FROM 1859 to 1866 Sir Charles Wood was Secretary of State for India, and Mr Algernon West was his private secretary. Sir Charles Wood having retired from office to the honourable retreat of a peerage, Mr West sits down to write an account of what he did during his administration of Indian affairs. Thus, if we have not Cæsar himself writing his own memoirs, they are written by Cæsar's own particular scribe, and we may at least presume that Cæsar corrected the proof-sheets. And Cæsar's scribe has copied his model to some purpose. What reader of The Gallic War' has not been struck with the contrast between the cold simplicity and brevity of the style in which the events are related, and the excitement, fury, and desperation with which those events must in reality have been attended? When, at the end of a hard day's fighting, the sight of their general's scarlet cloak, as he hastens to the critical point, brings new energy to the favourite tenth legion, and turns the tide of victory, ending in the final subjugation of the Gallic nations, the incident is described with less detail or word-painting than would be bestowed nowadays on an Aldershot review. And when we are told that the men of a town were put to the sword, and their wives and children sold into slavery, it is difficult to realise that this single cold sentence is the record of ruin and misery wrought on ten thousand families. To appreciate the force of the events described in Cæsar's Commentaries requires, in fact, the exercise of a strong imagination. And, to com

are

pare small things with great, the same faculty is needed to appreciate the meaning of the commentaries now before us. Who would infer, from the calm air of repose which pervades Mr West's resumé of Indian affairs, admirably brief, simple, and accurate, the state of high pressure and excitement that prevailed throughout these seven eventful years? When we told that the spirit of Sir Charles Wood's consideration for the Indian army, and anxiety for their interests, pervaded his measures for its amalgamation, a powerful imagination is needed to convert this brief outline into the actual picture of five thousand officers seeking at the door of Parliament to be delivered from him and his blunders. The statement that an Indian Finance Minister finds the Indian climate unsuited to his constitution, hardly conveys the impression that his complaint was an excess of bile, induced by the gall in which certain Indian Office despatches were written. This is our first objection to Mr West's book. Nothing can be more unlike the Sir Charles Wood, so calm, gentle, and considerate, here portrayed, than the actual Secretary as we remember him. So far, therefore, the commentary fails to give an accurate representation of him. The voice is Jacob's voice, but the hands are the hands of Esau. Mr West, while stating what Sir Charles Wood did, has naturally enough omitted all reference to the manner of doing it. But the arrogant and dictatorial style in which the Indian Office despatches were clothed during his incumbency, constituted a serious

political blunder. It was surely very bad policy, on the first as sumption of direct government by the Crown, thus to lower the position and dignity of the Governor-General and his Council in the eyes of the people of India, while it caused Sir Charles Wood to be intensely unpopular with the Indian services. The despatches were, indeed, of course usually confidential; but the extracts from them which from time to time it became necessary to publish in the official 'Gazette,' were naturally accepted as an index of the tone generally pervading them. Now the Indian services entertain a strong feeling of respect for the Supreme Government on the spot, and resent any slight on it as an affront to themselves, and in this respect Sir Charles Wood kept up a constant feeling of irritation. It is true that he had precedent to a certain extent for his peculiar style, in the despatches of the Court of Directors; but he went much further than they did. Moreover, there is a very sensible difference between the effect produced by what purports to be the collective opinion of a body, and the expression of any one person, however highly placed. The Court also were wont to soften off their despatches by signing themselves your affectionate friends," which conclusion gave their utterances, however despotically expressed, a parental or guardianlike tone, so to speak.

66

Nor was there any necessity for taking the Directors as a pattern in this respect. The fact is, that the relation between the Secretary of State and the Governor - General must always necessarily be somewhat delicate, requiring tact on both sides. The despatches of the Court of Directors were understood to embody the sentiments of the majority of that body, concurred in by the Board of Control, or even the orders of her Majesty's Government, conveyed by law through that channel; so that the quarter from

which the instructions emanated usually remained more or less veiled in mysterious uncertainty. But the orders now issued are, without concealment or legal fiction, the mandates of the Secretary of State, which may or may not be concurred in by any of his Council; and although by law he is the superior of the Viceroy and Governor-General, and the latter is his servant, the position is frequently an anomalous one. The GovernorGeneral may be, as in the case of the late Lord Canning, the most esteemed public servant of the day, and the Secretary of State by no means the ablest of a numerous body of Ministers; while, as regards the business on hand, the former will usually have the better information and means of arriving at a sound judgment. The case is, in short, similar to that which an appeal at law would offer, where the judge of the lower court was the more eminent legal authority of the two, and had, moreover, a fuller view of the evidence. And although we by no means desire to imply that the relations of these two officers should be altered, and that the proceedings of the Supreme Government in India should not be controlled by some tribunal in England, we do say that a wise Secretary of State will as far as possible make the collective government prominent, and keep his own individuality in the background. It rested with Sir Charles Wood to make a precedent on this point (for Lord Stanley held office too short a time to settle it), and a very bad precedent he has established.

This, however, is comparatively a minor point. The whole conception of Mr West's book appears to us to be based on a radical misconception. Mr West details the different measures carried out in India from 1859 to 1866; he states that Sir Charles Wood was Secretary during this time; and hence infers they were carried out by Sir

Charles Wood. But in reality the two occurrences had in no way the relation of cause and effect. The Lord Mayor of London, for the time being, might with almost equal propriety plume himself for the same reason. The fact is, that the administration of India is conducted by the Government in India; schemes for improvement are instituted and worked out there; and the functions of the India Office are as a rule limited to noting and recording approval to the measures reported to it from time to time, as having been, or being about to be, carried out. That Office is thus, so to speak, a board of audit which passes the charges submitted to it, either before or after the expenditure has been incurred. Such a board may do its duty very well, but it is hardly entitled to receive credit for all the improvements the expenditure may effect. And we may add, legislation and administration will be well or ill done in India, just according as this principle is maintained or violated. We do not of course mean to say that the Indian Government does not frequently blunder; but merely that the India Office will invariably do so whenever it leaves its proper functions of control to enter on the active business of administration. We shall point out presently a notable instance of this.

To come, however, in the first instance, to a matter which, beyond question, does lie in the immediate province of the Secretary of Statenamely, the organisation of his own Office: the arrangements made by Lord Halifax seem, on Mr West's own showing, to be scarcely a very happy illustration of his lordship's success. Mr West points out very clearly (p. 16) that "the position of the Under-Secretaries of State for India has never been on a proper footing. In the same relation as other Under-Secretaries of State to their Chief, they had no recognised place in the Council,

and were unable to take any part in the deliberations of that body. Sir Charles Wood did all in his power to remedy this anomaly, by causing all papers to be referred to them, and arranging that one of the Under-Secretaries should always attend the periodical meetings of Council, so that he might have an opportunity of at least hearing their discussions; but this, it must be admitted, is scarcely a fitting position for the Under-Secretary, who would have to defend, either in the House of Lords or House of Commons, the policy of the Home Government."

That is to say, the place of the Under-Secretaries has been com pletely usurped by the subordinate and irresponsible Council. It appears clear that the working of the Office has been allowed to drift into a very unsatisfactory state. It is difficult to understand why Lord Halifax, during his seven years' tenure of office, did not effect a suitable modification of system for giving the Under-Secretaries their proper place in the establishment, by legislative enactment if necessary. The present state of the India Office, be it observed, is entirely that nobleman's work; for although Mr West contrasts the arrangements established by him with those in force during the incumbency of his predecessor, Lord Stanley held office about six months, during which there was barely time to set the machine in motion, certainly not enough to find out the points of friction.

Further, although Mr West asserts (p. 12) that Sir C. Wood arranged that all business should be initiated by himself, all papers being sent to him for orders before being referred to the different Committees into which the Council is divided-we must neverthelessrecord our belief that, in practice,. all business is initiated by the Council, who have become a complete clog on the Secretary of State, even when he desires to initiate

measures himself. How far this is the case may be inferred from Lord Cranborne's late speech on the subject in the House of Commons. And if it were merely the case that the proceedings of a Council approved by the Secretary

of State had been substituted for those of a Secretary aided by a Council, as was originally contemplated, the result might not be so objectionable. But we have not even this. The despatches of the old Court of Directors represented at least the collective opinions of the majority, conveyed in intelligible language. The despatches of the new Council have come at last to represent the varying sentiments of each individual member. On all questions which produce a difference of opinion, compromise appears to be arrived at by allowing each member to have a turn at the draft orders, the result being that an India Office despatch often reads like a paper of the well-known game of "consequences." The paragraphs have either no connection with, or else are entirely contradictory of each other; and the whole constitute an ensemble as difficult to decipher a meaning from as a cuneiform inscription. The fact is, a proper organisation for the India Office is a task which still remains to be worked out.

To turn now to the Parliamentary legislation carried out by Sir Charles Wood, and which, says Mr West, deeply affected the welfare of the people of India :-let us see how far the changes effected by it deserve to be styled great reforms in the administration.

Three Bills were passed by Sir C. Wood. "The first of these was to make better provision for the constitution of the Council of the Governor-General, and the Local Government of the several presidencies and provinces of India, so as to render the legislative authority more suited to the requirements of the times, and to the altered state of circumstances in

that country." We believe that this measure was actually the creation of Lord Canning, and that all the details were elaborated by him; however, it was no doubt, as Mr West says, passed through Parliament by Sir Charles Wood, so let him have the credit for it, such as there is. But so far from the change made in the constitution of the Legislative Council being a step in advance, we believe every one acquainted with the facts will pronounce it to be precisely the reverse. The Legislative Council, as established by the Act of 1853, and as worked by Lord Dalhousie, consisted of two judges of the Calcutta Supreme Court and members nominated by the different local governments. It certainly laboured under the defect of being composed wholly of servants of the State, and especially that the natives of India were excluded; but the members were, from the nature of their appointments, independent of the Governor-General. The procedure was based on the ordinary Parliamentary model, and the discussions were frequently animated, and listened to with much interest by the public. Unfortunately the two judges conceived that it was necessary for completing the resemblance to Parliament, that they should enact the part of her Majesty's Opposition. This gave offence to Lord Canning, who punished them by completely extinguishing the independence of the Council. The venue was changed from a separate building to the chamber of the Executive Council; members are required to speak sitting; and the standing orders generally are framed so as to prevent anything like independence of expression or liveliness of manner. As a consequence, the discussions have ceased to afford the smallest interest to the public. Except when the financial member of Government delivers the annual budget statement, the Chamber is rarely visited by a single stranger, and the