it as
singularly fortunate that the public could profit from his great ex-
perience and uncommon abilities". 2 In revenue matters Cornwallis
trusted mainly to Shore. He was by far the most experienced of the
Company's servants in this branch, for he had been in its service
since 1769, and had held important revenue offices since 1774. Francis
had brought him to the front, but Hastings also had recognised his
merit.
James Grant is indeed as famous as Shore in connection with the
revenue settlement. But Grant had but little practical experience.
His reputation has come from his wide study of the revenue system,
and the series of published works in which he stated the results of his
learning. He was an expert rather than a man of affairs. As saristadar
he had unrivalled opportunity for studying revenue records, and
Cornwallis retained the office of saristadar till Grant went home in
1789. But in making important decisions he preferred men of experi-
ence to men of learning. After Shore, Cornwallis therefore put
Jonathan Duncan, another experienced collector; and later governor
of Bombay. He was little known in England when Cornwallis arrived,
but "he is held in the highest estimation by every man, both European
and native, in Bengal", wrote Cornwallis in 1787, "and, next to Mr
Shore, was more capable of assisting me, particularly in re
matiers, than any man in this country”. 3 He had, said Cornwallis in
1789, “besides good health . . . knowledge, application, integrity, and
temper", the last “not the least useful”. * Although a junior, he was
recommended by Cornwallis for a seat on the council as early as
1788. 5 And in the last stages of the revenue settlement Cornwallis
found consolation in the approval of Duncan for his differences with
Shore over the question of permanence.
The final decision in that matter was due, however, largely to
Charles Grant. When Dundas decided to support Cornwallis against
enue
")
1 Cornwallis to Dundas, 15 November, 1786. Ross, op. cit. 1, 227.
2 Cornwallis to Court of Directors, 2 August, 1789. Ross, op. cit. I, 545.
3 Cornwallis to Dundas, 14 August, 1787. Ross, op. cit. I, 271.
4 Cornwallis to N. Smith, 9 November, 1789. Ross, op. cit. I, 449.
5 Dundas to Cornwallis, 20 February, 1789. Ross, op. cit. 1, 410-11.
## p. 436 (#464) ############################################
436
BENGAL ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEM, 1786-1818
1
the advice of Shore, it was partly at least owing to the representations
of Charles Grant. He had no personal knowledge of revenue matters,
but he received the greatest share in the confidence of Cornwallis,
and had given him invaluable help during the years 1786-90. When
Grant sailed for home in 1790 Cornwallis recommended Dundas "to
converse with him frequently upon every part of the business of this
Country", and his zeal for the governor-general's interests gave him
considerable influence over Dundas during the years 1790-3. James
Grant (a cousin of Charles),- like Shore and Duncan, specialised on
the revenue side. But Charles Grant was the chief adviser in matters
of trade. His loss "in the commercial line", wrote Cornwallis when
he left India, "is irreparable". He had been secretary to the Board
of Trade in the time of Hastings and had been appointed by the
board in 1781 commercial resident at Malda. He was outstanding
both in experience and integrity. At first, at least, Cornwallis thought
him the only honest man on the commercial side, and trusted very
largely to him in his attempt to reform that branch of the adminis-
tration. In this work Cornwallis had also the help of Charles Stuart,
member of council and president of the Board of Trade (1786-9).
Stuart, however, never gained in the same degree the confidence of
Cornwallis, and he lacked the wide commercial experience of
Charles Grant.
In his judicial work Cornwallis had also an invaluable adviser.
Here the Company's servants could be of but limited use. Cornwallis
took full advantage of their experience in judicial business, but their
experience was relatively small and they lacked expert knowledge.
Some of them-Charles Grant among them-were of great value in
carrying out reforms: but only the judges could help in devising them.
Cornwallis was, therefore, fortunate in the aid of Sir William Jones,
an oriental scholar of reputation unrivalled in his own time, and a
man of great practical ability, who had devoted many years to the
study and practice of the law. In 1783 he had come to India as judge
of the Supreme Court of Judicature at Calcutta, and he brought to his
task the zeal of an enthusiast, and the knowledge of an expert. “A
good system of laws" seemed to him the first necessity of India; and,
following the lead of Hastings, he set himself to this end to codify
the existing Hindu and Muhammadan laws. But he realised also the
need for "due administration" and a "well-established peace". He
gave, therefore, full aid to Cornwallis in his reform of the judicial
administration and in the regulation of the police.
Although the policy that Cornwallis came to enforce in 1786 was
new, it was not wholly new. In every direction Cornwallis built
1 Cornwallis to Dundas, 12 February, 1790. Ross, op. cit. I, 480.
2 Firminger (ed. ), Fifth Report . . . on the Affairs of the East India Com-
pany . . . 1812, 1, p. xiv.
:: Ross, op. cit. 1, 306.
.
## p. 437 (#465) ############################################
CORNWALLIS'S CHARACTER
437
on foundations already laid or begun to be laid by his predecessors,
and especially by Hastings. It was the emphasis rather than the
principle that was new; but the principles were now clearly stated,
and the strength of the home government was used to enforce them.
Every aspect of reform was foreshadowed in the work or in the
projects of Hastings, and hence the solidity of the work of Cornwallis.
Yet even when all allowance has been made, much credit must be
given to Cornwallis himself. Certainly no man of genius, he con-
tributed no new ideas to the work he undertook. He was not an
expert like Jones or Grant, nor a man of wide experience like Shore.
He was not a doctrinaire like Francis, nor an inventive genius like
Hastings. He was content, as Hastings had never been, to plead a
command from home as a final cause for decision, and this respect
for authority was his outstanding characteristic. But in spite of this
he possessed great qualities and stood for important principles. Above
all, he was, beyond reproach, upright and honest. He had not to
fear a sudden decline in favour; he had no pettiness of ambition;
he was not a time-server; and he left behind him a tradition of service
a
which was of lasting value in Indian administration. Loyalty and
integrity there had been before, but it was a loyalty to the Company
and an integrity in the Company's affairs. Cornwallis was a public
servant who upheld national and not private traditions. His service
was to the Crown and not to the people over whom he ruled, and he
thus embodied fitly the new spirit of Indian rule.
To this invincible honesty and desire for the public good, he added
a soldier's sense of duty to his superiors. The command of Dundas
or Pitt, or even of the court of directors, was decisive to him. He had
a belief in the possibilities of justice, a faith in the standards by which
conduct would be judged at home. He was determined that these
standards should not be lowered in India, nor overlaid by native
practices. To secure this he gave the higher administrative posts to
Englishmen, and he was always loth to leave real responsibility in
native hands. Yet he was wise enough to see that this was not enough :
these Englishmen must maintain the English standards. They must
be appointed and promoted for merit, not by patronage. In the interests
of this maxim he was prepared to resist the recommendations of all,
even of the Prince Regent or of the directors. Lastly, every deviation
from honesty must be rigorously punished.
This is the system Cornwallis set out to establish, and no doubt
because it was practical rather than ideal, he came much nearer than
most reformers to a realisation of his aims.
а
When Cornwallis landed in Bengal in September, 1786, important
changes in administration had just taken place.
