No More Learning

4 Cornwallis to N. Smith, 9 November, 1789. Ross, op. cit. I, 449.
5 Dundas to Cornwallis, 20 February, 1789. Ross, op. cit. 1, 410-11.


## p. 436 (#464) ############################################

436
BENGAL ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEM, 1786-1818
1
the advice of Shore, it was partly at least owing to the representations
of Charles Grant. He had no personal knowledge of revenue matters,
but he received the greatest share in the confidence of Cornwallis,
and had given him invaluable help during the years 1786-90. When
Grant sailed for home in 1790 Cornwallis recommended Dundas "to
converse with him frequently upon every part of the business of this
Country", and his zeal for the governor-general's interests gave him
considerable influence over Dundas during the years 1790-3. James
Grant (a cousin of Charles),- like Shore and Duncan, specialised on
the revenue side. But Charles Grant was the chief adviser in matters
of trade. His loss "in the commercial line", wrote Cornwallis when
he left India, "is irreparable". He had been secretary to the Board
of Trade in the time of Hastings and had been appointed by the
board in 1781 commercial resident at Malda. He was outstanding
both in experience and integrity. At first, at least, Cornwallis thought
him the only honest man on the commercial side, and trusted very
largely to him in his attempt to reform that branch of the adminis-
tration. In this work Cornwallis had also the help of Charles Stuart,
member of council and president of the Board of Trade (1786-9).
Stuart, however, never gained in the same degree the confidence of
Cornwallis, and he lacked the wide commercial experience of
Charles Grant.
In his judicial work Cornwallis had also an invaluable adviser.
Here the Company's servants could be of but limited use. Cornwallis
took full advantage of their experience in judicial business, but their
experience was relatively small and they lacked expert knowledge.
Some of them-Charles Grant among them-were of great value in
carrying out reforms: but only the judges could help in devising them.
Cornwallis was, therefore, fortunate in the aid of Sir William Jones,
an oriental scholar of reputation unrivalled in his own time, and a
man of great practical ability, who had devoted many years to the
study and practice of the law. In 1783 he had come to India as judge
of the Supreme Court of Judicature at Calcutta, and he brought to his
task the zeal of an enthusiast, and the knowledge of an expert. “A
good system of laws" seemed to him the first necessity of India; and,
following the lead of Hastings, he set himself to this end to codify
the existing Hindu and Muhammadan laws. But he realised also the
need for "due administration" and a "well-established peace". He
gave, therefore, full aid to Cornwallis in his reform of the judicial
administration and in the regulation of the police.
Although the policy that Cornwallis came to enforce in 1786 was
new, it was not wholly new. In every direction Cornwallis built
1 Cornwallis to Dundas, 12 February, 1790. Ross, op. cit. I, 480.
2 Firminger (ed. ), Fifth Report . . . on the Affairs of the East India Com-
pany . . . 1812, 1, p. xiv.
:: Ross, op. cit. 1, 306.
.


## p. 437 (#465) ############################################

CORNWALLIS'S CHARACTER
437
on foundations already laid or begun to be laid by his predecessors,
and especially by Hastings. It was the emphasis rather than the
principle that was new; but the principles were now clearly stated,
and the strength of the home government was used to enforce them.
Every aspect of reform was foreshadowed in the work or in the
projects of Hastings, and hence the solidity of the work of Cornwallis.
Yet even when all allowance has been made, much credit must be
given to Cornwallis himself. Certainly no man of genius, he con-
tributed no new ideas to the work he undertook. He was not an
expert like Jones or Grant, nor a man of wide experience like Shore.
He was not a doctrinaire like Francis, nor an inventive genius like
Hastings. He was content, as Hastings had never been, to plead a
command from home as a final cause for decision, and this respect
for authority was his outstanding characteristic. But in spite of this
he possessed great qualities and stood for important principles. Above
all, he was, beyond reproach, upright and honest. He had not to
fear a sudden decline in favour; he had no pettiness of ambition;
he was not a time-server; and he left behind him a tradition of service
a
which was of lasting value in Indian administration. Loyalty and
integrity there had been before, but it was a loyalty to the Company
and an integrity in the Company's affairs. Cornwallis was a public
servant who upheld national and not private traditions. His service
was to the Crown and not to the people over whom he ruled, and he
thus embodied fitly the new spirit of Indian rule.
To this invincible honesty and desire for the public good, he added
a soldier's sense of duty to his superiors. The command of Dundas
or Pitt, or even of the court of directors, was decisive to him. He had
a belief in the possibilities of justice, a faith in the standards by which
conduct would be judged at home. He was determined that these
standards should not be lowered in India, nor overlaid by native
practices. To secure this he gave the higher administrative posts to
Englishmen, and he was always loth to leave real responsibility in
native hands. Yet he was wise enough to see that this was not enough :
these Englishmen must maintain the English standards. They must
be appointed and promoted for merit, not by patronage. In the interests
of this maxim he was prepared to resist the recommendations of all,
even of the Prince Regent or of the directors. Lastly, every deviation
from honesty must be rigorously punished.
This is the system Cornwallis set out to establish, and no doubt
because it was practical rather than ideal, he came much nearer than
most reformers to a realisation of his aims.
а
When Cornwallis landed in Bengal in September, 1786, important
changes in administration had just taken place. More than twenty
years of experiment had gone to make them, and the recent innovations
were rather a further stage in experiment than a final reorganisation.
Much of the work of Cornwallis also was experimental in character,


## p. 438 (#466) ############################################

438
BENGAL ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEM, 1786-1818
but his greatest claim to importance is that he permanently established
some features of administration.
It is necessary to go back more than twenty years to explain the
character of the system with which Cornwallis dealt. The main work
of the Company in India had at one time consisted, like that of any
other company for overseas trade, in import from England and export
home. The import had from early times consisted mainly of specie,
so that the most burdensome duty of the Company's servants was
the provision of the cargoes for England, cargoes for the most part of
raw silk, wool, cotton, or indigo; in other words the “investment". In
the mid-eighteenth century the import of specie ceased : the import of
English goods, never large, was still comparatively small, and the main
source from which the investment was provided—and the local
expenses paid-was the territorial revenue of Bengal.
The result was a dual system of administration. The management
of this revenue and the exercise of responsibilities arising from it, was
one branch of the Company's work; the provision of the investment
the other. Hastings in 1785 had written of the division between “the
general and commercial departments". The Company's servants in
all parts of Bengal wrote to Cornwallis on his arrival describing their
years of experience in the "revenue" or the "commercial line". The
commercial was the senior branch, but the revenue line was already
becoming the more important.
Since 1774 the investment had been under the supervision of the
Board of Trade. Originally a body of eleven members, very imper-
fectly controlled by the Supreme Council, the Board of Trade had been
reorganised in May, 1786. It was now definitely subordinated to the
Supreme Council, and reduced to five members. One of them, the
president, was Charles Stuart, a member of council. Under the board,
the investment was in the hands of the Company's servants stationed
at scattered centres in Bengal. The chief "residents” at the various
stations were responsible to the board for such share of the investment
as had been assigned to them. In dealing with it they had great op-
portunities for good or evil in coming into contact with the people, and
especially they had valuable and recognised facilities for private trade.
From the time of the board's first appointment in 1774 it had been
increasingly the practice to obtain the investment by a series of
contracts. At first these contracts were generally direct with Indian
manufacturers or agents, the residents merely exercising supervision
over them. Since 1778, however, the contracts had been made more
frequently with the Company's servants themselves. So a resident
at one of the Company's stations contracted with the Board of Trade,
and then obtained the goods from the Indian manufacturers at as great
profit as he could get. This system, though a direct breach of their
covenants and of an order of the Company of 1759, was none the less
the general rule. The directors were so complaisant of the breach that


## p. 439 (#467) ############################################

THE EXISTING SYSTEM
439
.
even in their reform proposals of 1786 they did not think hat it was
"necessary to exclude our servants from entering into contracts".
Their criticism was not one of principle, but of practice. The prices
paid were high, the quality of the goods was poor, and there was a
general feeling that corruption and oppression were frequent. The
reform of the Board of Trade and the commercial establishment gene-
rally was one of the first tasks of Cornwallis.
The "general department" was more complicated if less corrupt
in its management of local administration. It had come into existence
slowly during the eighteenth century, and bore still a few marks of its
piecemeal origin, though broadly speaking in 1786 there was one
system for the whole province. It is in this sphere that those frequent
changes had taken place which the directors deprecated. The changes
were really a series of attempts, on the “rule of false” extolled by
Hastings, to reach some satisfactory system for a most complicated and
varied work.
In the “general department”, it may be said without question,
the chief concern was the revenue, and the second the administration
of civil justice. As diwan the Company was responsible for both these
branches of administration. Criminal justice was outside the scope
of the diwan, although the Company here also had obtained a large
measure of control. One of the results of the work of Cornwallis was
that before he left, in 1793, this side of the administrative system had
definitely bifurcated. There was the management of revenue on the
one side: the administration of civil and criminal justice on the other.
But this involved a breach with historical origins, and it was not
achieved until 1793.
In 1786 the chief machinery in the sphere of revenue was the
Board of Revenue. This body was stationed at Calcutta, and beforc
Cornwallis landed, had just undergone change, like the Board of
Trade. In July, 1786, at the instance of the court of directors it had
received an addition to its existing membership. There were to be,
as previously, four members; but a president was added, who must be
a member of the Supreme Council. The president appointed in 1786
was John Shore.
The work of the revenue administration concerned certain main
sources of revenue. By far the most important was the revenue from
land, and the machinery for revenue administration had grown up
mainly in connection with this. There was also, however, the sair
revenue-from customs and excise-and the revenues from the opium
contract and the monopoly of salt. In 1786 the sair revenue was
managed by the same agencies as the revenue from land. The opium
revenue had been managed ever since 1773 by a contract with certain
Indians, who paid a royalty to the Company. In 1785 the contract
had been disposed of to the highest bidder on a four-years' agreement.
This system was, therefore, in force when Cornwallis arrived. In


## p. 440 (#468) ############################################

440
BENGAL ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEM, 1786-1818
connection with the opium, the duties of the Company's servants,
when once the contract had been let, were limited to a general right
of enquiry to prevent the oppression of the cultivators. The monopoly
of salt was another source of revenue. Here again the system in force
was at one time one of contract. But in 1780 Hastings had substituted
a system of European agency. A number of the Company's servants
were employed to superintend the manufacture and sale of salt, the
price being fixed annually by the Supreme Council. Whereas, there-
fore, work in connection with the sair revenue and the opium contract
was undertaken by the same officers as those of the land revenue, a
small separate establishment, responsible directly to the Supreme
Council, dealt with the monopoly of salt.
The land revenue organisation consisted, under the board of
Revenue, of a number of the Company's servants, known already as
collectors. Here also reorganisation had taken place. 1
In addition to the collection of revenue, and of the information
upon which the assessment was made, the collectors, like the zamin-
dars, had originally judicial functions. The judicial system, however,
like the revenue administration, had been the subject of repeated
experiments, and as a result, when Cornwallis arrived, the work of
collecting the revenue was almost wholly divorced from that of
administering justice. Civil justice was administered in local civil
courts (diwanni adalat) presided over by Company's servants; from
them appeal lay to the governor-general in council in the capacity
of judges of the sadr diwanni adalat. For. criminal cases there was
again a separate organisation. Magisterial powers were indeed vested
in the judges of the civil courts; but the power of trial and punishment
lay in district courts for criminal cases, presided over by Indian judges.
Appeal lay from them to the nizamat adalat, now under the 'super-
vision of the governor-general in council. The final power, therefore,
in civil cases directly, and in criminal cases indirectly, lay with the
Supreme Council, but the local courts were almost everywhere outside
the control of the Company's collectors. In most districts then there
were collectors of revenue, judges of the diwanni adalat, and in some
also commercial residents, all of them Company's servants, with
functions in many particulars defined rather by tradition than by
regulation; all of them in the minds of critics at home suspected of
too great concentration on "private interests".
In 1786, Bengal contained all the pieces that were to form the
administrative mosaic of British India, but the pattern had not yet
been decided; and even the collector was not yet established as the
centre-piece. The system was complicated, illogical, wasteful and
suspected of being corrupt. Cornwallis had justly received instruc-
tions to simplify, to purify and to cheapen the administrative system.
>
1 Cf. pp. 417. sag. supra.


## p. 441 (#469) ############################################

THE BOARD OF TRADE
441
>
In a letter to Cornwallis of 12 April, 1786, the Secret Committee
pressed on him the urgency of removing abuses and corruption in
the Company's service. The reforms were most needed in the com-
mercial administration. The Board of Trade, which should have
acted as a check, was suspected of collusion; and fraud and neglect
went alike unpunished. Cornwallis was directed that suits should,
if necessary, be instituted against defrauding officials, and that they
should be suspended from the Company's service.
In fact the task of Cornwallis here, as in the question of revenues,
was two-fold. He had to cleanse the establishment from corruption,
and to revise the system into which the corruption had grown. It
needed only a few weeks to convince him of the need for cleansing
the establishment; there would be no lack of "legal proofs” of both
"corruption" and "shameful negligence”. As the weeks passed,
information poured in upon him as to the methods and difficuīties of
the trade. Requisitions were sent to the commercial residents for
accounts, stretching back in some cases over twenty years. In
October, Cornwallis summoned Charles Grant from Malda to Calcutta,
to obtain his information and advice.
In Janviary, 1787, Cornwallis was ready to act. He informed a
number of contractors and members of the Board of Trade that bills
in equity would be filed against them; pending judgment the sus-
pected persons were suspended from office. The result was the
dismissal of several of the Company's servants, including members of
the old Board of Trade. The directors urged further enquiries, but
Cornwallis had confidence in the effect of these examples, and a
stricter system of surveillance for the future.
Meanwhile he was taking measures to build up the system anew.
In January, he had appointed Charles Grant as fourth member of
the Board of Trade, and with his help set himself to collect informa-
tion upon which to base a revision of the commercial system. Already
he had decided on a change. Instead of contracts with the commercial
residents and others, he revived the system of agency by the commer-
cial residents. It was possible, as yet, to introduce the new plan only
partially, but "in all practicable instances" it was adopted even for
the 1787 investments. By the end of 1788 Cornwallis thought the trial
had been sufficiently long, and definitely adopted the agency system.
The decision was typical of the early period of Cornwallis's reforms.
His experience of the culpability of the Company's servants did not
prejudice him against their employment. He did not feel justified, he
told the directors, in laying down “at the outset as a determined point,
that fidelity was not to be expected from your servants”. He
preferred to try the effect of "open and reasonable compensation for
1 Ross, op. cit. I, 242.
2 P. R. O. , Cornwallis Papers, Packet XVIII. Charles Stuart to Cornwallis,
18 August, 1787.


## p. 442 (#470) ############################################

442
BENGAL ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEM, 1786-1818
1
honest service”, and believed that many would prefer this to "con-
cealed emolument", if it could be obtained. So in the new system
he made the commercial residents the representatives of the Com-
pany in the direct control of the investment. They were responsible
to the Board of Trade, but even so, their own responsibilities were
great. They were to arrange the prices with the manufacturers, to
make the necessary advances to them, to receive from them the
goods produced, and to supervise the carrying out of the work. The
residents were to be paid adequately by a commission on the
investments passing through their hands. There was to be no
prohibition of private trade, for it could not be enforced, and in such
circumstances "to impose restraints. . . would not remove supposed
evils, but beget new ones”.
The new system was enforced by strict regulations issued as early
as March, 1787. There was to be no oppression of the Indian producer,
or the Indian or foreign trader. It had been the former practice to
prevent weavers, working for the Company, from undertaking any
other work. This system, which had tended to squeeze out all Indian
trade, was now revoked, and it was required only that work should
be executed in the order of the advances received for it. Cornwallis,
indeed, looked to the resident for the protection of the Indian workers.
These commercial servants came into closer contact with the people
than did the collectors of revenue, and, therefore, acted as "useful
barriers" to the oppression of Indian farmers or zamindars.
The bad season of 1788-9 was a severe trial to the new system,
but Cornwallis held that it had "stood the test". From this time he
made no material change in its organisation. The investment, he
wrote in 1789, "is now reasonably and intelligently purchased, and
delivered to the Government at its real cost”. From the commercial
standpoint, this was what had so long been wanted. Characteristically,
he went further, and foresaw the spread downwards, "through the
wide chain of the natives" connected with trade, of the new "prin-
ciple of integrity"; and, as he said, "the establishment of such a
principle must. . . be regarded as a solid good of the highest kind”. ?
If the system did not prove to have so wide an effect as this, it was
justified in its more immediate results, and the system for conducting
the Company's trade which Cornwallis set up was not materially
altered after him. These reforms, therefore, were among the lasting
achievements of Cornwallis.
1
While Stuart and Grant on the Board of Trade were reforming
the commercial side, a similar process was being applied to the ad-
ministration of revenue and justice. Here the chief instrument and
adviser of Cornwallis was John Shore. Already a member of the
11. 0. Records, Bengal Letters Received, XXVIII, 310. Letter dated 1 August,
1789.


## p. 443 (#471) ############################################

REVENUE REFORMS, 1787
443
Supreme Council and the Board of Revenue, he was appointed pre-
sident of the Board of Revenue in January, 1787, and was largely
responsible for the character of the changes.
The preceding reforms, under Macpherson, had created thirty-
five revenue districts, each under a European collector. This officer
was the real authority in revenue matters in the district. For a post
of such importance his salary was ludicrously small, only 1200 rupees
per month. The collectors were "almost all", Cornwallis said," "in
collusion with some relative or friend engaged in commerce", and it
was suspected that even less honourable means were sometimes used.
The reforms in relation to the collector aimed at three things :
economy, simplification and purification. In the interests of economy
the number of districts was to be reduced; in the interests of both
economy and simplification, the divorce of revenue from justice was
to cease; in the interests of purification adequate payment was to
obviate the need for illicit gains.
Rumours of these changes were current as early as January, 1787,
but it was not until March (the end of the Bengal year) that definite
steps were taken. Then, in accordance with a scheme drawn up by
the Board of Revenue, the number of districts was reduced to twenty-
three; a reduction that brought down upon Cornwallis the protests
of the dispossessed. At the same time, preparations were made for a
second change : the union of revenue and judicial duties. In February
a preliminary investigation was made. By June it was complete, and
regulations were issued to enforce it. The collectors were given once
more the office of judge of the courts of diwanni adalat. In this
capacity they dealt with civil cases, appeal lying for the more im-
portant to the sadr diwanni adalat. To relieve the collector, an Indian
"register" was attached to each court to try cases up to 200 rupees.
The courts were prohibited from dealing with revenue cases, these
being reserved for the Board of Revenue. At the same time (27 June,
1787) the collectors were also given powers in criminal justice. The
authority of the magistrates was increased and conferred on the
collectors. They now had power, not merely of arrest, but of hearing
and deciding cases of affray, and of inflicting punishments up to
certain prescribed limits. The trial of more important cases lay still
with the Indian courts, and appeal lay with the nizamat adalat at
Murshidabad.
The new collectors had, therefore, larger districts and far greater
powers, for with the exception of the fifteen commercial residents they
were the only instruments of the Company's authority in the districts.
It was an essential feature of the scheme that they should be ade-
quately paid. "For if all chance of saving any money. . . without
acting dishonestly, is removed, there will be an end of my reforma-
tion. ” And so, instead of the 1200 rupees per month formerly received,
they were now to have a salary of 1500. But this was to be regarded
as "the means of subsistence". "In the nature of reward" they had


## p. 444 (#472) ############################################

444
BENGAL ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEM, 1786-1818
a commission on the revenue they collected. Fixed at an average
rate of “rather short of 1 per cent. on the actual collections”, it varied
according to the size of their charge. For the largest collectorship-
Burdwan-the amount expected to be realised was 27,500 rupees per
annum. The collectors were provided further with adequate assistance.
Two European assistants were given to each district: the first to
receive 500 rupees per month and the other 400. Where a third was
necessary he should receive 300. So rewarded, the collectors were
forbidden, by letter of 18 July, 1787, directly or indirectly to enter
upon trade. In their case, unlike that of the commercial residents,
breach of this rule could easily be detected; and Cornwallis, there-
fore, did not hesitate to assert it.
With these changes the more fundamental reforms in the ad-
ministrative system were for the time complete, and Cornwallis was
able to issue detailed regulations covering all sides of the collectors'
work. By the regulations of July details of establishment and pro-
cedure were prescribed and rules laid down to govern the action of
the collectors in their judicial and magisterial functions.
Later changes elaborated and extended what had already been
done. Instructions to collectors in November, 1788, further defined
their duties, and finally these were consolidated in a code of 8 June,
1789. It was required that henceforth all the Company's servants
must belong definitely either to the revenue or the commercial line.
At the time this aimed at greater efficiency, but it was important
later as facilitating the change that came when the Company lost
its monopoly of trade.
In May, 1790, still more functions were added to the collectors.
The trial of revenue cases took up too much time at the Board of
Revenue and arrears and delays resulted. New local courts were
instituted-courts of mal adalat-presided over like. the local civil
courts by the collector. From these new courts appeal lay to the
council. This change marks the culmination of the collector's power.
Later Cornwallis realised that he had gone too far; hence the
revolution of 1793.
In the years 1788-90 the most important work lay in the sphere
of criminal justice. Here it was soon clear that the reforms of 1787
had removed only part of the abuses. In this matter Cornwallis
proceeded cautiously, being far less certain, than in the case of
revenue administration and civil justice, that he knew the cause of
the defect. An enquiry from the magistrates set on foot in November,
1789, confirmed the rumours of defective justice. The reports sug-
gested two main causes for the evils. There were defects in the
Muhammadan law, as judged by English ideas of justice; and there
were defects in the constitution of the courts. Both must be re-
medied. The first was a difficult matter. Upon the question of
authority Cornwallis had no misgiving. The difficulty was one of
knowledge, and it was necessary to go forward slowly. Certain


## p. 445 (#473) ############################################

CRIMINAL JUSTICE
445
changes were embodied in the resolution of 3 December, 1790; others
were left over until further advance had been made in the researches
of Sir William Jones.
Upon the side of administration (the remedying of the defects in
the constitution of the courts) the reforms of 3 December, 1790,
proceeded on the principles which Cornwallis followed in other
matters. The system of 1787 left the control of criminal justice largely,
though not wholly, in Indian hands. From Muhammad Reza Khan,
who presided over the chief criminal court (nizamat adalat) at
Murshidabad, to the judges of the provincial courts, the adminis-
tration of justice lay in Indian hands. The ultimate control of the
governor-general in council (an authority difficult to exercise) and
the magisterial functions of the collectors alone represented the
European share in this branch of administration. "I conceive", Corn-
wallis wrote on 2 August, 1789, “that all regulations for the reform
of that department would be useless and nugatory whilst the execu-
tion of them depends upon any native whatever. . . "We ought
not, I think”, he wrote in his minute of 3 December, "to leave the
future control of so important a branch of government to the sole
discretion of any Native, or, indeed, of any single person whosoever. ”
To remedy this Muhammad Reza Khan was deprived of his office.
The nizamat adalat was again moved from Murshidabad to Calcutta.
In the place of Muhammad Reza Khan as sole judge, the governor-
-general and the members of his Supreme Council presided over the
court, expert knowledge being provided by Indian advisers.
The same distrust of Indian agencies was seen in the reorganisa-
tion of the provincial courts. In the place of the local courts in each
district, with their native darogas, four courts of circuit were estab-
lished. ' Over each of them two covenanted civil servants presided,
assisted again by Indian advisers. These courts were to sit at Calcutta,
Murshidabad, Dacca, and Patna, but they were to make tours twice
a year through their divisions. Lastly, the magisterial duties of the
collectors were increased. These duties were again set forth in detail :
the most important additions to them being the custody if prisoners
confined under sentence or for trial and the superintendence of the
execution of sentences passed by the courts of circuit.
The reforms of criminal, like those of civil justice, then, added
new powers to the collector. This was, however, only one aspect of
the general principle underlying a number of the changes of Corn-
wallis, the substitution of an English for an Indian agency. Despite
the need for purification in all branches of the Company's service,
and the candid recognition which Cornwallis gave to it, he seems to
have been persuaded of the need for further encroachments by
11. 0. Records, Bengal Letters Received, XXVIII, 274. Letter of 2 August,
1789.


## p. 446 (#474) ############################################

446
BENGAL ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEM. 1786-1818
Europeans. In the sphere of criminal justice he had, indeed, an im-
portant justification. Although the actual changes were cautiously
made, there seems no doubt that he aimed ultimately at bringing the
law administered into line with that of England. Such an aim was
irreconcilable with the continuance of Indian administration. The
appointment of English judges, therefore, paved the way for the
modification of the laws, and this intention is clearly revealed in
Cornwallis's minute of 3 December, 1790.
The work of reorganising the district system of the province was
in part accomplished piece by piece during the reform of 1786-7,
and was systematically reviewed after that reform was complete. This
systematic examination embraced all parts of the service, central and
local. The greatest changes were those carried out at headquarters'
offices. Even here, however, a measure of reform had already taken
place before Cornwallis arrived. Business had been divided between
the public, secret anà commercial departments, and the secretarial
work and correspondence reorganised accordingly. In the secret
department there was already a section engaged on the reform of
the establishment, and early in 1786 this had been regularised as a
sub-department of reform. Its work was to carry out the decisions
of the Supreme Council, when it met to deal with reform business.
This system was continued unchanged by Cornwallis until the
beginning of 1788. Then the "Secret Department of Reform" was
reorganised as the “Secret and Separate Department of Reform",
and it was required that the Supreme Council should set aside one
day a week for the examination of the state of the public offices. The
result was a thorough overhauling of the machinery, completed by
January, 1789. The most business-like procedure was followed.
Before the actual changes were prescribed, rules upon which they
were to be based were drawn up. The number of offices was to be as
few as possible; the establishment proportionate to the work done;
the salaries paid were to be adequate, but no unauthorised gains
should be made; all principal offices were to be held by Company's
servants, and no servant should hold office under two different
departments. So far as was compatible with these principles there
was to be the strictest economy.
Considerable changes were necessary to enforce these principles.
There were at the time three main departments, the general (or
public) department (i. e. civil, military and marine), the revenue
department, and the commercial. Within these the duties of all
authorities were prescrihed. In some cases all that was required was
a restatement of reforms already carried out. The secretariat had
1
1 An account of the reforms is given in 1. 0. Records, Home Miscellaneous
Series,. vol. cccLIX See also the report of Cornwallis to the directors, Bengal
Letters Received, vol. XXVII; letter of 9 January, 1789.


## p. 447 (#475) ############################################

THE SECRETARIAT
447
beer reorganised in July, 1787, there being henceforth one secretary-
general with three assistants, instead of two joint secretaries. The
establishment of the revenue department had already been the
subject of a number of changes, and that of the commercial had been
thoroughly overhauled. The changes made, therefore, in departments
were of minor importance. In the revenue department regulations
were issued regarding the treatment of Company's servants when out
of employment, and the office of saristadar. was marked out for
abolition when James Grant should cease to hold it. In the commer-
cial department little change was made, save a regulation that
henceforth the posts of export and import warehousekeepers should
no longer be held by members of the Board of Trade. In other
branches the changes were more radical. The treasury, the pay-
master's office, and the accountant-general's office were all reformed;
the duties of the Khalsa (the exchequer) defined; the establishment
of the customs reduced. New regulations were prescribed for the
postal service. A detailed examination was made of the inferior
servants, employed on the staffs of all the headquarters' offices, and
the whole system regulated. For each department a special list of
rules for the conduct of business was drawn up, defining the duties
to be carried out and the restrictions placed on the actions of their
members. The regulations on these matters were among the lasting
achievements of Cornwallis. For, although the increase in business
of later years necessitated further elaboration of the machinery, the
later changes did not affect the main structure.
By January, 1789, much of the preliminary work of Cornwallis
was over. He was still, it is true, in the midst of overhauling the
systems of civil and criminal justice. The end of the first stage of
reform in these departments did not come until his resolutions of 3
December, 1790. But the system of the investment was settled, and
the purification of the civil service complete. In 1789-90, side by side
with the completion of the judicial reforms went the revenue settle-
ment. In this he had been most cautious, despite the definite orders
from home. A year of experiment sufficed to decide the method of
the investment, but, in the matter of land revenue as in that of the
administration of justice, it was desirable to go warily, and to
examine fully the evidence before any irrevocable step was taken.
Hence the annual settlement of 1787 was followed by another in 1788
and yet another in 1789; it was not until the end of 1789 and the first
weeks of 1790 that the final decision was made.
When Cornwallis landed in 1786- the question was already the
subject of vigorous debate. The land system of Bengal was a difficult
one for Europeans to understand; and under the alternative influence
of Grant and Shore, the old Committee and the new Board of Revenue
had taken opposite views on its character. The old Committee of
Revenue, under the influence of Grant, argued that the state was in


## p. 448 (#476) ############################################

448
BENGAL ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEM, 1786-1818
legal conception the owner of the land. It was, therefore, open to the
government to use either the zamindar or any other farmer as the
agent for collecting revenue. Nor were they bound to definite limits
in the amount of their exactions. The zamindar was an official rather
than a landowner. The opposing theory, which was maintained by
the new Board of Revenue under the influence of Shore, was that the
zamindar was the legal owner of the land, and the state was entitled
only to a customary revenue from him. If this was right, a rettlement
through the zamindar was the only right one. But although the
.
debate was vigorous, the issue, from the point of view of Cornwallis,
was already settled. The act of parliament of 1784 and the instructions
of the directors had decided for the zamindar. This indeed Grant
himself had recognised before the arrival of Cornwallis; for the office
of saristadar which he had accepted had no meaning save under a
zamindari system.
The rival views, however, influenced materially the question of
the amount and duration of the settlement. On Grant's theory the
amount of the revenue was limited only by the productivity of the
land. As a result of his investigations he had concluded that this
limit had never been approached since the Company obtained the
diwanni. He recommended, therefore, that the basis taken should
be the assessment of 1765; but insisted that considerable further
examination of local conditions must be made before any settlement
was concluded. This with less learning but more experience, and
with far greater clarity, was refuted by Shore in his minutes of 18
June and 18 September, 1789. According to Shore, not only was
Grant wrong in his conception of the status of the zamindar (to
Cornwallis, if not to Shore and Grant, only of theoretic interest) but
in his estimate of the yield of the land. Against the Moghul assess-
ment, of 1765, Shore proposed as a basis the actual collection by
zamindars and farmers in recent years. Only by careful examination
could this be ascertained.
From the beginning, Cornwallis preferred Shore to Grant as his
adviser in revenue matters. While their discussions were taking place,
he was making experiments in revenue assessment with the help of
Shore, and collecting materials upon which a lasting system could
be based. In January, 1787, Shore took his place as president of the
Board of Revenue : in February the board began its work of making
preparation for a revenue settlement "for a long term of years". 1
The board passed on its instructions to the collectors. The work
took longer than Cornwallis expected, and it was not until the end
of 1789 that all the required reports were received. It was at this
point that Cornwallis left his wise caution, and threw aside the counsel
both of Grant and Shore. Unlike them he held that there was now
1 Ross, op. cit. I, 541.


## p. 449 (#477) ############################################

THE DECENNIAL SETTLEMENT
449
sufficient information to warrant a settlement not merely for ten
years but for perpetuity. Against this Shore and Grant protested.
Permanence was unjustified, according to Shore, without a survey,
or, according to Grant, without an exhaustive study of the records.
Cornwallis, however, had the approval of Duncan, and the support
of Shore's fellow-counsellor, Stuart. He had, further, his instructions
to justify him, and with him these were final. He decided therefore
provisionally for perpetuity, referring the matter home for ultimate
decision. At the end of 1790, in Bengal, the collectors were circular-
ised with instructions to carry out the settlement. A proclamation
of 10 February, 1790, announced the ten-years' settlement with
zamindars and other landholders; the settlement to be made perpetual
if the home government should authorise it.
The settlement gave great and undefined powers to the zamindars,
and Cornwallis has been criticised severely for his disregard of the
interests of the ryots. But he was not indifferent to the possibilities
of oppression. The lesser landholders, the talukdars, were to be dealt
with separately whenever they were "the actual proprietors of the
lands".