# The Calcutta Review/Series 1/Number 2/Article 3

Mr. Thornton has just completed, in five volumes, the History of India, which he has been for some time publishing in separate parts. It brings the history of the Indian Empire down to the period of the new Charter, and embraces the whole of Lord William Bentinck’s administration. How far it is like to prove the rival of Mill’s, hitherto the History of British India, is a question of time, and cannot at present be determined with any degree of certainty. It has one claim to the patronage of those who have been and continue to be connected with the Government of India, which is entirely wanting in that celebrated work; it is wholly in the interest of the Court of Directors. We mention this as a fact, and not as a reproach. In the praise which Mr. Thornton is so fond of bestowing on our Honourable Masters, he has been actuated, we doubt not, by the conscientious conviction that they are incomparably the fittest instruments which could have been selected for the government of this vast Empire. And although we may not find in the present History, the same fascination of style, the same clearness of narrative, or the same deep philosophical views which give so great a value to Mill’s History, it is still an advantage to possess a work on the same subject written with a bias in the opposite direction. As far, however, as we can venture to anticipate the judgment of the public, we are inclined to think, that the present work is not likely to supersede that of the elder historian, who has so long and so justly occupied the foremost place in public estimation. Those who have leisure for the persual of only one History will probably take up Mill, with or without the conservative comment by which Dr. Horace Wilson has endeavoured to neutralize the text. Those who have time to look into two historical works on the same subject, will take up Thornton, also in preference to Auber.
The great defect of Mill lies in the inveteracy of his prejudices against the administration of particular men, whom he appears to take a delight in dishonouring. These prejudices are insensibly communicated to the reader, by being mixed up in small particles with the representation of almost every event in which the obnoxious ruler took a share. It requires no ordinary effort, therefore, to divest the mind of these unfavorable impressions, and to obtain a true and unbiassed idea of these transactions. Thus, Mill’s description of the conduct of Clive, Hastings, and Wellesley, three of the greatest men ever employed in building or consoli​dating an empire, is very wide of the truth. It is scarcely more to be depended on than Hume’s history of Charles the Second; and for the same reasons; partly from the strong personal bias of the historian, and partly from the want, at the time, of those documents without which it is difficult, if not impossible, to understand the real motives by which public men have been actuated. Since the publication of Mill’s History, the private correspondence of these three illustrious statesmen has been laid before us, and we are enabled to understand the precise circumstances in which they were placed, the impulse under which they acted, and the object they hoped to accomplish in all those measures which have been so unsparingly censured. We have carefully looked into Mr. Thornton’s work, to ascertain whether he has succeeded in avoiding the error into which Mill was betrayed by those honest antipathies which arose chiefly from imperfect information, and always leant to virtue’s side; whether in treating of those actors on the great scene for whom he has no partiality, he has been careful to do justice to their motives; and we regret to have met only with the most mortifying disappointment.
We allude more particularly to the chapter which Mr. Thornton has devoted to the administration of Lord William Bentinck, and which is written with a singular contempt for that justice and impartiality without which no historian can be accepted as a safe and sure guide. Not only does Mr. Thornton appear to have entirely failed in appreciating the true character of an administration which forms an era in our Indian history;—for this, a grasp and comprehensiveness of mind was requisite the absence of which we can readily account for and forgive;—but his mind seems to be so completely filled with all the narrow prejudices in which men of little minds have indulged against his Lordship, that every transaction, which can affect his character, is exhibited through a distorted medium. Whatever was objectionable in an administration, crowded with important innovations, is magnified beyond its due proportions; while his great and beneficial acts are rarely alluded to, and when mentioned at all, are in almost every instance misrepresented. It is difficult to imagine a stronger contrast than the original of that administration presents to the picture which Mr. Thornton has drawn of it. One is tempted almost to imagine that he must have resigned his pen to some one who had experienced a personal rebuff from Lord William. Yet even the enemies of that nobleman in India, whose vanity he wounded, or whose personal interests he thwarted, never questioned his great personal ability, or the general merits of his administration, however they may have disapproved of those acts by which they or their friends ​suffered. But here we have a writer aspiring to the lofty character of a historian, who, to the surprise equally of the late Governor-General’s friends and enemies, refuses the smallest merit to his administration,—except in the matter of Suttees,—and who has the temerity to affirm, that he did less for the interest of India, and for his own reputation, than any other Governor-General, Sir George Barlow excepted; that if every act, but one, was covered with oblivion, his reputation would be no sufferer; and that, but for certain extravagances, his administration would appear almost a blank! And we are expected to receive this as a fair and unbiassed description of Lord William Bentinck’s administration.
But not only is the narrative disfigured throughout with prejudices which destroy its value, it is rendered still more objectionable by the most palpable omissions. Many of the most important of those measures, which have given Lord William Bentinck’s administration a living name in India, second only to that of Cornwallis, are passed over in total silence. If the abolition of Suttees is the most illustrious of his Lordship’s acts, the introduction of natives to the public service, which has changed the character of our administration, and secured the attachment of the native community to our rule, is by far the most important, yet it is altogether omitted. And the omission is not occasioned by the necessity of condensing the transactions of the period into a small compass. Other events of infinitely less moment have so disproportionate a share of space allotted to them, as to lead us to suspect that Mr. Thornton is really ignorant of the relative importance of events, which is one of the first rudiments of historical science. The whole number of pages devoted to Lord William Bentinck’s administration is Sixty. Of these, no fewer than eleven and a half are given to the brief and insignificant campaign which consigned the tyrant of Coorg to a prison, and absorbed his little kingdom in the British Empire. To the disputes between the King of Queda and Siam, which have scarcely a remote bearing on the History of India, and to which a daily paper would have begrudged a column, except as a subject of party strife, Mr. Thornton absolutely allots twelve pages and a half, although he could not find room to mention so important an event as the establishment of Singapore. And the little “tempest in a teapot” riot got up by Teetoo Meer, in the neighbourhood of Calcutta, which was forgotten in less than a week, is discussed with all the solemnity of a grand historical event, and no fewer than four pages of reflections are devoted to this contemptible little affair.
The spirit of detraction which deprives this sketch of Lord ​Page:The Calcutta Review (1844), Volume 1.djvu/351 ​reparation was due to him from the Court of Directors, for the injustice they had done him, more substantial than the mere expression of their regret that the recall was unfortunately irrevocable. He thought that reparation should be made by placing him in a position in which he might be enabled to wipe out the stigma which had been attached to his name, as one unworthy of public trust. He wished that the country which had been the scene of his undeserved humiliation, should also be the scene of his administrative triumphs. These considerations must be taken into full account, if we would form an accurate estimate of the motives which induced Lord William Bentinck to appear as a candidate for the office. They must be impartially weighed, before we pronounce that this personal solicitation was incompatible with a feeling of dignity and self-respect. To any but a jaundiced mind, this anxiety to efface the remembrance of his ignominious and unjust recall, by enjoying an opportunity of resuming his plans of Indian improvement, and conferring on the country the blessing of enlightened legislation and a liberal policy, will appear rather the impulse of a generous ambition than a “restless hankering after power.”
To form a correct view of Lord William Bentinck’s Indian career, it is necessary to take into account his recall from Madras, in which his political character was so deeply implicated, and which exerted so important an influence on his subsequent views and aspirations. We shall, we hope, be forgiven for entering somewhat minutely into the examination of this event; more especially as it is so very slightly noticed by Mr. Thornton and the little he does say, gives any thing but a just or satisfactory view of it. He says, “Lord William was removed from the Government of Fort St. George because his conduct was disapproved at home.” We shall presently shew that the approval or disapproval of his conduct had little if any thing to do with his recall.
We are told at page 79, Volume Fourth, that after the Mutiny at Vellore, Sir John Cradock, the Commander -in-Chief,
   “Advised that the two regiments implicated in the mutiny should be expunged from the list of the army; Lord William Bentinck took a different view; but on this question the other members of Council agreed with the Commander-in-Chief. The former, however, attached so much importance to his own view of the question, as to determine to act on his own judgment and responsibility, in opposition to the opinion of the majority in council. It would appear incredible that a question regarding no higher or more momentous matter than the retention of the names of two regiments upon the army list, or their expulsion from it, could have been regarded as justifying the exercise of that extraordinary power vested in the Governor for extraordinary occasions, and for extraordinary occasions only, were not the ​fact authenticated beyond the possibility of doubt. On his own responsibility Lord William Bentinck set aside the decision of the majority of the Council, and determined that the regiments in which the mutiny had occurred should remain on the list. In turn, the act by which the Governor of Fort St. George had set aside the opinion of his Council, was as unceremoniously annulled by the Supreme Government, who directed that the names of the guilty regiments should be struck out. The conduct of the Governor, in thus indiscreetly exercising the extraordinary power vested in him, was also disapproved at home. On some former occasion his policy had not commanded the entire approbation of the Council of Directors, and this act was followed by his Lordship’s recall.”
Mr. Thornton has not thought fit to give Lord W. Bentinck’s reason for objecting to the expunction, which he ought in all fairness to have done, if he thought this was the main cause of his recall. Lord William said, that he thought such a step would only “serve to refresh for ever recollections which it was wisdom to endeavour to extinguish;” and if it be a fact that these numbers,though expunged, were soon after restored to the Army list, the soundness of his opinion is incontrovertibly established. But has Mr. Thornton so little regard for the public character of the Court of Directors, as to assert that they actually deposed and degraded the Governor of a Presidency, and inflicted on him such condign punishment as could be justified only by the most flagrant delinquencies, because on some former occasion his conduct had not “commanded their entire approbation,” and on this occasion he and his Council had differed about the extinction or retention of the numbers of two mutinous regiments? But what are the real facts of the case? In March 1805, Sir John Cradock submitted to Lord William Bentinck and his Council, a proposal for the preparation of a Military Code, stating that he had it in contemplation only to reduce into one view the several orders already in force, and sanctioned by Government, and that if any slight alteration appeared necessary, or if it was found requisite to introduce a few rules of discipline or internal economy, such new matter would be distinguished in the manuscript, and submitted for the final approbation of Government. When the Code was presented, the new matter which required the attention of Government was specifically pointed out. The other part, consisting of the old and sanctioned regulations, was presented separate, in a hundred and fifty folio sheets. It was, therefore, to the additional rules alone that the attention of Government was drawn; and it was never suspected that the old rules contained any innovations at all. The tenth paragraph, however, contained a new rule, now introduced for the first time into the Code, to this effect:—“The Sepoys are required to appear on parade with their chins clean shaved, and the hair on ​the upper lip cut after the same pattern, and never to wear the distinguishing mark of caste, or their earrings, when in uniform.” A Turban of a new pattern was also ordered for the Sepoys.
These orders were carried into effect without the knowledge of Lord William Bentinck. They were received by the troops at first with apparent submission. But on the 6th or 7th of May, when the second battalion of the fourth regiment of Native Infantry stationed at Vellore was called to wear the new turban, its conduct was not only disorderly, but mutinous. The existence of this obnoxious order in the tenth paragraph was now for the first time made known to the Government of Madras, which bore the brunt of a measure of which it was not only innocent, but ignorant. The Commander-in-Chief ordered a Court of Enquiry to be held to report on the causes of these acts of insubordination. In the interim, all the non-commissioned officers, who refused to wear the turban, were reduced to the ranks, and the immediate adoption of that offensive head-dress was imperatively insisted on. Sir John Cradock’s orders were, that disobedience should be followed by dismissal. The Court of Enquiry sentenced nineteen of the ringleaders to punishment, seventeen of whom were pardoned, and two sentenced to receive nine hundred lashes each. The evidence from all quarters was in favour of the turban, and it was declared by the natives that no religious prejudices existed against it. Subordination appeared to have been at length restored, and on the 4th of July the Commander-in-Chief sought the advice of Government on the expediency of revoking the turban order. The Governor in Council regretted the original adoption of the measure, but thought that the authority by which it had been so peremptorily enforced would be compromised by its recall. He proposed to issue a General Order to the native troops, that “no intention existed to introduce any change incompatible with the laws and usages of their religion.” Unfortunately, this order was withheld from publication by the Commander-in-Chief, under the idea that the reports of disaffection he had received were exaggerated. Up to that time, the Government of Madras was entirely ignorant that any order had been issued regarding dress, excepting the order of the turban.
On the 10th of July the well-known mutiny at Vellore broke out. Fourteen officers, ninety-nine non-commissioned officers and privates were massacred, and fifteen others died of their wounds. Immediately after the massacre, Lord William Bentinck stated to Council that he had only been recently informed of the changes which had been made in the dress and appearance of the seapoys, independently of the new turban, and he proposed ​to suspend the operation of the innovations forthwith. A special commission was appointed to inquire into the origin of the mutiny, when it appeared that the alterations in the dress of the seapoys, and the machinations of the Mysore Princes who had been indiscreetly allowed to reside at Vellore, were the leading causes of this sad catastrophe. The Court of Directors received the first intimation of the mutiny in a secret despatch from Madras on the 17th of February; and within the week, a motion was made for his recall, and a resolution was proposed of a highly criminatory character. The resolution was sent up to the Board of Control, who insisted upon its being modified. The following is the original resolution:—
   “Resolved, that although the zeal and integrity of the present Governor of Madras, Lord William Bentinck, are deserving of the Court’s approbation: yet when they consider the unhappy events which have lately taken place at Vellore, and also other parts of his Lordship’s administration which have come before them, the Court are of opinion, that it is expedient, for the restoration of confidence in the Company’s Government, that Lord William Bentinck should be removed, and he is hereby removed, accordingly.”
The Board softened it down to the following notification:—
   “Though the zeal and integrity of our present Governor of Madras, Lord William Bentinck, are deserving of our approbation, yet being of opinion that circumstances which have recently come under our consideration render it expedient, for the interest of our service, that a new arrangement of our Government of Fort St. George should take place without delay, we have felt ourselves under the necessity of determining that his Lordship should be removed; and we do hereby direct that Lord William Bentinck be removed accordingly.”
Auber, in his history, states, that the original resolution was sent to Lord William Bentinck, but this is apparently a mistake. The vote of censure was passed by the Directors without affording his Lordship any opportunity of explaining or justifying his conduct. He was condemned and degraded unheard. The fact is, that when intelligence of the mutiny first reached England, the Court appears to have been in what is vulgarly called a “funk.” We ask the indulgence of the patrician reader for the use of so ignoble an expression, but we are anxious to suit the meanness of the term to the meanness of the feeling. The Directors trembled for the fate of the Indian empire; and could think of no better mode of saving it from destruction than that of recalling the man who happened to be the Governor at the time. Having dismissed the Governor and the Commander in Chief, they thought no other measure necessary for the salvation of India. Indeed, no exertion at all was necessary on their part. Long before their despatch reached India, the wisdom and firmness of Lord ​William Bentinck had averted the consequences of the mutiny, and completely restored public tranquillity.
On Lord William Bentinck’s return to England, he addressed a spirited remonstrance to the Court, and demanded redress for the injuries he had suffered at their hands. This document and the Court’s reply are too important to the merits of the question to be passed over, and we venture therefore to quote them at some length:—
   “There are, gentlemen, occasions in which egotism is not vanity. I have a right to state my services, however humbly I may think of their deserts. The mutiny at Vellore cannot be attributed to me, directly or indirectly. I have been removed from my situation, and condemned as an accomplice, in measures with which I had no further concern than to obviate their ill consequences: my dismissal was effected in a manner harsh and mortifying; and the forms which custom has prescribed to soften the severity of a misfortune, at all events sufficiently severe, were on this single occasion violated, as if for the express purpose of deepening my disgrace. Whatever have been my errors, they surely have not merited a punishment, than which a heavier could hardly have been awarded to the most wretched incapacity, or the most criminal negligence. Under these circumstances, I present myself to your notice. I take it for granted, that the Court of Directors have been misinformed, and that to place the question before them in its true light, is to obtain redress. I have been severely injured in my character and feelings. For these injuries I ask reparation, if, indeed, any reparation can atone for feelings so deeply aggrieved, and a character so unjustly compromised in the eyes of the world. In complying with my demands, you will discharge, if I may venture to say so, what is due no less to your own honor than to mine.
   The Court, on the 25th July, 1809, Resolved,—“That under the impressions universally entertained, both in India and in Europe, at the breaking out of the Vellore mutiny, that it was occasioned by the wanton or needless violation of the religious usages of the natives, an opinion considerably sanctioned by the Supreme Government of Bengal and even countenanced by the first despatches of the Fort St. George presidency; and under the impressions, then also general, of the dangers to which the Company’s interests were exposed, of the necessity of a change in the chief officers of Civil and Military command, as well to vindicate the national respect for the religious usages of our native subjects, as to make a sacrifice to their violated rights, to restore public confidence, and relieve the executive body of the Company, with whom so much responsibility rested, from the anxiety and apprehensions occasioned by so unexampled and alarming a calamity, it became natural and expedient for them to remove Lord William Bentinck from the government, and Sir John Cradock from the command of the army of Fort St. George. And although, from the explanations that have since been given by those personages respectively, and from the further evidences which have come before the Court, it appears that the orders in question were far from being intended by the members of the Madras Government to trench in the least upon the religious tenets of the natives, and did not in reality infringe them, although the uninformed sepoys were led at length to believe that they did, yet the effects produced having been so disastrous, and associated in the native mind with the administration of the then Governor and Commander-in-Chief; and those officers besides having in the judgment of the Court been defective in not examining with ​greater caution and care into the real sentiments and dispositions of the sepoys, before they proceeded to enforce the orders for the turban, the Court must still lament, that as in proceeding to a change in the Madras Government they yielded with regret to imperious circumstances; so though they have the pleasure to find the charges originally advanced against the conduct of the Governor and Commander-in-Chief, respecting the violations of caste, to have been in the sense then attached to them, misapplied and defective, also in general vigilance and intelligence, yet that as the misfortunes which happened in their administration placed their fate under the government of public events and opinions which the Court could not control, so it is not now in their power to alter the effects of them.
   Resolved,—That in considering the general character and conduct of Lord William Bentinck, in the presidency of Madras, the Court view with peculiar regret the unfortunate events which happened in the time of his admistration, and which, from their unexampled alarming nature and vast impression upon the general mind both in India and Europe, with the baneful consequences apprehended from them, appeared to call instantly for such measures as should best satisfy the then state of public opinion, and seem most likely to restore public confidence and tranquillity; events which had the principal share in dictating those changes which removed him from the Government of Fort St. George, and suggested also that the change should be immediate. But in the abruptness of the order of removal the Court meant no personal disrespect to Lord William Bentinck, and extremely regret that his feelings have been wounded by his considering it in that light. They lament that it should have been his fate to have this public situation decided by a crisis of such difficulty and danger as it has been the lot of very few public men to encounter; a crisis which they have since been happy to find was not produced by intended or actual violations of caste, as they are now satisfied that Lord William Bentinck had no share in originating the orders which for a time bore that character, and, by the machinations of enemies working upon the ignorance and prejudices of the sepoys, were by them believed to be such violations. The Court cannot but regret, that as the reality of this belief would have been a sufficient motive for rescinding the order respecting the use of a new turban, which might have had the most beneficial effects, greater care and caution were not exercised in examining into the real sentiments and dispositions of the sepoys, before measures of severity were adopted to enforce that order. But in all the measures of moderation, clemency, and consideration, recommended by Lord William Bentinck after the mutiny, the Court, though not exactly agreeing with him in the data from which he reasoned give him unqualified praise; and though the unfortunate events which separated Lord William Bentinck from the service of the Company cannot be recalled, yet the Court are happy to bear testimony to the uprightness, disinterestedness, zeal, respect to the system of the Company, and, in many instances, success with which he acted in the government of Fort St. George, and to express their best wishes that his valuable qualities and honorable character may be employed, as they deserve, for the benefit of his country.”
Lord William’s plain, simple, energetic remonstrance presents a noble contrast to the laboured and contradictory reply of the Directors. They tell him that there was a universal impression in India and Europe that the Vellore mutiny arose from a wanton and needless violation of the religious usages of the Natives—yet in the course of the letter confess that they were “now ​satisfied that Lord William Bentinck had no share in that measure.” They say, that to vindicate the national respect for the religious usages of their Native subjects, and to make a sacrifice to their violated rights, to restore public confidence, and to relieve the executive body of the Company with whom so much responsibility rested, from the anxiety and apprehension occasioned by so unexampled and alarming a calamity,—here we have the true cause of the recall—it became natural and expedient for them to remove Lord William Bentinck and the Commander-in-Chief. They then proceed to state, that they had discovered from subsequent evidence, that those orders were not intended to trench on the religious tenets of the people, and did not in reality infringe them; and that Lord W. Bentinck was innocent of all participation in these orders, and that the charges originally advanced against the conduct of the Governor (by whom?) had been found, in the sense then attached to them, misapplied and defective, and that the charge of want of vigilance and intelligence was equally defective—still “as the misfortunes which happened in Lord William’s administration, placed his fate under the government of public events and opinions, which the Court could not control, so it is not now in their power to alter the effect of them.” In other words, the administration had been unlucky, and an expiatory victim was wanted. The Romans, in such circumstances, would probably have created a Dictator to drive in a nail, or have directed the priests to perform a sacrifice and appease the gods. The Directors sacrificed the unfortunate Governor, under whose administration the calamity had occurred. And it is difficult to discover whether Roman folly or British injustice is most deserving of censure. Such is the true character of this transaction. The Court distinctly acquitted Lord William Bentinck of all share in an event, for which they had previously inflicted on him the heaviest punishment in their power. If Mr. Thornton aspires to the character of an impartial historian, why does he omit to mention these circumstances? why does he harp on Lord William Bentinck’s errors at Madras? why does he continue to leave the reader to infer that the recall fixed a stigma on his reputation, when it covered no one with disgrace but those who had so hastily ordered it?
We now return to Mr. Thornton’s narrative.—After having dismissed the political and diplomatic measures of Lord William Bentinck’s peaceful administration, he proceeds to discuss the internal arrangements which he made; and places in the foreground the retrenchment of expence, which “may be regarded as the most peculiar if not the most striking feature of policy ​Page:The Calcutta Review (1844), Volume 1.djvu/359 ​Page:The Calcutta Review (1844), Volume 1.djvu/360 ​Page:The Calcutta Review (1844), Volume 1.djvu/361 ​Page:The Calcutta Review (1844), Volume 1.djvu/362 ​brilliant exceptions by some of the merest dolts in India, by men below the average intellect of the service; and these offices involved the fewest responsibilities. The demands on the time of these well-paid functionaries scarcely extended, on the average, beyond two hours a day. We of course except the Members of the Supreme Council. Is Mr. Thornton really ignorant that the lazy leisure of an Opium Agent,—we are speaking of the past not the present—was rewarded with an income of £7500, a larger sum than the Prime Minister received for governing England, or the President for ruling the United States. Lord William Bentinck, finding the state sinking deeper in debt, reformed these extravagancies, and reduced the income of the Opium Agents and Salt Agents, to the same scanty measure which the President of the Board of Control received, or £5000 a-year. But what was the general result of those tremendous reductions to which Mr. Thornton devotes four pages and a half? Lord William Bentinck found the Civil Service of Bengal in the enjoyment of an aggregate income of Ninety-seven lakhs, and forty-seven thousand Rupees a year, and he reduced it to Ninety-one lakhs thirteen thousand Rupees. He still left the Civil Service the highest paid service the world has ever seen, with more than Ninety lakhs to be divided among Four hundred and sixteen men. After all those distressing reductions, he still left each Civilian, from the Writer to the Member of Council, on an average, the sum of 2200 Pounds Sterling a year. Was there ever so iniquitous and levelling a reformer?
Mr. Thornton proceeds to say:—
   “It was not in financial affairs only that Lord William Bentinck was anxious to appear in the charactcr of a reformer. Under pretence of improving the character of the civil service and providing for the advancement of merit, he sought to establish a system of universal espionage, better suited to the bureau of the holy office of the Inquisition, than to the closet of a statesman, anxious to be regarded as the representative of all that was liberal. Every superior officer, court and board, was required to make periodical reports on the character and conduct of every convenanted servant employed in a subordinate capacity. Like most of his Lordship’s projects this plan met neither with approbation nor success, and it was soon abolished.”
These remarks refer to the celebrated “merit-fostering minute,” which by placing the members of the Civil Service under the same system of “universal espionage,” which had long been in full operation in the Military branch of the service, and constraining the Civil functionaries to make the same report of the conduct and character of their subordinates, which the Commander of a Regiment was required to make yearly regarding ​Page:The Calcutta Review (1844), Volume 1.djvu/364 ​Page:The Calcutta Review (1844), Volume 1.djvu/365 ​Page:The Calcutta Review (1844), Volume 1.djvu/366 ​tenced to receive nine hundred lashes a-piece. It was a leading principle with his Lordship, to make the hope of reward, and not the dread of punishment, the incentive to good conduct, and to substitute moral for physical motives. The abolition of corporal punishment was therefore accompanied with proposals for instituting an Order of Merit among the native soldiery, and for the bestowal of rewards which might operate as a stimulus to meritorious exertions. He was anxious by these means to raise the sepoy in his own estimation, and to impart a higher character to the native army; and all his plans have subsequently been carried into full effect.
We have thus gone through the very meagre notice of Lord William Bentinck’s administration, which Mr. Thornton has thought it sufficient to give, and have endeavoured to redeem the few measures he has noticed from the unjust obloquy cast upon them. We now enter upon a far more agreeable task. We shall endeavour to supply those omissions for which the History of India, now under review, is even more remarkable than for its prejudices, and to furnish a brief epitome of those measures which have secured for Lord Wiliam Bentinck’s administration the applause of the wise and the good among his countrymen, and the gratitude of the natives of India.
The organic changes which were made in the internal economy of the government, during his Lordship’s incumbency, form the most distinguishing feature of his administration; and his reputation as a statesman will stand or fall, as they are found to be adapted to the exigencies of the times, or the reverse. His administration constitutes a new era in the history of our Indian institutions. The modifications which had been previously made from time to time, on the spur of necessity, in the system established by Lord Cornwallis, with one or two exceptions, were altogether insignificant, in comparison with the alteration in the whole structure of the Government, made under Lord William’s auspices. The experience of forty years had revealed many imperfections in the system, which yet did such credit to the talents and benevolence of the former illustrious statesman. In that long period, a great change had been silently effected in the character both of the European servants of the state, and of the natives themselves; and institutions which might appear adapted to the circumstances of 1790, were found unsuited to those of 1830. It became necessary to reconstruct some of the departments of public business, in order to give them greater simplicity and greater efficiency. Lord William Bentinck arrived in India in a time of profound tranquillity, when there was sufficient leisure for the calm consideration of those changes which ​Page:The Calcutta Review (1844), Volume 1.djvu/368 ​West Provinces, who exceed in number the inhabitants of the united kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Before Mr. Thornton pronounces the administration of Lord William a blank, let him consult the opinion of the natives in the Upper Provinces.
Upon the same principle of public convenience, not less than of benefit to the interests of the state, his Lordship established a Revenue Board at Allahabad; but his deference for the Court of Directors led him to denominate it a Deputation of the Calcutta Board, until it should receive their approbation. And although Mr. Thornton says, that his attempts at construction for permanent use entirely failed, yet the new Board was confirmed by the Court, and is in existence at this day; and the abolition of it would be regarded as an act of insanity. The object proposed by the institution of the Board, was to place the controlling authority of the fiscal interests of a vast population in the centre of the provinces, and thus to prevent the inconvenience of a reference, on every revenue question, to a Board a thousand miles off. But a farther object in view was the establishment of a body on the spot, competent to superintend the settlement in the North West Provinces, which Lord William Bentinck was resolved to put in a train of completion. Mr. Thornton does not condescend to mention this all-important proceeding, in which the welfare of thirty millions of people was intimately bound up. We must supply the blank which his prejudice has created.
When the Provinces, which now form the North West Presidency, were originally obtained by conquest or cession, forty years ago, the Lieutenant-Governor, in a Proclamation dated in 1802, engaged, that a permanent settlement of the land revenue should be formed with the landed proprietors, at the end of ten years. The Court of Directors, who had been sufficiently disgusted with Lord Cornwallis’s premature and irreversible settlement, lost no time in disavowing the engagement, and directed that quinquennial leases only should be granted, till a complete survey and valuation of the land had been effected. No provision was made for this survey and valuation; and the quinquennial settlements were found to be the bane of the province. They not only prevented any improvement of the land, but made it the interest of the land-holders to conceal, if not to retard the development of its resources; to close rather than to open the wells on which the fertility of the soil depended, and to exhibit their estates in a deteriorated condition. At the end of twenty years it was found that agricultural improvement, if it had not gone back, had at least stood still. The poverty of the landed interest, who had no motive for exertion, produced a reaction on the public revenue. Government was at length ​Page:The Calcutta Review (1844), Volume 1.djvu/370 ​ple and in its details. It is impossible that a measure of so vast and comprehensive a character should not present some weak points for the gratification of the captious. It will be fully conceded that in the determination of rights with which it was accompanied, some individual act of injustice may have been committed; and that in some instances the assessment may have been fixed too high; but, taken as a whole, it is the grandest fiscal achievement of our dynasty. It is a work which, with all its defects, has conferred the most indisputable blessings on thirty millions of people. It has defined their individual rights, which were the subject of perpetual collision: it has fixed and recorded the boundaries of estates, and cut off one of the most prolific sources of litigation. It has enabled Government to grant long leases, and thus to offer the strongest incentive to the improvement of the land. At the end of two hundred and fifty years, the reign of Akbar is remembered with gratitude, not for the magnificence of his conquests, but for the blessing he conferred on the country by his great settlement of landed tenures. At the end of two hundred and fifty years, the obligation due to Lord William Bentinck as the moving cause, and to Mr. Bird as the instrument, of the noble settlement of the North West Provinces, will not be forgotten.
At the period of his Lordship’s arrival in India, the Provincial Courts of Appeal and Circuit had subsisted for nearly forty years. To his Lordship belongs the merit of having extinguished them. It would be difficult to imagine a more cumbrous machine for the administration of civil and criminal justice, or one by which the two great objects of a Court, the cheap and the early decision of suits, were more effectually baffled. In the civil department, their decisions furnished no clear precedent for the guidance of the lower Courts. Their judicial reputation was extremely contemptible. They were in fact as Lord William aptly described them, “the resting place for those members of the service who were deemed unfit for higher responsibilities.” But it was chiefly in reference to criminal justice, that these Circuit Courts were felt to be a heavy incubus on our judicial institutions. They proceeded, once in every six months, to hold the Session and Jail delivery in each district; and the prosecutor and the witnesses were detained many months waiting their arrival. The intolerable grievance of thus separating a large body of innocent men, for a long period, from their families and the means of subsistence, requires no comment. The prisoner was equally consigned to a prolonged imprisonment before his trial, and, in every instance in which he was guiltless, was subjected to a glaring injustice. The very name of justice was made ​Page:The Calcutta Review (1844), Volume 1.djvu/372 ​Page:The Calcutta Review (1844), Volume 1.djvu/373 ​Page:The Calcutta Review (1844), Volume 1.djvu/374 ​ings of his mind from his countenance and demeanor. The only opposition it encountered at the Council Board had reference to the clause, which permitted the Nizamut Adawlut to punish the crime with death. It was reasonably urged, that to inflict the extreme penalty of the law on a transaction which our government had previously legalized, would be an act of inconsistency. But the clause was passed without alteration, as the Members of the Council were unwilling, by retarding the immediate enforcement of the Regulation, to afford time for remonstrances from the natives, which they knew would be warmly seconded by the European opponents of the measure, whose sympathies were entirely Hindoo. Lord William Bentinck’s great merit, on this occasion, consisted in his moral courage. ‘The most enlightened and courageous members of the Service had long since settled in their own minds that the rite must be extinguished; but there was wanting a Governor-General with sufficient nerve to carry these benevolent views into effect, and to bear unappalled the brunt of native and European opposition. The abolition not only put an immediate stop to this infamous rite, but it taught the natives the important moral lesson, that while the British Government was determined to remain neuter in all questions of a strictly religious character, no precept or practice of Hindooism which violated the laws of humanity would be allowed to stand.
Within two years after the abolition of this rite, Lord William proceeded farther to abrogate the law which inflicted the loss of ancestral property asa penalty on any native who might embrace Christianity. This unjust and intolerant rule had never been formally recognized by our legislators, but it formed a part of the Hindoo code of inheritance; which, in total ignorance of its character, our Government had unfortunately engaged, sixty years before, to make the law of the land, after it had been six centuries in abeyance. Lord William Bentinck’s enactment taught the natives, that the period had for ever passed, when Hindoo prejudices and bigotry were allowed to bear sway in our councils, or were regarded as the rule and gage of our conduct; and that no intolerant or unjust enactment of their sacred books would any longer be recognized in our Courts.
The abolition of the Transit Duties is, perhaps, the greatest boon which has been conferred on the internal commerce of the country, and the greatest relief which has been afforded to its inhabitants, since we took the government into our own hands. The extinction of this odious impost is so recent, that its abominations may possibly be yet fresh in the memory of many who suffered from its operation. We need only remark, therefore, that ​Page:The Calcutta Review (1844), Volume 1.djvu/376 ​Page:The Calcutta Review (1844), Volume 1.djvu/377 ​Page:The Calcutta Review (1844), Volume 1.djvu/378 ​excited by subjection to a foreign yoke, were exasperated by the systematic exclusion of the children of the soil from all participation in the government of the country. He felt that they had thus been deprived of every impulse of honorable ambition, and that the principle of the Cornwallis school, of conducting the administration by foreign agency alone, and which had been but partially modified, had resulted in a total failure. He saw that our administration was not only unpopular, but inefficient; and he resolved to provide for the largest possible introduction of native agency into every department of public business. He was aware that long exclusion from official labours, and a dreary despair of any amendment in their condition, had thrown the natives back, and that his new system must open under many disadvantages, and be worked at first by inferior instruments; but he was strong in the conviction, that the application of an adequate stimulus to national ambition would produce the usual results; and that in a few years the chief difficulty of Government, would be to find suitable employment for the talent and ability which would be developed. He, therefore, created new offices of trust and emolument for the natives; introduced them to a large extent into the judicial and fiscal administration of the country; and opened a new world of hope to the whole body of the people. The system of which he laid the foundation, on the ruins of that which had been reared by Cornwallis, has been carried forward by his successors with zeal and fidelity. The Natives as a body have been raised from the state of depression to which they had been consigned; and the ability which they have displayed in the performance of the duties consigned to them has fully justified the confidence of their great benefactor. The Native is no longer the ‘hedge’ judge of the lower classes of society; he holds the same post in our judicial institutions which was formerly occupied by the Provincial Courts; he takes the initiative cognizance of suits of the largest amount; the noblest and wealthiest are obliged to resort to his Court for justice; he is even allowed to examine cases in which Government is interested; and he communicates directly with the highest Court in the country. In every district, he occupies a post of the highest importance and consideration. The result is, that public offices are no longer filled up from the inferior orders of society. Families of the longest standing, and of the greatest distinction, are eager to provide for their members in the public service. By thus binding up the hopes and interests of the Native community with our government, Lord William Bentinck has done more to render it national and popular, than any previous ruler. While Mr. ​Thornton can scarcely find terms too contemptuous for his administration, his name is never pronounced without affection and veneration, by the people of the country; and if the days of canonization had not passed away, he would be placed in the same rank of deified heroes with the Indian Munoo.
We have thus endeavoured to supply the omissions, which are so palpable in Mr. Thornton’s sketch, and briefly to point out some of the the most prominent efforts made, during Lord William Bentinck’s administration, for the improvement of India. We may safely leave it to the reader to determine whether the description which the historian has given of it, bears the most distant resemblance to the truth.—“But for the indulgence of extravagance in a variety of ways, his administration would appear almost a blank; and were all record of it obliterated, posterity would scarcely observe the deficiency while it is certain they would have little cause to regret it.” But when he proceeds farther to affirm that his Lordship’s “besetting weakness was vanity,—that the idol of his worship was popularity—that he sought to win its behest by an unrestrained sacrifice to what is called the ‘spirit of the age,’—and that charity itself can assign no motives for the acts, (he enumerates) but a weak and inordinate appetite for temporary admiration,” we naturally ask where he can have picked up the information which has led to conclusions so singularly incorrect. Those who have watched Lord William Bentinck’s career from its beginning to its close,and have enjoyed the best opportunities of estimating the motives of his public conduct, will unite with us in testifying that if ever there was a Governor-General, exempt from the weakness of vanity, and the folly of courting popular applause, it was Lord William Bentinck. All his measures in India manifested the most rigid determination to do whatever he considered necessary for the welfare of the country, with the most perfect indifference to popular opinion. Indeed, there were few of his proceedings here, which were not calculated to make ‘him eminently unpopular with those who influence public opinion; while those whose interest he was ever striving to promote,—the children of the soil—were unable to confer the smallest popularity on him. His contempt for popular applause was not more visible in what he did, than in what he forebore to do. The most popular measure of hissuccessor,—the legal establishment of the freedom of the Press,—was fully within his reach, and would perhaps have been in accordance with his general policy; but he cheerfully waved the honor it would have conferred on his administration, and contented himself with the minor credit of having left the Press practically free. The great feature of his public character, was stern and unbending integrity; whatever ​he considered necessary for the improvement of India, and the conciliation of its tribes to a foreign rule, he was sure to carry into effect, without the smallest reference to its popularity; and no love of applause would have led him for a moment to deviate from the straight path of rectitude into any line of dubious policy. That his mind had a greater tendency to innovation than that of any of his predecessors, Cornwallis excepted, will not admit of a doubt. Such a temperament is inseparable from an ardor for reform. No man who cannot contemplate changes in the existing order of things, not only without dismay, but with feelings of satisfaction, is qualified to undertake the task of national improvement. It is possible, that in Lord William’s anxiety to raise the character of our local institutions, he may sometimes, have been carried too far, and have made innovations which were not improvements. Every reformer is liable to such errors; but rarely have such extensive alterations as those effected by his Lordship been made in the structure and system of Government which have left fewer causes of regret. In no instance did he sanction a change, which he did not conscientiously believe to be calculated to promote the public advantage; and in few instances has his judgment been reversed by subsequent experience. Of this the best proof will be found in the fact, that, although many of his arrangements have been improved, we scarcely know of one which has been abandoned. The machine of Government is still worked upon the enlightened principles which he introduced. We attribute this honorable and gratifying result of his labours, not more to that happy union of zeal and wisdom, by which he was distinguished than to the great efforts he made to obtain the most trustworthy and impartial information on all the bearings of the questions which he took up, and to ascertain the opinions of the most eminent men in India.
But Lord William Bentinck’s character was not without serious blemishes. The unnecessary harshness, with which he carried his measures of reform and retrenchment into effect, gave just offence to those who were affected by them. In the performance of what he considered a public duty, he seemed to lose his respect for the feelings of others; and it is not a little singular, that the charge which he brought against the Court of Directors, in reference to his recall from Madras, of having enhanced the severity of the stroke by the harsh and mortifying manner in which it was inflicted, is justly applicable to many of his own proceedings in India. He gave no little disgust, also, by the general suspicion which he manifested of the motives of those who had occasion to wait on him. That in his position as ​Governor-General, he should withhold his confidence from those who surrounded him, will be no serious objection to his character among those who are opposed to a Government of favoritism; but there was an habitual exhibition of mistrust in his intercourse with men, which produced the most unfavorable impression of his character. There were also deeper defects. There was a degree of disingenuousness in his communications with those who approached him as the head of the administration, which was apt to be mistaken for perfidy. There was so much of the art of the politician in his manner and language, that he excited the deepest resentment in the minds of those who, having quitted his presence with a conviction of their success, subsequently learnt that the smiles of the Governor-General meant nothing. It was these deficiencies which led one who had served under him in Europe, and had occasion to wait on him in this country to say—but unjustly—that he had added the treachery of the Italian to the caution of the Dutchman. Yet in the general intercourse of society, where it did not appear necessary for the Governor-General to be on his guard, no man was more affable, or succeeded more effectually in conciliating the good will of others by his cheerfulness and urbanity. He had no prejudices against particular men, or particular classes. He considered every branch of the service as members of one administration, differing only in their functions, and he was anxious to improve the efficiency of all. He was ever ready to lend a willing ear to all who might wait on him; and his study was opened to all who solicited a private audience. He was as rigid a disciplinarian as the Duke himself. He was as strict with himself as with others. Whatever he considered it a duty to perform, no consideration or allurement could induce him to forego; and he exacted the same rigid performance of duty from others. He was judicious in the disposal of his time, and undertook a degree of personal labour, in the discharge of his public duties, which eventually affected his health. He was quite as lavish of his own money as he was careful of that of the state; and “Lady William’s charities,” will long continue to be held in grateful remembrance in the country, whilst the piety of her nature and the kindness of her heart endear her memory to a large circle of Indian residents, who esteemed her character and profited by her example.