Regulations in 1793
attempted
to deal with these, but without much
effect.
effect.
Cambridge History of India - v5 - British India
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". Whereas in many cases formerly the zamindars had collected
revenue from them, henceforth they were to be exempt from such
control, and pay their revenues immediately to the public treasury
of the district. In some districts of Bengal where the number of petty
landholders was great the collectors were directed to appoint Indian
assistants, tahsildars, as was already the practice in Bihar. The
tamindars, therefore, were to be confirmed in the tenure of what was
ooked upon as their own land: but not in their position as collectors
for other landholders. The principle of settlement with the "actual
proprietors of the soil” enjoined by the directors was thus observed,
in accordance with their interpretation of the term proprietor.
For the protection of the ryots Cornwallis looked to the local
control of the collectors, reinforced by information from the com-
mercial residents. No specific measures for their protection accom-
panied the Decennial Settlement, save the abolition of the sair duties
of 1790. These incidents were collected by the zamindar, and it was
held that the only way to avoid oppression was to abolish all duties
so collected. In 1792 by resolution of the Supreme Council, and in
1793 by regulation, the zamindar's authority over his under-tenants
was further limited.
The settlement thus completed was, it is clear, in the mind of
Cornwallis a means to an important end. Until such a settlement
was made "the constitution of our internal government in the country
will never take that form which alone can lead to the establishment
of good laws, and ensure a due administration of them". The Supreme
Council an, the Company's servants must alike be set free from the
“unremitted application' to revenue business. Henceforth it would
be possible for the servants "of the first abilities and the most
29
## p. 450 (#478) ############################################
450
BENGAL ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEM, 1786-1818
established integrity" to attend first to other work. In the mind of
Cornwallis the administration of justice was of greater importance
than that of revenue. Perhaps he did not realise how closely revenue
administration, like that of trade, was bound up with the welfare
of the people. Other reasons also were advanced-above all the
encouragement it would give to the development of the land and the
reclamation of the waste--but the fact that it would make possible
better judicial administration seems the final factor. With such
explanations, therefore, the ten-years' settlement was sent home for
the decision of the point of difference between Cornwallis and Shore.
At the end of 1789 Shore left Bengal for England, so the authorities
at home could consult him if they wished.
The completion of the Decennial Settlement took longer than
Cornwallis had expected. It was not until the, autumn of 1791 that
a full code of regulations could be issued : and in some districts the
system did not come into force until nearly two more years had passed.
By the end of 1790, however, the final arrangements were in sight,
and Cornwallis fully intended to return home at the beginning of
the next year. He was well satisfied with his work. He had laid the
basis of a sound system by his administrative purification; his reforms
of justice, of revenue, and of trade had gone far enough to show the
character of the structure which he had planned. What was now
needed was to carry out schemes already started; and to maintain
the principles of no patronage, and no corruption : and further to
develop the judicial and administrative systems. But from the
autumn of 1790 until June, 1792, he was absorbed in the Mysore War.
Then he had fifteen months of peace, till he left for home in October,
1793.
These last years, however, saw the culmination of his work in
several directions. They were the years of the proclamation of the
Permanent Settlement of the land revenue, and of the promulgation
of comprehensive regulations regarding the police system.
of the first it is not necessary to say much. The minute of 10
February, 1790, announcing the Decennial Settlement, had contem-
plated its transformation into one for perpetuity. A perpetual settle-
meni had formally been promised "provided such continuance should
meet with the approbation of the. . . court. . . of directors. . . and
not otherwise". The decision lay therefore with the Court of
Directors and the Board of Control. The answer came in a letter from
the court of 29 August, 1792. But the decision had been reached by
the board. Dundas . waited for a year, fully conscious of the import-
ance of the matter, and in the end he went to Pitt for the decision.
At Pitt's house in Wimbledon they went into the details and the
1 Minute by Cornu allis, 10 February, 1790. Printed ap. Ross, op. cit. 11,
459-74.
## p. 451 (#479) ############################################
THE PERMANENT SETTLEMENT
451
principles of the plan, for ten days, and Charles Grant (the commer-
cial adviser of Cornwallis) was with them "a great part of the time".
They decided in favour of permanence. In principle the matter was
prejudged; for the idea of permanence lay behind the agitation of the
'eighties. But respect for Shore made Dundas hesitate; and he and
Pitt seem to have been genuinely undecided in 1791.
The authorisation reached Cornwallis in 1793, and the change was
immediately announced by proclamation (22 March). All that
remained therefore was to watch the working out of this contested
system. So far the full effect had not been seen. Some of the dangers
of the system were, however, apparent in the frequent sales of zamin-
dari estates and in the oppressions of sub-tenants by the zamindars.
Regulations in 1793 attempted to deal with these, but without much
effect.
One accidental result followed the settlement. In 1793, Cornwallis
was about to leave Bengal : and at last a successor had been found for
him. The choice was Shore. The man who was to see the first results
of the Permanent Settlement, was the man who had opposed its
permanence. And the decision was deliberate. Cornwallis had
written home in 1789 that their differences had been marked by
great good humour. Dundas and Pitt, in their discussions with Shore,
were struck with his “talents, industry and candour". And so Shore
was appointed to take the lead at Calcutta, expressing himself
characteristically as ready to step aside and "become second in
Council" if on further enquiry someone else seemed more suitable. It
is the best defence of the administration which Cornwallis "purified"
that it contained such men as Shore and Grant, who were willing to
do their best to ensure the good working of schemes of which they
disapproved in principle. If not perhaps the qualification best suited
to a governor-general, the humble-minded zeal for duty that charac-
terised Shore was an excellent testimony to the Bengal service.
The authorisation of the Permanent Settlement reached Corn-
wallis in time to head the list of great reforms that mark the year
1793. It is regulation 1 of the long series of regulations passed by the
Supreme Council on 1 May, and known collectively as "the Cornwallis
Code".
For by this time Cornwallis had prepared the series of changes
that mark his second period of reform. Some, indeed most, of them
were the result of his earlier work: either elaborating or reversing
what had been done. The chief new reform was the reorganisation
of the system of police. Cornwallis had long realised that the police
system of Calcutta was defective, and he had drafted a scheme for
reform as far back as 1788. He thought, however, at this time that his
legislative powers were not sufficient for this, and he proceeded
therefore by drafting an act to be laid before parliament. As this,
however, involved considerable delay, he decided at the end of 1788
to appoint a committee to enquire into the complaints that had been
.
## p. 452 (#480) ############################################
452
BENGAL ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEM, 1786-1818
made. As the result, a scheme was drawn up, and it was published
in October, 1791. The regulations were said to be provisional, pending
the reply from home relative to the passing of an act of parliament.
The regulations applied only to the town of Calcutta. By the new
system, superintendents of police were appointed, with functions
confined to the maintenance of order and to the arrest of suspected
persons. They were no longer to share the attention of the super-
intendents with magisterial and judicial functions. By subsequent
regulations of December, 1791, duties were defined and salaries fixed.
The next stage was the application of the new system to the whole
province. This, the work of April to December, 1792, involved a
further exemplification of the principle of employing Europeans in
the place of Indians. The zamindars were relieved of their respon-
sibilities for maintaining the peace and were ordered to disband their
local police forces. In each district small areas were to be portioned
off, and placed under the control of a daroga or superintendent, under
the supervision of the Company's representative in the district. These
regulations were issued provisionally in December, 1792. They were
accompanied by a project for the erection of gaols in all the collector-
ships of the province. The police regulations were provisionally con-
firmed from home early in 1793, and were embodied in the general
restatement of the regulations, the Cornwallis Code of May, 1793.
The regulations of 1 May, 1793, covered the whole field of ad-
ministration. In many respects they were of importance merely as
defining the existing system. This work of definition Cornwallis and
the directors agreed was of first importance. His reforms were in a
precarious position if they depended only upon personal support.
One year of negligence would destroy the whole system. The ex-
haustive regulations of 1793, aimed at stereotyping the rules which
Cornwallis had introduced. They dealt with the commercial systeni,
with civil and criminal justice, with the police and with the land
revenue, While restating the existing position, they contemplated
further changes, for by regulation xx special procedure was laid
down for the proposal of new regulations by the officials charged with
working the present system. And, even where in substance the
regulations restated former rules, minor alterations showed a readi-
ness to profit by experience.
Among the changes effected by the code one of the most important
was the separation of the judicial from the revenue administration.
The junction of the two, which had given unprecedented power to
the collector from 1787 to 1790, had been due to the need both of
economy and of simplification. In the hierarchy of the administra-
tion the collector had become by 1790 the bottle-neck through which
all lines of control must pass. Though in all his functions responsible
to some superior authority, he was in practice virtually independent.
As early as 1790 Cornwallis realised the dangers of this position, even
## p. 453 (#481) ############################################
SEPARATION OF POWERS
453
though he was then making it still more powerful. As it stood, nothing
but the character of the collectors was a real safeguard to the subject.
He had long been of opinion, he wrote, that this was a mistake.
No system will ever be carried into effect so long as the personal quali-
fications of the individuals that may be appointed to superintend it, form the
only security for the due exercise of it.
In his view the conclusion of the Permanent Settlement was a
necessary preliminary to change : and it was not therefore until 1793
that change could be made. In the regulations of May detailed
instructions prescribed the action of the Company's servants, and a
system of check and counter-check was substituted for the quasi-
independence of 1787. By regulation 11 of 1793 the Board of Revenue
and the collectors were deprived of all judicial powers. The new courts
of 1790—of mal adalat for the trial of revenue causes were abolished.
These causes were transferred to the other district courts, those of
diwanni adalat. These, too, had hitherto been presided over by the
collector. But now the offices of judge and collector were separated.
Judges were to be appointed to preside over the courts, renamed
zillah or district courts, responsible for all civil cases. From them
appeal was to lie to four provincial courts of appeal, situated, like the
criminal courts, at Patna, Dacca, Murshidabad and Calcutta. Froni
them in the larger causes appeal lay to the Supreme Council in its
capacity as a court of sadr diwanni adalat. Over each of these provin-
cial courts were three English judges. And these judges, it was
provided, were also to preside over the criminal courts of circuit
stationed at the same towns. The administration of justice, both civil
and criminal, was therefore vested in the same hands. To make the
system of checks upon the revenue administration more complete, it
was provided that
the collectors of revenue and their officers, and indeed all the officers of Gov-
ernment, shall be amenable to the courts for acts done in their official capacities,
and that Government itself, in cases in which it may be a party with its sub-
jects in matters of property, shall submit its rights to be tried in these courts
under the existing laws and regulations. 1
In the reforms of the early period the chief aims had been economy,
purification and simplification. Cornwallis had come to India assured
that to purify the Company's service it was essential that the holders
of office should be Englishmen, adequately remunerated, and not
foisted on the Company, by influence. In the interests of economy
and simplification he had given to these Englishmen almost unparal-
leled powers. It seems to have been felt that while he was in office
no great danger would result. But now in this second period of
reform the outstanding aim was the safeguarding of the Indian from
oppression. Cornwallis himselt had completed the process by which
1 Ross, op. cit. II, 558.
## p. 454 (#482) ############################################
454
BENGAL ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEM, 1786-1818
Pengal swarmed with Englishmen in commercial or administrative
offices; he seems to have reflected that it was at least necessary that
they should not be free to add to the oppression of Indians the old
practice of making a fortune. So the Company's servants and all
other English residents were to be subject to the courts. The revenue
and judicial systems were separated, and the collector of revenue
confined rigidly to the position suggested by his name.
Such a change operating without delay might well be expected to
rouse discontent in the Company's service. But Cornwallis was able
to allay this. The new district courts required judges, and it was part
of his scheme that the collectors of the district, chosen formerly as
being "of the first abilities and most established integrity”, were
transferred to this office. As judges of the zillah courts they exercised
jurisdiction in revenue and other civil causes : upon them was con-
ferred the magisterial power of the collector. The revenue duties,
which they left, devolved upon the assistants in the various districts.
Thus, under the new system, judicial administration was marked as
separate from, and as of much more importance than, revenue and
the executive functions associated with it.
The new system then created three branches of the service, instead
of two. The "commercial line” remained unchanged: the commer-
cial residents lived still at the various factories or stations, responsible
to the Board of Trade, and ultimately to the Supreme Council. The
revenue service, shorn of the important duty of the assessment, was
now the sole function of the new collectors of revenue. They were
responsible as before to the Board of Revenue, and then to the
Supreme Council. The district judges exercised civil jurisdiction and
the petty criminal jurisdiction of the magistrate. They were respon-
sible to the judges of the provincial courts in civil causes, and to those
same judges in the courts of circuit in criminal causes. The system
did not lack simplicity. It was not extravagant and it observed the
important principle of responsibility towards the inhabitants which
had been one of the chief characteristics of the new policy Cornwallis
came in to enforce.
With the Cornwallis Code the work of Cornwallis in India was
ended. But he was fully aware that it was only a beginning. He had
set up the machinery : established the recognition of certain prin-
ciples : but there was still no provision of a code of law. The resolu-
tions of December, 1790, and the regulations of 1793, had done
something to amend what seemed the greatest deficiencies of the
existing system. The law administered remained, however, in its
main features unchanged. The regulations of 1793 improved the
position a little by defining the qualifications of the Indian inter-
preters of the law, who were attached to the various courts. But
Cornwallis judged rightly that no greater innovation was possible
at present. "A good system of laws" was a thing more hard to come
## p. 455 (#483) ############################################
THE CORNWALLIS CODE
465
by even than "a due administration of them, and a well-established
peace". Sir William Jones was preparing the way by his treatise on
Indian laws. Cornwallis hoped that something would be done by
the building up of a case-made law on the findings of judges of the
courts. The developments of the future alone could fulfil the aim of
Cornwallis. He had created the machinery: upon the spirit that
informed it depended its success.
For twenty years after the retirement of Cornwallis, the system of
his code remained substantially unaltered. The periodical renewal of
the Company's Charter was due in 1793, but it took place without
any of the close scrutiny of administration which had heralded the
acts of 1773 and 1784. Cornwallis himself was of the view that little
real change was necessary; and the Company kept for another twenty
years its dual character as a commercial monopolist, and an instru-
ment of administration. It is in the events of this period that the
strength and weakness of the Cornwallis Code are most clearly seen.
The continued observance of Cornwallis's principles of adminis-
tration was due to some extent to the pressure of political cares. But
the lack of revolutionary change was in large measure a deliberate
policy. The preference for "steady adherence to almost any one
system" had become an accepted tenet : and the rulers of British
India did not attempt either a reversion to older ideas or the formu-
lation of new ones. The permanent settlement of the land revenue,
the severance of judicial from revenue administration, and the
restriction of Indians to offices of lesser responsibility were faithfully
observed by Cornwallis's successors. In the first half of the period,
indeed, the respect for the Cornwallis Code was so great that it was
introduced to the furthest degree possible into the new lands of the
Ganges basin, and even applied to Madras. Yet even the greatest
reverence could not hide the defects of the code, nor the utmost piety
avoid some attempt to correct them. The regulations of the period
1793 to 1813 are filled with amendments. Some were necessitated by
the faulty wording of the code, for which Barlow rather than Corn-
wallis was responsible; but many were due to the defects and the
rigidity of Cornwallis's own principles. In the last three years of
his rule he had added distrust of the covenanted servants of the
Company to his initial dislike of Indian agency. He deliberately placed
confidence in the system rather than in individuals, and he seems to
have ignored the fact that systems, like individuals, are bound to be
faulty. The great fault of his system was that he confounded courts
of justice with justice itself. In a land where the laws were still
vague and unknown, and the new system of administration was alien
to the ideas of the natives, the multiplication of court-made justice
was no advantage in itself. In theory, the Indians were protected by
courts of justice from the oppression of officials : zamindars and
talukdars against revenue collectors, ryots against zamindars. But
the courts were both unsuited and inadequate for the task. Delays
## p. 456 (#484) ############################################
456
BENGAL ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEM, 1786-1818
were so serious that suits, it was said, were not decided in the normal
course of a lifetime. Protection of this kind was not of much value,
and, without the gravest unconcern for the welfare of the people, it
was impossible to disregard the need for reform.
The changes of the period 1793 to 1813 were mainly in two
directions, in connection with the Permanent Settlement, and with
the speeding up of civil and criminal justice. The reform of the
system of police was left over to the next period, but measures, on
the whole successful, were taken to deal with dacoits.
The general approval of the Permanent Settlement by the autho-
rities in India and at home did not hide the defects that resulted from
the system. It was soon found that the evil of “balances" continued
as before : that the efforts made to prevent the oppression of tenants
and ryots led only to the complete blocking of the courts of justice :
that the attempts made to realise the revenue without personal
coercion of the zamindars resulted in frequent sales of estates. More-
over the provision that talukdars could claim exemption from the
zamindars' control increased the business before the courts, and led
to the cutting up of estates.
The measures taken by Shore were in two directions. A regulation
of 1795 modified the rules as to the actions of zamindars in collecting
rents from their tenants and ryots. In effect, their powers of coercion
were increased. Secondly, additional civil courts were established,
and additional powers granted to the Indians who were responsible
for deciding minor causes. By these two measures it was hoped that
the "balances" would diminish and sales become less frequent.
Above all, they would remedy the existing state of affairs by which
“the determination of a cause could not. . . be expected. . . . in the
ordinary course of the plaintiff's life". Despite these measures,
however, the delays in the settlement of suits continued; and so did
sales and the dismemberment of estates. The latter were due to the
numerous claims of exemption from the control of zamindars on the
ground of talukdari rights, and, in 1801, Lord Wellesley, met this by
a regulation giving a date after which no such claim could be recog-
nised. The evil of sales was not so soon settled. A regulation passed
by Wellesley in 1799 gave still further powers of coercion to the
zamindars, and over them the former practice of arrest was reinstated.
The latter measure was a return to the procedure of Cornwallis, the
regulation of 1793 making the zamindar liable to arrest as well as to
the sale of his land having been amended by Shore. Now, in 1799,
the practice of personal coercion was restored, again with the object
of checking the flood of sales. Even so, Lord Minto found the same
defect, and attempted further to restrict sales by a regulation of 1807.
In fact the position was intrinsically difficult, and no mere regulation
would alter it. By Lord Minto's time the difficulties were beginning
to grow less, but this was due more to the greater goodwill of the
## p. 457 (#485) ############################################
THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM
457
zamindars than to the revised regulations. So long as the system was
regarded with suspicion the difficulties continued. In fact it is clear
that in the years following its establishment the Permanent Settlement
was neither profitable to government nor popular with the people.
Such advantages as it had did not begin to operate until a later time.
In his advocacy of the Permanent Settlement, Cornwallis had put
high among the advantages the freeing of the Company's servants
from their absorption in revenue matters. In fact the difficulties in
the working out of the system made the task of a collector much less
simple than had been intended. Moreover, the mass of revenue suits
filled the zillah courts beyond measure, and the old collectors who
were now judges in these courts were certainly no freer than before
to concern themselves with the interests of the people. One of the
first and most pressing changes was therefore the limitation of suits.
Various regulations with this object date from the years 1795-1802.
They start with the reimposition of a fee upon registering a suit. This
was the work of Shore, as was also the increase in the number of
courts, and of Indians qualified to settle minor suits. Then, under
Wellesley, the regulation as to appeals was stiffened, and assistant
judges were appointed. The seriousness of the pressure extended
even to the sadr court, and Lord Wellesley thought it undesirable that
the governor-general and council should continue to act as its judges.
A reorganisation therefore took place in 1805, and three judges took
over the responsibilities of the court. The reforms of Wellesley, like
those of Shore, did not stop the evil of delay. Lord Minto attempted
further to remedy it. In 1807 the number of judges in the sadr court
was increased to four : in 1811 it was enacted that the number of
district judges should be increased as necessity occurred. Another
expedient for remedying the congestion of business was the reorgani-
sation of the system of circuit. According to the regulations of 1793
the provincial court of appeal was necessarily closed while the three
judges went on circuit in their capacity of circuit judges. A regulation
of 1794 provided for the unbroken session of the court. A further
change of 1797 made possible the trial of appeal cases during the
absence of the judges on circuit. Similar congestion in the trials of
criminal cases was met by the increase in the power of magistrates
in petty cases, and by conferring on them the right of delegating
power to their assistants. Special rules for the punishment of dacoits
were enacted in 1807.
None of the changes, however, did more than palliate the evils of
the systein. These evils were still formidable when they were sub-
mitted to the clear scrutiny of the next few years.
The unhesitating acquiescence in the Cornwallis system ended in
1808, and the work of reform started in earnest five years later.
Unlike the act of 1793 the Charter Act of 1813 made important
changes in the position of the Company; and, again unlike that act,
## p. 458 (#486) ############################################
458
BENGAL ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEM, 1786-1818
it was the result of the careful examination of several years. This new
reforin movement stated on 11 March, 1808, when Robert Dundas
moved the appointment of a select committee to enquire into the
affairs of the Company. The committee issued five reports, and the
fifth, issued in 1812, contained a detailed analysis of the Bengal
system. Together with its appendices (and with some of the material
contained in the second report of 1810), it is a valuable exposition
of the history and the results of the Cornwallis Code. Above all, it
makes clear some, if not all, of its defects.
The period of the Select Committee saw also the beginning of an
enquiry in Bengal. The defects of the early system forced themselves
especially on the judges of the courts, and in the summer of 1809
Lord Minto set on foot an enquiry as to the best lines of change. The
investigation, however, was not completed by him. In 1813 he was
succeeded by the Marquess of Hastings and it was in the ten years of
his rule that the most thorough enquiry was made. In 1813 the
Charter Act embodied one aspect of the new reform movement. On
9 November, 1814, a dispatch of the court of directors 1 emphasised
the other.
The act of 1813 abolished the Company's monopoly of trade in
India. The change in administration involved was not at first of
much importance, since the monopoly and not the trade was abolished.
The Board of Trade continued its work until 1835 : the commercial
residents remained at their factories, although their number decreased
as the trade diminished. The most immediate alteration was at the
presidency offices, for the act required a rigid separation of the
commercial and administrative accounts.
The instructions of 9 November, 1814, prescribed a far more
radical change. The pressure on the civil courts dictated a resumption
by the collector of his powers in civil justice : the difficulties found in
administering criminal justice and in the regulation of the police
demanded that the collectors should once more have magisterial
powers, and be responsible for the superintendence of the police. With
the same object of improving the administration of justice, additional
powers were to be given to Indian agents: and by increasing the
criminal jurisdiction of the zillah judges the pressure on the higher
courts would be relieved. At the same time the judicial interference
of the collector would serve to increase the protection of the ryots;
and with the latter object in view the Board of Control added a clause
to the directors' dispatch urging the observance "in all possible cases”
of "the principle of realising the revenues from the ryots themselves".
The recommendations of the dispatch were a denial of Cornwallis's
principles in several respects. If they. were carried out, the separation
11.
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". Whereas in many cases formerly the zamindars had collected
revenue from them, henceforth they were to be exempt from such
control, and pay their revenues immediately to the public treasury
of the district. In some districts of Bengal where the number of petty
landholders was great the collectors were directed to appoint Indian
assistants, tahsildars, as was already the practice in Bihar. The
tamindars, therefore, were to be confirmed in the tenure of what was
ooked upon as their own land: but not in their position as collectors
for other landholders. The principle of settlement with the "actual
proprietors of the soil” enjoined by the directors was thus observed,
in accordance with their interpretation of the term proprietor.
For the protection of the ryots Cornwallis looked to the local
control of the collectors, reinforced by information from the com-
mercial residents. No specific measures for their protection accom-
panied the Decennial Settlement, save the abolition of the sair duties
of 1790. These incidents were collected by the zamindar, and it was
held that the only way to avoid oppression was to abolish all duties
so collected. In 1792 by resolution of the Supreme Council, and in
1793 by regulation, the zamindar's authority over his under-tenants
was further limited.
The settlement thus completed was, it is clear, in the mind of
Cornwallis a means to an important end. Until such a settlement
was made "the constitution of our internal government in the country
will never take that form which alone can lead to the establishment
of good laws, and ensure a due administration of them". The Supreme
Council an, the Company's servants must alike be set free from the
“unremitted application' to revenue business. Henceforth it would
be possible for the servants "of the first abilities and the most
29
## p. 450 (#478) ############################################
450
BENGAL ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEM, 1786-1818
established integrity" to attend first to other work. In the mind of
Cornwallis the administration of justice was of greater importance
than that of revenue. Perhaps he did not realise how closely revenue
administration, like that of trade, was bound up with the welfare
of the people. Other reasons also were advanced-above all the
encouragement it would give to the development of the land and the
reclamation of the waste--but the fact that it would make possible
better judicial administration seems the final factor. With such
explanations, therefore, the ten-years' settlement was sent home for
the decision of the point of difference between Cornwallis and Shore.
At the end of 1789 Shore left Bengal for England, so the authorities
at home could consult him if they wished.
The completion of the Decennial Settlement took longer than
Cornwallis had expected. It was not until the, autumn of 1791 that
a full code of regulations could be issued : and in some districts the
system did not come into force until nearly two more years had passed.
By the end of 1790, however, the final arrangements were in sight,
and Cornwallis fully intended to return home at the beginning of
the next year. He was well satisfied with his work. He had laid the
basis of a sound system by his administrative purification; his reforms
of justice, of revenue, and of trade had gone far enough to show the
character of the structure which he had planned. What was now
needed was to carry out schemes already started; and to maintain
the principles of no patronage, and no corruption : and further to
develop the judicial and administrative systems. But from the
autumn of 1790 until June, 1792, he was absorbed in the Mysore War.
Then he had fifteen months of peace, till he left for home in October,
1793.
These last years, however, saw the culmination of his work in
several directions. They were the years of the proclamation of the
Permanent Settlement of the land revenue, and of the promulgation
of comprehensive regulations regarding the police system.
of the first it is not necessary to say much. The minute of 10
February, 1790, announcing the Decennial Settlement, had contem-
plated its transformation into one for perpetuity. A perpetual settle-
meni had formally been promised "provided such continuance should
meet with the approbation of the. . . court. . . of directors. . . and
not otherwise". The decision lay therefore with the Court of
Directors and the Board of Control. The answer came in a letter from
the court of 29 August, 1792. But the decision had been reached by
the board. Dundas . waited for a year, fully conscious of the import-
ance of the matter, and in the end he went to Pitt for the decision.
At Pitt's house in Wimbledon they went into the details and the
1 Minute by Cornu allis, 10 February, 1790. Printed ap. Ross, op. cit. 11,
459-74.
## p. 451 (#479) ############################################
THE PERMANENT SETTLEMENT
451
principles of the plan, for ten days, and Charles Grant (the commer-
cial adviser of Cornwallis) was with them "a great part of the time".
They decided in favour of permanence. In principle the matter was
prejudged; for the idea of permanence lay behind the agitation of the
'eighties. But respect for Shore made Dundas hesitate; and he and
Pitt seem to have been genuinely undecided in 1791.
The authorisation reached Cornwallis in 1793, and the change was
immediately announced by proclamation (22 March). All that
remained therefore was to watch the working out of this contested
system. So far the full effect had not been seen. Some of the dangers
of the system were, however, apparent in the frequent sales of zamin-
dari estates and in the oppressions of sub-tenants by the zamindars.
Regulations in 1793 attempted to deal with these, but without much
effect.
One accidental result followed the settlement. In 1793, Cornwallis
was about to leave Bengal : and at last a successor had been found for
him. The choice was Shore. The man who was to see the first results
of the Permanent Settlement, was the man who had opposed its
permanence. And the decision was deliberate. Cornwallis had
written home in 1789 that their differences had been marked by
great good humour. Dundas and Pitt, in their discussions with Shore,
were struck with his “talents, industry and candour". And so Shore
was appointed to take the lead at Calcutta, expressing himself
characteristically as ready to step aside and "become second in
Council" if on further enquiry someone else seemed more suitable. It
is the best defence of the administration which Cornwallis "purified"
that it contained such men as Shore and Grant, who were willing to
do their best to ensure the good working of schemes of which they
disapproved in principle. If not perhaps the qualification best suited
to a governor-general, the humble-minded zeal for duty that charac-
terised Shore was an excellent testimony to the Bengal service.
The authorisation of the Permanent Settlement reached Corn-
wallis in time to head the list of great reforms that mark the year
1793. It is regulation 1 of the long series of regulations passed by the
Supreme Council on 1 May, and known collectively as "the Cornwallis
Code".
For by this time Cornwallis had prepared the series of changes
that mark his second period of reform. Some, indeed most, of them
were the result of his earlier work: either elaborating or reversing
what had been done. The chief new reform was the reorganisation
of the system of police. Cornwallis had long realised that the police
system of Calcutta was defective, and he had drafted a scheme for
reform as far back as 1788. He thought, however, at this time that his
legislative powers were not sufficient for this, and he proceeded
therefore by drafting an act to be laid before parliament. As this,
however, involved considerable delay, he decided at the end of 1788
to appoint a committee to enquire into the complaints that had been
.
## p. 452 (#480) ############################################
452
BENGAL ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEM, 1786-1818
made. As the result, a scheme was drawn up, and it was published
in October, 1791. The regulations were said to be provisional, pending
the reply from home relative to the passing of an act of parliament.
The regulations applied only to the town of Calcutta. By the new
system, superintendents of police were appointed, with functions
confined to the maintenance of order and to the arrest of suspected
persons. They were no longer to share the attention of the super-
intendents with magisterial and judicial functions. By subsequent
regulations of December, 1791, duties were defined and salaries fixed.
The next stage was the application of the new system to the whole
province. This, the work of April to December, 1792, involved a
further exemplification of the principle of employing Europeans in
the place of Indians. The zamindars were relieved of their respon-
sibilities for maintaining the peace and were ordered to disband their
local police forces. In each district small areas were to be portioned
off, and placed under the control of a daroga or superintendent, under
the supervision of the Company's representative in the district. These
regulations were issued provisionally in December, 1792. They were
accompanied by a project for the erection of gaols in all the collector-
ships of the province. The police regulations were provisionally con-
firmed from home early in 1793, and were embodied in the general
restatement of the regulations, the Cornwallis Code of May, 1793.
The regulations of 1 May, 1793, covered the whole field of ad-
ministration. In many respects they were of importance merely as
defining the existing system. This work of definition Cornwallis and
the directors agreed was of first importance. His reforms were in a
precarious position if they depended only upon personal support.
One year of negligence would destroy the whole system. The ex-
haustive regulations of 1793, aimed at stereotyping the rules which
Cornwallis had introduced. They dealt with the commercial systeni,
with civil and criminal justice, with the police and with the land
revenue, While restating the existing position, they contemplated
further changes, for by regulation xx special procedure was laid
down for the proposal of new regulations by the officials charged with
working the present system. And, even where in substance the
regulations restated former rules, minor alterations showed a readi-
ness to profit by experience.
Among the changes effected by the code one of the most important
was the separation of the judicial from the revenue administration.
The junction of the two, which had given unprecedented power to
the collector from 1787 to 1790, had been due to the need both of
economy and of simplification. In the hierarchy of the administra-
tion the collector had become by 1790 the bottle-neck through which
all lines of control must pass. Though in all his functions responsible
to some superior authority, he was in practice virtually independent.
As early as 1790 Cornwallis realised the dangers of this position, even
## p. 453 (#481) ############################################
SEPARATION OF POWERS
453
though he was then making it still more powerful. As it stood, nothing
but the character of the collectors was a real safeguard to the subject.
He had long been of opinion, he wrote, that this was a mistake.
No system will ever be carried into effect so long as the personal quali-
fications of the individuals that may be appointed to superintend it, form the
only security for the due exercise of it.
In his view the conclusion of the Permanent Settlement was a
necessary preliminary to change : and it was not therefore until 1793
that change could be made. In the regulations of May detailed
instructions prescribed the action of the Company's servants, and a
system of check and counter-check was substituted for the quasi-
independence of 1787. By regulation 11 of 1793 the Board of Revenue
and the collectors were deprived of all judicial powers. The new courts
of 1790—of mal adalat for the trial of revenue causes were abolished.
These causes were transferred to the other district courts, those of
diwanni adalat. These, too, had hitherto been presided over by the
collector. But now the offices of judge and collector were separated.
Judges were to be appointed to preside over the courts, renamed
zillah or district courts, responsible for all civil cases. From them
appeal was to lie to four provincial courts of appeal, situated, like the
criminal courts, at Patna, Dacca, Murshidabad and Calcutta. Froni
them in the larger causes appeal lay to the Supreme Council in its
capacity as a court of sadr diwanni adalat. Over each of these provin-
cial courts were three English judges. And these judges, it was
provided, were also to preside over the criminal courts of circuit
stationed at the same towns. The administration of justice, both civil
and criminal, was therefore vested in the same hands. To make the
system of checks upon the revenue administration more complete, it
was provided that
the collectors of revenue and their officers, and indeed all the officers of Gov-
ernment, shall be amenable to the courts for acts done in their official capacities,
and that Government itself, in cases in which it may be a party with its sub-
jects in matters of property, shall submit its rights to be tried in these courts
under the existing laws and regulations. 1
In the reforms of the early period the chief aims had been economy,
purification and simplification. Cornwallis had come to India assured
that to purify the Company's service it was essential that the holders
of office should be Englishmen, adequately remunerated, and not
foisted on the Company, by influence. In the interests of economy
and simplification he had given to these Englishmen almost unparal-
leled powers. It seems to have been felt that while he was in office
no great danger would result. But now in this second period of
reform the outstanding aim was the safeguarding of the Indian from
oppression. Cornwallis himselt had completed the process by which
1 Ross, op. cit. II, 558.
## p. 454 (#482) ############################################
454
BENGAL ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEM, 1786-1818
Pengal swarmed with Englishmen in commercial or administrative
offices; he seems to have reflected that it was at least necessary that
they should not be free to add to the oppression of Indians the old
practice of making a fortune. So the Company's servants and all
other English residents were to be subject to the courts. The revenue
and judicial systems were separated, and the collector of revenue
confined rigidly to the position suggested by his name.
Such a change operating without delay might well be expected to
rouse discontent in the Company's service. But Cornwallis was able
to allay this. The new district courts required judges, and it was part
of his scheme that the collectors of the district, chosen formerly as
being "of the first abilities and most established integrity”, were
transferred to this office. As judges of the zillah courts they exercised
jurisdiction in revenue and other civil causes : upon them was con-
ferred the magisterial power of the collector. The revenue duties,
which they left, devolved upon the assistants in the various districts.
Thus, under the new system, judicial administration was marked as
separate from, and as of much more importance than, revenue and
the executive functions associated with it.
The new system then created three branches of the service, instead
of two. The "commercial line” remained unchanged: the commer-
cial residents lived still at the various factories or stations, responsible
to the Board of Trade, and ultimately to the Supreme Council. The
revenue service, shorn of the important duty of the assessment, was
now the sole function of the new collectors of revenue. They were
responsible as before to the Board of Revenue, and then to the
Supreme Council. The district judges exercised civil jurisdiction and
the petty criminal jurisdiction of the magistrate. They were respon-
sible to the judges of the provincial courts in civil causes, and to those
same judges in the courts of circuit in criminal causes. The system
did not lack simplicity. It was not extravagant and it observed the
important principle of responsibility towards the inhabitants which
had been one of the chief characteristics of the new policy Cornwallis
came in to enforce.
With the Cornwallis Code the work of Cornwallis in India was
ended. But he was fully aware that it was only a beginning. He had
set up the machinery : established the recognition of certain prin-
ciples : but there was still no provision of a code of law. The resolu-
tions of December, 1790, and the regulations of 1793, had done
something to amend what seemed the greatest deficiencies of the
existing system. The law administered remained, however, in its
main features unchanged. The regulations of 1793 improved the
position a little by defining the qualifications of the Indian inter-
preters of the law, who were attached to the various courts. But
Cornwallis judged rightly that no greater innovation was possible
at present. "A good system of laws" was a thing more hard to come
## p. 455 (#483) ############################################
THE CORNWALLIS CODE
465
by even than "a due administration of them, and a well-established
peace". Sir William Jones was preparing the way by his treatise on
Indian laws. Cornwallis hoped that something would be done by
the building up of a case-made law on the findings of judges of the
courts. The developments of the future alone could fulfil the aim of
Cornwallis. He had created the machinery: upon the spirit that
informed it depended its success.
For twenty years after the retirement of Cornwallis, the system of
his code remained substantially unaltered. The periodical renewal of
the Company's Charter was due in 1793, but it took place without
any of the close scrutiny of administration which had heralded the
acts of 1773 and 1784. Cornwallis himself was of the view that little
real change was necessary; and the Company kept for another twenty
years its dual character as a commercial monopolist, and an instru-
ment of administration. It is in the events of this period that the
strength and weakness of the Cornwallis Code are most clearly seen.
The continued observance of Cornwallis's principles of adminis-
tration was due to some extent to the pressure of political cares. But
the lack of revolutionary change was in large measure a deliberate
policy. The preference for "steady adherence to almost any one
system" had become an accepted tenet : and the rulers of British
India did not attempt either a reversion to older ideas or the formu-
lation of new ones. The permanent settlement of the land revenue,
the severance of judicial from revenue administration, and the
restriction of Indians to offices of lesser responsibility were faithfully
observed by Cornwallis's successors. In the first half of the period,
indeed, the respect for the Cornwallis Code was so great that it was
introduced to the furthest degree possible into the new lands of the
Ganges basin, and even applied to Madras. Yet even the greatest
reverence could not hide the defects of the code, nor the utmost piety
avoid some attempt to correct them. The regulations of the period
1793 to 1813 are filled with amendments. Some were necessitated by
the faulty wording of the code, for which Barlow rather than Corn-
wallis was responsible; but many were due to the defects and the
rigidity of Cornwallis's own principles. In the last three years of
his rule he had added distrust of the covenanted servants of the
Company to his initial dislike of Indian agency. He deliberately placed
confidence in the system rather than in individuals, and he seems to
have ignored the fact that systems, like individuals, are bound to be
faulty. The great fault of his system was that he confounded courts
of justice with justice itself. In a land where the laws were still
vague and unknown, and the new system of administration was alien
to the ideas of the natives, the multiplication of court-made justice
was no advantage in itself. In theory, the Indians were protected by
courts of justice from the oppression of officials : zamindars and
talukdars against revenue collectors, ryots against zamindars. But
the courts were both unsuited and inadequate for the task. Delays
## p. 456 (#484) ############################################
456
BENGAL ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEM, 1786-1818
were so serious that suits, it was said, were not decided in the normal
course of a lifetime. Protection of this kind was not of much value,
and, without the gravest unconcern for the welfare of the people, it
was impossible to disregard the need for reform.
The changes of the period 1793 to 1813 were mainly in two
directions, in connection with the Permanent Settlement, and with
the speeding up of civil and criminal justice. The reform of the
system of police was left over to the next period, but measures, on
the whole successful, were taken to deal with dacoits.
The general approval of the Permanent Settlement by the autho-
rities in India and at home did not hide the defects that resulted from
the system. It was soon found that the evil of “balances" continued
as before : that the efforts made to prevent the oppression of tenants
and ryots led only to the complete blocking of the courts of justice :
that the attempts made to realise the revenue without personal
coercion of the zamindars resulted in frequent sales of estates. More-
over the provision that talukdars could claim exemption from the
zamindars' control increased the business before the courts, and led
to the cutting up of estates.
The measures taken by Shore were in two directions. A regulation
of 1795 modified the rules as to the actions of zamindars in collecting
rents from their tenants and ryots. In effect, their powers of coercion
were increased. Secondly, additional civil courts were established,
and additional powers granted to the Indians who were responsible
for deciding minor causes. By these two measures it was hoped that
the "balances" would diminish and sales become less frequent.
Above all, they would remedy the existing state of affairs by which
“the determination of a cause could not. . . be expected. . . . in the
ordinary course of the plaintiff's life". Despite these measures,
however, the delays in the settlement of suits continued; and so did
sales and the dismemberment of estates. The latter were due to the
numerous claims of exemption from the control of zamindars on the
ground of talukdari rights, and, in 1801, Lord Wellesley, met this by
a regulation giving a date after which no such claim could be recog-
nised. The evil of sales was not so soon settled. A regulation passed
by Wellesley in 1799 gave still further powers of coercion to the
zamindars, and over them the former practice of arrest was reinstated.
The latter measure was a return to the procedure of Cornwallis, the
regulation of 1793 making the zamindar liable to arrest as well as to
the sale of his land having been amended by Shore. Now, in 1799,
the practice of personal coercion was restored, again with the object
of checking the flood of sales. Even so, Lord Minto found the same
defect, and attempted further to restrict sales by a regulation of 1807.
In fact the position was intrinsically difficult, and no mere regulation
would alter it. By Lord Minto's time the difficulties were beginning
to grow less, but this was due more to the greater goodwill of the
## p. 457 (#485) ############################################
THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM
457
zamindars than to the revised regulations. So long as the system was
regarded with suspicion the difficulties continued. In fact it is clear
that in the years following its establishment the Permanent Settlement
was neither profitable to government nor popular with the people.
Such advantages as it had did not begin to operate until a later time.
In his advocacy of the Permanent Settlement, Cornwallis had put
high among the advantages the freeing of the Company's servants
from their absorption in revenue matters. In fact the difficulties in
the working out of the system made the task of a collector much less
simple than had been intended. Moreover, the mass of revenue suits
filled the zillah courts beyond measure, and the old collectors who
were now judges in these courts were certainly no freer than before
to concern themselves with the interests of the people. One of the
first and most pressing changes was therefore the limitation of suits.
Various regulations with this object date from the years 1795-1802.
They start with the reimposition of a fee upon registering a suit. This
was the work of Shore, as was also the increase in the number of
courts, and of Indians qualified to settle minor suits. Then, under
Wellesley, the regulation as to appeals was stiffened, and assistant
judges were appointed. The seriousness of the pressure extended
even to the sadr court, and Lord Wellesley thought it undesirable that
the governor-general and council should continue to act as its judges.
A reorganisation therefore took place in 1805, and three judges took
over the responsibilities of the court. The reforms of Wellesley, like
those of Shore, did not stop the evil of delay. Lord Minto attempted
further to remedy it. In 1807 the number of judges in the sadr court
was increased to four : in 1811 it was enacted that the number of
district judges should be increased as necessity occurred. Another
expedient for remedying the congestion of business was the reorgani-
sation of the system of circuit. According to the regulations of 1793
the provincial court of appeal was necessarily closed while the three
judges went on circuit in their capacity of circuit judges. A regulation
of 1794 provided for the unbroken session of the court. A further
change of 1797 made possible the trial of appeal cases during the
absence of the judges on circuit. Similar congestion in the trials of
criminal cases was met by the increase in the power of magistrates
in petty cases, and by conferring on them the right of delegating
power to their assistants. Special rules for the punishment of dacoits
were enacted in 1807.
None of the changes, however, did more than palliate the evils of
the systein. These evils were still formidable when they were sub-
mitted to the clear scrutiny of the next few years.
The unhesitating acquiescence in the Cornwallis system ended in
1808, and the work of reform started in earnest five years later.
Unlike the act of 1793 the Charter Act of 1813 made important
changes in the position of the Company; and, again unlike that act,
## p. 458 (#486) ############################################
458
BENGAL ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEM, 1786-1818
it was the result of the careful examination of several years. This new
reforin movement stated on 11 March, 1808, when Robert Dundas
moved the appointment of a select committee to enquire into the
affairs of the Company. The committee issued five reports, and the
fifth, issued in 1812, contained a detailed analysis of the Bengal
system. Together with its appendices (and with some of the material
contained in the second report of 1810), it is a valuable exposition
of the history and the results of the Cornwallis Code. Above all, it
makes clear some, if not all, of its defects.
The period of the Select Committee saw also the beginning of an
enquiry in Bengal. The defects of the early system forced themselves
especially on the judges of the courts, and in the summer of 1809
Lord Minto set on foot an enquiry as to the best lines of change. The
investigation, however, was not completed by him. In 1813 he was
succeeded by the Marquess of Hastings and it was in the ten years of
his rule that the most thorough enquiry was made. In 1813 the
Charter Act embodied one aspect of the new reform movement. On
9 November, 1814, a dispatch of the court of directors 1 emphasised
the other.
The act of 1813 abolished the Company's monopoly of trade in
India. The change in administration involved was not at first of
much importance, since the monopoly and not the trade was abolished.
The Board of Trade continued its work until 1835 : the commercial
residents remained at their factories, although their number decreased
as the trade diminished. The most immediate alteration was at the
presidency offices, for the act required a rigid separation of the
commercial and administrative accounts.
The instructions of 9 November, 1814, prescribed a far more
radical change. The pressure on the civil courts dictated a resumption
by the collector of his powers in civil justice : the difficulties found in
administering criminal justice and in the regulation of the police
demanded that the collectors should once more have magisterial
powers, and be responsible for the superintendence of the police. With
the same object of improving the administration of justice, additional
powers were to be given to Indian agents: and by increasing the
criminal jurisdiction of the zillah judges the pressure on the higher
courts would be relieved. At the same time the judicial interference
of the collector would serve to increase the protection of the ryots;
and with the latter object in view the Board of Control added a clause
to the directors' dispatch urging the observance "in all possible cases”
of "the principle of realising the revenues from the ryots themselves".
The recommendations of the dispatch were a denial of Cornwallis's
principles in several respects. If they. were carried out, the separation
11.
