1
The truth of this comment is exemplified by two quotations
selected at random from the Committee of Revenue's proceedings
for April, 1783.
The truth of this comment is exemplified by two quotations
selected at random from the Committee of Revenue's proceedings
for April, 1783.
Cambridge History of India - v5 - British India
But
## p. 421 (#449) ############################################
SUPREME COURT
421
Clavering was able to quote figures to prove thar in the matter of
revenue appointments the governor-general's choice had almost
always been accepted by the council. In a letter to the court of
directors dated 1 September, 1777, and embodied in proceedings for
1 October, 1777, Clavering states without contradiction that out
of thirty-four officers recommended by the governor-general for
appointment to seats on the provincial councils, only six were set
aside by the vote of the majority; moreover, in 1777 there were on
the provincial councils only three men who had not been recommended
by Hastings himself : these three were John Shore, Boughton Rous,
and Goring. This effective reply remained unanswered, and disposes
very decisively of Barwell's insinuations.
In addition to the weekly reports from the districts of defaulting
farmers and oppressed ryots, a new and serious problem was created
by the interference of the Supreme Court in the revenue adminis-
tration. This threatened to bring the collections to a standstill,
because the Supreme Court, by issuing writs of habeas corpus in favour
of persons confined by the orders of the provincial diwanni adalat
courts for non-payment of revenue, paralysed the effective control
exercised by these courts. Complaints and requests for instructions
poured in from all the divisions: the Supreme Council became very
restive but was induced to concur for the time being in the governor-
general's advice "not to controvert the authority which the Supreme
Court may think fit to exercise". 1 The judges of the Supreme Court
acknowledged the caution displayed by the board in a letter 2 which
conveyed their opinion on certain questions propounded by the board
regarding the appellate jurisdiction of the sadar diwanni adalat and
the Supreme Court. The matter rested there for a while.
The dissensions in the council encouraged unscrupulous people,
hostile to Hastings, to bring accusations of corruption against the
governor-general to which the majority in the council lent a greedy
ear.
It must be admitted that the governor-general had shown much
laxity in permitting his banyan Krishna Kantu Nandi (the well-
known “Cantoo Baboo") to hold lucrative farms. The Committee of
Circuit had laid down 3 that no banyan of the collector, nor any of
his relations, should under any circumstances hold a farm or be
connected with a farmer. Gleig's + shuffling defence that this order
applied to collectors only is unworthy of serious consideration, for
the chances of corrupt profit that might accrue to the banyan of a
collector were insignificant compared to those which an unscrupulous
banyan of the governor-general might receive. Kantu Babu held
Governor-General's Proceedings, January, 1775.
2 Idem, 25 July, 1775. Cf. also Hastings's letter to Lord North, dated 10
January, 1776.
3 Committee of Circuit's Proceedings, pp. 56-9.
4 Gleig, op. cit. I, 529, 530 (ed. 1841).
## p. 422 (#450) ############################################
422
REVENUE ADMINISTRATION OF BENGAL, 1765-86
farms in his own name whose annual rental exceeded thirteen lakhs
of rupees, and, in addition, he held farms in the name of his son,
Loknath Nandi, a child of twelve or thirteen years. The acquiescence
of Hastings in this matter was contrary to the spirit of the regulations
drawn up by the Committee of Circuit of which he himself had been
the most prominent member. His statement that he had no personal
interest in the affairs of his banyan does not alter the situation. In
this case, and in his defence 2 of Bhawani Charan Mitra, diwan of
Burdwan, whose sons and servants had been discovered in the posses--
sion of farms, no excuse can be offered for Hastings's inertness; but
the majority of the council allowed their venom to poison their
judgment in declaring that “there was no species of peculation from
which the governor-general had thought fit to abstain". Certain trans-
actions of Barwell, when chief of the Dacca provincial council, were
also declared by the majority to be corrupt, but the real target was
the governor-general who protested with unavailing logic that his
would-be judges were also his accusers. Hastings, to preserve the
dignity of his office, was forced on several occasions to break up the
council. Such were the conditions in which the new government
proceeded to administer the revenues of Bengal; conditions which
lasted till Monson's death on 25 September, 1776. During this period
some very valuable information was obtained from the senior servants
of the Company in response to a circular issued on 23 October, 1774,
to the chiefs of the provincial councils asking their views on the causes
of the diminution of the land revenue and of the frequent deficits.
Middleton, writing of the Murshidabad division which included
Rajshahi, named the famine of 1770 as the first cause; he also con-
sidered that "the unavoidably arbitrary settlement made by the
Committee of Circuit" and the public auction of farms contributed
heavily to the distress, especially the last cause :
the zamindar being tenacious of her hereditary possessions, and dreading the
disgrace and reproach which herself and her family of long standing as zamin-
dars must have suffered by its falling into other hands.
He suggested that "a universal remission of a considerable amount
of the revenue due" be granted, and the settlement in future be made
with the zamindars : if farmers must be employed, they should be
very carefully selected.
P. M. Dacres, late chief of the Calcutta committee, also considered.
the public auction of farms to be largely responsible for much distress,
instancing the bidding in the Nadia district; other causes were the
great famine and the excessive assessment of 1772. He advocated a
general remission of deficits and urged a permanent settlement with
3
1 Governor-General's Proceedings, 17 March, 1775, 25 April, 1777, and 29
April, 1777.
2 Idem, 23 January, 1776.
3 Idem, 7 April, 1775.
4 Idem.
## p. 423 (#451) ############################################
REFORMS PROPOSED
423
the zamindars which "would fix the rents in perpetuity and trust to
a sale of their property as a security for their payments”: advice
that was not lost on Francis.
G. Hurst, from the council of Patna, shared Middleton's views
and also referred to the wars that had ravaged Bihar from the days
of 'Ali Wardi Khan until the assumption of the diwanni by the
Company. Of these interesting comments, that of P. M. Dacres, advo-
cating a permanent settlement of the land revenue, commands the
most attention. This advice did not reach the board for the first time.
Two years previously 2 the council of Patna had suggested it, and in
January, 1775,9 G. Vansittart, late chief of the Burdwan Council,
had urged the board to adopt a lengthy settlement, for life at least.
In July, 1775, G. G. Ducarel, lately in charge of the Purnia district,
in his evidence given before the board,4 expressed the view that "a
person of experience with discretionary power might render great
service to the Company by effecting a permanent settlement in the
most eligible mode". He even argued that it was desirable to effect
a permanent settlement "with inferior talukdars or with the ryots
themselves if possible”, advice which implies that the speaker did
not regard either the state or the zamindars as owners of the soil.
At home the same idea was also finding expression. In 1772 Colonel
Dow" had strongly advocated a settlement in perpetuity with the
zamindars, and in the same year a pamphlet urging a similar course
was published by H. Patullo.
Meanwhile the results of the quinquennial settlement were
proving more deplorable each year, and some fresh method was im-
peratively necessary. Accordingly, on 21 March, 1775, the governor-
general invited the individual opinions of members of the council on
the subject of settling and collecting the land revenue. On 22 April he
and Barwell submitted a joint plan consisting of seventeen proposals
in which they practically adopted the principle of a permanent
settlement by recommending leases for life or for two joint lives.
Beveridge? has shown that the concluding remarks of this scheme
bear strong if unintentional testimony to the hardships inflicted on
the ryots by the nawab's and, latterly, the Company's mismanage-
ment of the collections. This plan was opposed by one propounded
by Francis on 22. January, 1776, in which he definitely recommended
a settlement in perpetuity with the zamindars, and he emphasised
this opinion at meetings of the board in May, 1776,8 when a letter was
1 Governor-General's Proceedings, 7 April, 1775.
2 Revenue Board Proceedings, 29 January, 1773.
Governor-General's Proceedings, 27 January, 1775.
&
, ,
4 Idem, 15 July, 1775.
5 Enquiry into the state of Bengal, affixed to vol. I, History of Hindostan,
ed. 1772.
6 Firminger, Fifth Report, etc. I, 309, note.
7 Op. cit. II, 410-17.
8 Governor-General's Proceedings, 17 May and 31 May, 1776.
## p. 424 (#452) ############################################
424
REVENUE ADMINISTRATION OF BENGAL, 1765-86
considered from the provincial council of revenue at Patna describing
the over-assessment and consequent poverty of the people. Francis
published in 1782 his proposals, together with the plan of Hastings and
Barwell and various extracts from the minutes of the board's pro-
ceedings, but he did not acknowledge the debt that he obviously
owed to Dacres and other servants of the Company. The following
comments from two distinguished writers are sufficient to reveal the
defects of the scheme of Francis, who recognised only the zamindar
and ignored the ryot. "We are left to infer”, says Beveridge,2 "that,
after all, the best security for the ryot would be to throw himself on
the zamindar's mercy. ” Mill 3 is even more trenchant.
Without much concern about the production of proof he [Mr Francis)
assumed as a basis two things : first, that the opinion was erroneous which
ascribed to the sovereign the property of the land; and secondly, that the pro-
perty in question belonged to the zamindars. Upon the zamindars as propriet-
ors he accordingly proposed a certain tax should be levied; that it should be
fixed once and for all; and held to be perpetual and invariable.
The effect of Francis's pertinacity was to bring into prominence the
question of the ownership of the land. 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.
## p. 421 (#449) ############################################
SUPREME COURT
421
Clavering was able to quote figures to prove thar in the matter of
revenue appointments the governor-general's choice had almost
always been accepted by the council. In a letter to the court of
directors dated 1 September, 1777, and embodied in proceedings for
1 October, 1777, Clavering states without contradiction that out
of thirty-four officers recommended by the governor-general for
appointment to seats on the provincial councils, only six were set
aside by the vote of the majority; moreover, in 1777 there were on
the provincial councils only three men who had not been recommended
by Hastings himself : these three were John Shore, Boughton Rous,
and Goring. This effective reply remained unanswered, and disposes
very decisively of Barwell's insinuations.
In addition to the weekly reports from the districts of defaulting
farmers and oppressed ryots, a new and serious problem was created
by the interference of the Supreme Court in the revenue adminis-
tration. This threatened to bring the collections to a standstill,
because the Supreme Court, by issuing writs of habeas corpus in favour
of persons confined by the orders of the provincial diwanni adalat
courts for non-payment of revenue, paralysed the effective control
exercised by these courts. Complaints and requests for instructions
poured in from all the divisions: the Supreme Council became very
restive but was induced to concur for the time being in the governor-
general's advice "not to controvert the authority which the Supreme
Court may think fit to exercise". 1 The judges of the Supreme Court
acknowledged the caution displayed by the board in a letter 2 which
conveyed their opinion on certain questions propounded by the board
regarding the appellate jurisdiction of the sadar diwanni adalat and
the Supreme Court. The matter rested there for a while.
The dissensions in the council encouraged unscrupulous people,
hostile to Hastings, to bring accusations of corruption against the
governor-general to which the majority in the council lent a greedy
ear.
It must be admitted that the governor-general had shown much
laxity in permitting his banyan Krishna Kantu Nandi (the well-
known “Cantoo Baboo") to hold lucrative farms. The Committee of
Circuit had laid down 3 that no banyan of the collector, nor any of
his relations, should under any circumstances hold a farm or be
connected with a farmer. Gleig's + shuffling defence that this order
applied to collectors only is unworthy of serious consideration, for
the chances of corrupt profit that might accrue to the banyan of a
collector were insignificant compared to those which an unscrupulous
banyan of the governor-general might receive. Kantu Babu held
Governor-General's Proceedings, January, 1775.
2 Idem, 25 July, 1775. Cf. also Hastings's letter to Lord North, dated 10
January, 1776.
3 Committee of Circuit's Proceedings, pp. 56-9.
4 Gleig, op. cit. I, 529, 530 (ed. 1841).
## p. 422 (#450) ############################################
422
REVENUE ADMINISTRATION OF BENGAL, 1765-86
farms in his own name whose annual rental exceeded thirteen lakhs
of rupees, and, in addition, he held farms in the name of his son,
Loknath Nandi, a child of twelve or thirteen years. The acquiescence
of Hastings in this matter was contrary to the spirit of the regulations
drawn up by the Committee of Circuit of which he himself had been
the most prominent member. His statement that he had no personal
interest in the affairs of his banyan does not alter the situation. In
this case, and in his defence 2 of Bhawani Charan Mitra, diwan of
Burdwan, whose sons and servants had been discovered in the posses--
sion of farms, no excuse can be offered for Hastings's inertness; but
the majority of the council allowed their venom to poison their
judgment in declaring that “there was no species of peculation from
which the governor-general had thought fit to abstain". Certain trans-
actions of Barwell, when chief of the Dacca provincial council, were
also declared by the majority to be corrupt, but the real target was
the governor-general who protested with unavailing logic that his
would-be judges were also his accusers. Hastings, to preserve the
dignity of his office, was forced on several occasions to break up the
council. Such were the conditions in which the new government
proceeded to administer the revenues of Bengal; conditions which
lasted till Monson's death on 25 September, 1776. During this period
some very valuable information was obtained from the senior servants
of the Company in response to a circular issued on 23 October, 1774,
to the chiefs of the provincial councils asking their views on the causes
of the diminution of the land revenue and of the frequent deficits.
Middleton, writing of the Murshidabad division which included
Rajshahi, named the famine of 1770 as the first cause; he also con-
sidered that "the unavoidably arbitrary settlement made by the
Committee of Circuit" and the public auction of farms contributed
heavily to the distress, especially the last cause :
the zamindar being tenacious of her hereditary possessions, and dreading the
disgrace and reproach which herself and her family of long standing as zamin-
dars must have suffered by its falling into other hands.
He suggested that "a universal remission of a considerable amount
of the revenue due" be granted, and the settlement in future be made
with the zamindars : if farmers must be employed, they should be
very carefully selected.
P. M. Dacres, late chief of the Calcutta committee, also considered.
the public auction of farms to be largely responsible for much distress,
instancing the bidding in the Nadia district; other causes were the
great famine and the excessive assessment of 1772. He advocated a
general remission of deficits and urged a permanent settlement with
3
1 Governor-General's Proceedings, 17 March, 1775, 25 April, 1777, and 29
April, 1777.
2 Idem, 23 January, 1776.
3 Idem, 7 April, 1775.
4 Idem.
## p. 423 (#451) ############################################
REFORMS PROPOSED
423
the zamindars which "would fix the rents in perpetuity and trust to
a sale of their property as a security for their payments”: advice
that was not lost on Francis.
G. Hurst, from the council of Patna, shared Middleton's views
and also referred to the wars that had ravaged Bihar from the days
of 'Ali Wardi Khan until the assumption of the diwanni by the
Company. Of these interesting comments, that of P. M. Dacres, advo-
cating a permanent settlement of the land revenue, commands the
most attention. This advice did not reach the board for the first time.
Two years previously 2 the council of Patna had suggested it, and in
January, 1775,9 G. Vansittart, late chief of the Burdwan Council,
had urged the board to adopt a lengthy settlement, for life at least.
In July, 1775, G. G. Ducarel, lately in charge of the Purnia district,
in his evidence given before the board,4 expressed the view that "a
person of experience with discretionary power might render great
service to the Company by effecting a permanent settlement in the
most eligible mode". He even argued that it was desirable to effect
a permanent settlement "with inferior talukdars or with the ryots
themselves if possible”, advice which implies that the speaker did
not regard either the state or the zamindars as owners of the soil.
At home the same idea was also finding expression. In 1772 Colonel
Dow" had strongly advocated a settlement in perpetuity with the
zamindars, and in the same year a pamphlet urging a similar course
was published by H. Patullo.
Meanwhile the results of the quinquennial settlement were
proving more deplorable each year, and some fresh method was im-
peratively necessary. Accordingly, on 21 March, 1775, the governor-
general invited the individual opinions of members of the council on
the subject of settling and collecting the land revenue. On 22 April he
and Barwell submitted a joint plan consisting of seventeen proposals
in which they practically adopted the principle of a permanent
settlement by recommending leases for life or for two joint lives.
Beveridge? has shown that the concluding remarks of this scheme
bear strong if unintentional testimony to the hardships inflicted on
the ryots by the nawab's and, latterly, the Company's mismanage-
ment of the collections. This plan was opposed by one propounded
by Francis on 22. January, 1776, in which he definitely recommended
a settlement in perpetuity with the zamindars, and he emphasised
this opinion at meetings of the board in May, 1776,8 when a letter was
1 Governor-General's Proceedings, 7 April, 1775.
2 Revenue Board Proceedings, 29 January, 1773.
Governor-General's Proceedings, 27 January, 1775.
&
, ,
4 Idem, 15 July, 1775.
5 Enquiry into the state of Bengal, affixed to vol. I, History of Hindostan,
ed. 1772.
6 Firminger, Fifth Report, etc. I, 309, note.
7 Op. cit. II, 410-17.
8 Governor-General's Proceedings, 17 May and 31 May, 1776.
## p. 424 (#452) ############################################
424
REVENUE ADMINISTRATION OF BENGAL, 1765-86
considered from the provincial council of revenue at Patna describing
the over-assessment and consequent poverty of the people. Francis
published in 1782 his proposals, together with the plan of Hastings and
Barwell and various extracts from the minutes of the board's pro-
ceedings, but he did not acknowledge the debt that he obviously
owed to Dacres and other servants of the Company. The following
comments from two distinguished writers are sufficient to reveal the
defects of the scheme of Francis, who recognised only the zamindar
and ignored the ryot. "We are left to infer”, says Beveridge,2 "that,
after all, the best security for the ryot would be to throw himself on
the zamindar's mercy. ” Mill 3 is even more trenchant.
Without much concern about the production of proof he [Mr Francis)
assumed as a basis two things : first, that the opinion was erroneous which
ascribed to the sovereign the property of the land; and secondly, that the pro-
perty in question belonged to the zamindars. Upon the zamindars as propriet-
ors he accordingly proposed a certain tax should be levied; that it should be
fixed once and for all; and held to be perpetual and invariable.
The effect of Francis's pertinacity was to bring into prominence the
question of the ownership of the land. 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.
