The correspondence between the Court of Directors of the East India Company and the Board of Control, spanning 74 years from 1784 to 1858, comprised approximately 30,000 letters. Most of this correspondence was routine, dealing with the dispatch and return of documents intended for the Indian governments or personnel matters requiring Board approval. However, a subset of these letters engaged in the articulation of arguments regarding specific policies and viewpoints, with around 75 letters reproduced in the selection under various sections. The longest section, Section III, details Indian customs and practices of the time, reflecting the evolving British attitudes towards these elements of Indian society, religion, and culture. The correspondence also highlights the rationale behind the rejection of Indian customs in favor of foreign ideologies and institutions.

Additional letters illustrate aspects of land revenue policies and the British perspectives on the traditional Indian rural organization and society. Other topics addressed include administrative, police, judicial, and military systems, the promotion of the Christian church by the state, and instances of public distrust towards the new rulers. The document emphasizes the manners and customs prevalent in different regions of India, the organization of caste and village society, and the nature of Hindu law as observed by British officials between 1780 and 1820. The changing British responses to these observations, along with the resulting disintegration and poverty noted during this period, are also underscored.

The correspondence’s language reflects the British colonial mindset of the early 19th century, with terms such as ‘interference’, ‘community’, and ‘justice’ carrying specific connotations that require contextual understanding. For instance, ‘interference’ in relation to governmental engagement with Indian customs often referred to the state’s involvement in supporting or withdrawing from such practices. The document illustrates how the British authorities perceived the power dynamics within Indian communities, particularly in instances of oppression and injustice, as exemplified by the disturbances in Benaras in 1811. The correspondence reveals a significant debate between the Court of Directors and the Board of Control regarding policy approaches, particularly where there were notable disagreements.

In conclusion, the selected correspondence provides valuable insights into the state of Indian society at the onset of British rule and the rationale behind the governmental structures established during the period from 1784 to 1858. It highlights the shifts in British policy, indicating a transition from apparent tolerance of Indian customs to a more evangelical and utilitarian approach by the 1820s. This metamorphosis in attitudes is suggested to be reflective of broader changes within British political life during the same period. The letters were compiled between February 1966 and January 1967, with copyright held by the India Office Records in London.

The Board asserts that the provisions of the Act of 1793 grant them comprehensive authority to supervise and direct all civil and military governance matters in India, including revenue management. They reference specific clauses of the Act that delineate the Board’s powers and the obligations of the Court to comply with the Board’s directives. The Board clarifies that while they have the authority to create new establishments and determine the number of officers and their salaries, they do not possess the power to appoint individuals to these positions or to increase salaries without a despatch from the Court.

The correspondence further discusses the distinction between governance and patronage, indicating that the Board’s authority is primarily concerned with governance rather than the appointment of individuals to office. The Board expresses their conviction that their powers must not be undermined by any interpretation of the law that could jeopardize the effective governance of India. They assert that the Court’s interpretation of the necessity for all orders related to establishments and salaries to originate from the Court is fundamentally flawed.

In a subsequent letter dated September 1, 1803, the Board acknowledges the Court’s proposed amendments to a draft dispatch to the several presidencies, indicating their approval of the additions made by the Court. The Board reiterates their adherence to the legal interpretations expressed in their previous correspondence and emphasizes the necessity of asserting their rights and powers in light of the Court’s questioning of their authority. They express the importance of resolving any ambiguities regarding the powers of the Board and the Court to ensure the effective governance of India. The Board concludes by highlighting the potential consequences of delays in legal proceedings and the need for a clear and efficient decision-making process in matters of state policy. They express their commitment to maintaining a harmonious relationship with the Court while fulfilling their public duties.

The document highlights the Court’s general approval of Lord Hastings’ attention to revenue and judicial administration in Bengal, acknowledging the value of his information and suggestions from his minutes dated September 21 and October 2, 1815. However, the Court refrains from committing to any opinions on the various topics discussed in those minutes until they receive the sentiments of the Governor General in Council. The Court also expresses a desire to avoid premature judgments regarding the proceedings of the Madras Commissioners, some of which they view as questionable, particularly given that they were sanctioned by a casting vote contrary to the sentiments of two colleagues in Council and the highest revenue and judicial authorities in Madras.

The Court emphasizes the importance of distinguishing between inherent and accidental faults in the existing revenue system, which has been in place for 25 years. They acknowledge the imperfections of the system but assert that it has been beneficial overall. The Court cautions against making hasty reforms that could introduce new abuses, advocating for a careful approach to any proposed changes. They highlight the need for a measured response to the existing issues, suggesting that the government should not aim for perfection but rather focus on attainable improvements.

Furthermore, the document discusses the historical context of the revenue system, comparing it to the Mogul system and the changes introduced under the British administration. The Court reflects on the financial challenges faced by the Company, noting that the revenue derived from Bengal had decreased significantly since the early years of their administration. They express concern over the discontent among Zemindars and the impact of government practices on the local population. The Court argues that the permanent settlement introduced by Lord Cornwallis was intended to stabilize revenue collection and promote agricultural productivity, asserting that the Zemindars were to be regarded as the actual proprietors of the land.

The document concludes with the Court’s reflections on the Ryotwar system and its implications for revenue collection. They express skepticism regarding the feasibility of implementing such a system uniformly across the Company’s territories, particularly in light of the differing conditions in various provinces. The Court emphasizes the importance of local customs and the historical context of land tenure in India, advocating for a system that respects the existing village structures and the rights of the cultivators. They urge caution in adopting new systems that may not align with the realities of the Indian context, highlighting the need for thorough investigation and consideration of local circumstances before making any significant changes to the revenue administration.

The document further discusses the appointment of Mr. Alexander as Collector of Ganjam, addressing concerns about his salary and the justification for his selection. The Board acknowledges the necessity of ensuring that government transactions are accurately represented in correspondence to avoid miscommunication. Additionally, the correspondence includes references to previous orders regarding permanent settlements and the importance of adhering to established protocols in administrative matters.

The letter also highlights the Board’s revisions to several paragraphs concerning the grant to Appoo Moodily, the management of salt monopolies, and the implications of ceding territory to the Rajah of Mysore. The Board emphasizes the need for clarity in the representation of land grants and the importance of avoiding alienation of lands for religious purposes. The correspondence reflects a careful consideration of the administrative challenges faced by the Madras Government and the need for consistent communication between the Board and the Court of Directors.

In conclusion, the correspondence illustrates the complexities of land revenue policies and the administrative decisions impacting rural organization in the Madras Presidency. The Board’s revisions and observations underscore the significance of maintaining accurate records and the necessity of addressing local governance issues with sensitivity to the historical context of land ownership and revenue collection. The document serves as a record of the ongoing deliberations between the Board and the Court of Directors, highlighting the importance of clear communication and adherence to established protocols in managing colonial affairs.

In the initial correspondence dated January 18, 1809, the Commissioners for the Affairs of India addressed the Bengal Revenue Draft No. 33, expressing concerns regarding the interpretation of a previous letter dated March 21, 1806. The Board contended that the Bengal Government’s approach to remitting certain balances owed by farmers was overly stringent, asserting that the referenced letter should not be construed as a rigid rule. Instead, it was suggested that the government should exercise caution in remitting balances and provide detailed information on specific cases to enable proper oversight. The Board emphasized the importance of avoiding unnecessary interference in the management of religious establishments, particularly in the context of the Temple of Jaggernauth, which was deemed a sacred site for Hindus. The correspondence highlighted the need for the government to respect the religious practices of the local population while ensuring public order.

The subsequent letter dated February 24, 1809, from the Court of Directors to the Board of Commissioners reiterated the principles underlying the perpetual settlement of land revenue, emphasizing that no balances should be written off as long as there was land available to pay for them. The Court expressed concerns about the potential for abuse of the remission policy by zamindars and highlighted the necessity of maintaining strict oversight to prevent financial losses to the government. The correspondence also addressed the issue of taxation on pilgrims visiting religious sites, indicating that while the government could derive revenue from such practices, it should not interfere excessively in the religious affairs of the Hindus.

Furthermore, the Court of Directors articulated their disapproval of any government actions that might be perceived as infringing upon the religious rights of Hindus, particularly regarding the appointment of priests and the management of temple funds. The correspondence underscored the importance of allowing Hindus to maintain control over their religious institutions while ensuring that the government retained a degree of oversight to prevent civil unrest. The Board acknowledged the need for a careful balance between governance and respect for local customs, advocating for a policy that would minimize direct government interference in religious matters while still safeguarding public order.

In conclusion, the correspondence reflects the British authorities’ ongoing struggle to establish a governance framework in India that respected local customs and religious practices while also ensuring administrative efficiency and financial accountability. The discussions surrounding the Temple of Jaggernauth and the policies on balance remission illustrate the complexities of colonial governance and the challenges faced by British officials in reconciling their administrative objectives with the cultural and religious sensitivities of the Indian population.

The Court acknowledges the necessity of respecting the religious practices and customs of the natives while also asserting that the British Government should not condone practices that are fundamentally immoral or incompatible with societal order. The correspondence reflects on the nature of policing in India, questioning whether it should be maintained through hired officers or through community structures. The Court argues that the administration of justice should not rely on practices that lead to moral dilemmas or criminality, emphasizing that the principles of justice must apply uniformly to all individuals.

The document further critiques the resolutions of the late Bombay Government, which suggested tolerating certain practices that lead to self-harm or violence under the guise of traditional customs. The Court expresses its disapproval of these doctrines, arguing that they contradict moral principles and could lead to further injustices. The correspondence also discusses the implications of the Board’s observations regarding the Bhat agency, which is described as being intertwined with the religious sentiments of a large class of natives. The Court warns against the dangers of permitting such practices to continue under the pretext of respecting local customs, arguing that they undermine the moral fabric of society.

In conclusion, the Court asserts that the practices associated with the Bhats, particularly the Traga, should not be sanctioned or tolerated by the British Government. They call for a careful and principled approach to governance that prioritizes the moral obligations of the government over expedient considerations. The correspondence reflects a broader debate about the role of British authority in regulating native customs and the challenges of balancing respect for local traditions with the imperative to uphold justice and morality in governance.

The initial letter, dated March 10, 1824, from T. P. Courtenay, acknowledges the receipt of a letter from Joseph Dart, which contained alterations to Bengal Judicial Draft No. 92. Courtenay expresses the Court of Directors’ concerns regarding the inadequacy of the proposed penal law and judicial administration in Kumaon, which he argues does not align with the needs of a civilized government. He emphasizes the necessity for a system to prevent crimes and suggests that the British Government must take measures to suppress the historically prevalent vindictive murders in the region. Courtenay notes that the alterations made by the Governor General in Council appear to overlook the specific circumstances of Kumaon and urges the Board to reconsider these changes. He also mentions that a separate despatch on Kumaon has not been sent and suggests omitting references to it.

In a subsequent letter dated March 22, 1824, Dart responds to Courtenay’s concerns, clarifying that the Board did not express any opinion on the modes of law or judicial administration in Kumaon. He notes that the Board’s alterations were intended to highlight the disapproval of the Governor General’s decision regarding a specific case involving a native named Bheerbhan, who was convicted of murder. Dart agrees with Courtenay that the circumstances of the offender should be considered, but he maintains that the Board’s observations on the matter are necessary and cannot be omitted. He emphasizes the importance of the Board’s perspective on the administration of justice and the need for the Supreme Government to communicate its opinions on significant administrative matters.

The correspondence continues with Dart’s letter dated August 12, 1824, where he acknowledges further alterations made to Bengal Judicial Draft No. 303. He criticizes the Bengal Government for neglecting to maintain existing native institutions in Kumaon and argues that the arrangements made by the Government do not align with the Court’s views. Dart asserts that the Court does not advocate for the indiscriminate preservation of all native institutions but rather supports the maintenance of those that are beneficial. He highlights the need for the Government to indicate specifically which institutions should be upheld and expresses concern over the difficulties faced by the Supreme Government in executing the Court’s intentions. The letter concludes with a call for the Board to reconsider the alterations made to the draft, emphasizing the necessity of addressing the unique circumstances of the region.

In a follow-up letter dated September 4, 1824, Dart reiterates the Board’s position regarding the maintenance of native institutions and customs. He expresses dissatisfaction with the Bengal Government’s actions, suggesting that the judicial, revenue, and police establishments were dismissed without proper consideration, leading to adverse consequences for the local population. Dart insists that the Government should have conducted a thorough investigation into the existing institutions before implementing any changes. He emphasizes the importance of adapting the administration to the specific needs and circumstances of the local communities.

The correspondence culminates in a letter dated December 9, 1824, where Dart addresses the delay in transmitting Judicial Draft No. 303 to India. He clarifies that the Court did not interpret the Board’s previous communications as directives to transmit the draft with alterations. Dart highlights the need for a more detailed examination of the judicial administration in Kumaon and expresses the Court’s intention to withdraw Draft No. 303 while preparing a new draft that aligns with the Board’s views. He underscores the importance of maintaining a collaborative approach to improve the judicial system in India, emphasizing the necessity of considering the local context and the sentiments of the inhabitants in the administration of justice.

In the initial correspondence dated June 3, 1824, Joseph Dart, representing the Commissioners for the Affairs of India, outlines the alterations made by the Board to the Judicial Draft No. 276. The Board has added passages to emphasize the importance of certain regulations, particularly Regulation VI of 1821, which is deemed essential for maintaining order and discipline within military bazaars. The Board expresses concerns regarding the conduct of military officers and the necessity of addressing the improper actions that have occurred. Furthermore, the Board cancels several paragraphs that it believes either misattribute blame or could lead to excessive interference with the religious customs of the natives. The emphasis is placed on ensuring that the judicial system operates fairly and without undue influence from military authorities.

Subsequent correspondence from T.P. Courtenay on July 1, 1824, acknowledges the receipt of Dart’s letter and raises concerns regarding the clarity of the regulations, particularly regarding the jurisdiction of civil magistrates over military personnel. The Court of Directors expresses apprehension that the proposed regulations may inadequately protect the rights of individuals against military aggression. They highlight the necessity for civil courts to have jurisdiction over military offenses to ensure that the native population is not left without legal recourse. The Court also critiques the Board’s assessment of Mr. Hudleston’s administration in the district of Tinneyelly, arguing that there is no evidence to support the claim that his administration was deficient.

In a letter dated July 27, 1824, the Board responds to the Court’s concerns, indicating that they are open to modifying their previous statements regarding Regulation VI. However, they maintain that the provisions concerning military bazaars must be carefully considered to avoid unintended consequences. The Board emphasizes the need for regulations to be clear and effective in protecting the rights of the native population while also ensuring the proper functioning of military operations.

The correspondence continues with further exchanges between the Board and the Court of Directors, where the Court reiterates its position on the necessity of clearly defined regulations and the importance of protecting the rights of individuals. The Board, in turn, defends its alterations and expresses its commitment to ensuring that the judicial system operates effectively within the context of military and civil interactions. The discussions reflect the complexities of administering justice in a colonial context, where military authority and native rights often intersect and conflict.

In conclusion, the document illustrates the ongoing dialogue between the Board and the Court of Directors regarding the administration of justice in India during the early 19th century. The correspondence highlights the challenges faced in balancing military needs with the rights of the native population, as well as the importance of clear and effective regulations to govern these interactions. The exchanges reveal a commitment to refining the judicial system while addressing the concerns raised about the potential for military overreach and the need for adequate legal protections for individuals.

The document outlines the Board’s concerns regarding the potential consequences of repealing the existing laws on caste. It highlights that the proposed abrogation could lead to significant legal ambiguities, particularly regarding civil injuries that may arise from caste-related disputes. The correspondence notes that the Board’s proposition to repeal specific sections of the Bombay Code must be interpreted narrowly, as a complete repeal would dismantle the civil judicial framework of the Zilla Courts. The author, J. Dart, argues that the Board’s recommendation lacks sufficient evidence to justify the abrogation, as no substantial proof has been provided to demonstrate that the existing laws have caused harm or injury to the community.

Furthermore, the correspondence discusses the opinions of various judicial authorities, including Mr. Prendergast and the Advocate General of Bombay, who have expressed concerns about the implications of interfering with the internal governance of caste systems. The Board’s reliance on these opinions is critiqued, as it is suggested that they do not adequately address the broader implications of caste law abrogation. The document also references the reluctance of the Government of Bengal to support the repeal, emphasizing that the matter should not be treated lightly without thorough local knowledge and experience.

The correspondence concludes with a call for caution in altering established laws, stressing the importance of local insights and the potential risks of undermining the authority of local judicial systems. The author expresses a belief that the existing laws should not only be maintained but potentially extended to ensure that the abuses of power by caste authorities, such as Panchayats, are checked. The letter advocates for a balanced approach that respects local customs while ensuring legal protections against injustices arising from caste-related disputes. The correspondence ultimately reflects the complexities of colonial governance in India, where legal reforms must navigate deeply entrenched social structures and local customs.

The correspondence indicates that considerable alterations and omissions have been made to the original draft. Notably, a passage at the end of paragraph 9 has been cancelled based on Mr. Chaplin’s authority, suggesting that existing measures may already provide sufficient relief to the Collectors, thereby rendering further changes unnecessary at this time. Additionally, the commencement of paragraph 10 has been expunged due to the need for qualification of the statements contained within it, which were deemed unnecessary. The Board expresses that the sentiments of the authorities regarding native institutions have already been communicated to various Indian Governments, including that of Bombay, through a Political Letter dated 5th November 1823. Consequently, the Board sees no reason to revisit this general subject at the present time.

The most significant alterations pertain to the native institution of the Panchayat. The Board conveys its inability to agree with the opinion proposed to be communicated to the Bombay Government regarding the Panchayat, emphasizing that it would have been a mistake to consider it merely as an institution of Government. Instead, the Board asserts that the Bombay Government should be commended for its efforts to utilize the Panchayat system to its fullest extent. References are made to previous communications, specifically the 43rd and subsequent paragraphs of the Letter to Bengal dated 9th November 1814, and the 49th and following paragraphs of the Letter to Madras dated 29th April of the same year.

The correspondence acknowledges the limited use of Panchayats in Madras, where the consent of both parties is required for a suit to be brought before the tribunal. However, the Board questions the expediency of this requirement. Sir Thomas Munro’s Minute from 31st December 1824 is cited, wherein he expresses his conviction that the Panchayat should have absolute cognizance of all suits within a certain monetary limit in both the Zillah and District Moonsif’s courts, without allowing either party the option to decline its jurisdiction. Furthermore, Munro advocates for the beneficial use of the Panchayat in criminal trials, arguing that its adoption would lead to more accurate findings of facts.

The Board acknowledges that the Panchayats in the Deccan have not been entirely effective for all intended purposes; however, this does not argue against their continued existence as a regular tribunal for the class of cases they are deemed suitable to address. Provided that these tribunals prove efficient in resolving such matters, the Board sees no justification for allowing parties to refuse their jurisdiction, similar to any other court of justice. The correspondence concludes with the assertion that whether the original functions of the Panchayat were limited to private arbitration is of little practical importance, as the referenced authorities indicate that the Panchayat has evolved into a general tribunal throughout India for resolving disputes. The Board also cancels paragraph 23, stating that the separation of all judicial duties from the Collector’s office would not be considered beneficial for public service or the people. A slight alteration is made to paragraph 28, indicating that the Board may not approve every measure deemed necessary by the Bombay Government for the administration of civil justice in the Deccan. The correspondence is signed by J.P. Courtenay, indicating its official nature and the authority behind the statements made within it.

In a letter dated 21 February 1835, T.B. Macaulay, on behalf of the Court of Directors, acknowledges the receipt of letters concerning alterations made by the Board of Commissioners regarding the pilgrim taxes in Bengal. The Court expresses regret over the necessity of transmitting orders that they deem ‘highly impolitic,’ indicating a tension between the directives of the Board and the Court’s views on governance. This correspondence illustrates the complexities faced by British officials in balancing administrative duties with the cultural and religious sensitivities of Indian subjects.

Subsequent letters from 25 April 1833 and 13 June 1833, authored by Charles Grant, highlight the British Government’s concern over the perception of their involvement in ‘superstitious and idolatrous practices’ among Indian subjects. Grant notes that instructions had been sent to halt the compulsory participation of Natives in religious ceremonies, reflecting a growing awareness of the need to respect local customs while maintaining administrative control. He details various practices that were deemed objectionable, including the use of public funds for idolatrous ceremonies and the involvement of British officers in religious festivals, advocating for a reduction in such practices to avoid further complications in governance.

In the letters dated 2 August 1838 and 3 August 1838, the Court of Directors responds to concerns raised regarding the management of religious institutions and the potential for misunderstanding among British officials regarding their obligations towards Indian religions. The Court emphasizes the necessity of maintaining a connection with religious practices to uphold the legal and social structures in place, while also advocating for a careful withdrawal from unnecessary interference. They express that the principles guiding their governance must not only be adhered to but should also be clearly communicated to prevent misconceptions that could lead to unrest among the Indian populace. The correspondence culminates in a call for the Board to reconsider the proposed instructions, underscoring the ongoing debate about the role of the British Government in the religious lives of Indian subjects and the implications of their policies on the stability of British rule in India.

The Court articulates its concerns regarding the financial implications of establishing a church that serves a community with which the natives do not share a common sentiment. It is noted that while the missionaries aim to convert natives to Christianity, the Court firmly believes that the natives should not bear the costs associated with this endeavor. The correspondence further discusses the current state of the Protestant Christian population among government servants and questions whether the existing episcopal establishment requires expansion. The Court highlights that despite requests for more chaplains, no local government has expressed a need for an additional bishop, suggesting that any increase in ecclesiastical appointments should be substantiated by clear necessity.

The document also reflects on the mortality among bishops since the establishment of the See of Calcutta, attributing the deaths to various health-related issues rather than the burdens of their office. The Court acknowledges the inconvenience caused by the absence of a bishop during vacancies but argues that the power of ordination has rarely been exercised and that confirmation is often inaccessible for many children of Europeans in India. The correspondence indicates that the jurisdiction of the Bishop has been extended to various territories, including Ceylon and New South Wales, raising concerns about the potential overburdening of the bishopric.

The financial aspect is a significant concern, with the Court noting that the ecclesiastical establishment’s costs have increased substantially since the establishment of the See of Calcutta. The Court expresses reluctance to create additional sees without careful consideration of the financial consequences, despite acknowledging the desire to limit expenses. The correspondence concludes with a call for all parties to reconsider the implications of expanding the episcopal establishment, emphasizing the need to avoid imposing additional financial burdens on India. The document is signed by C. Margoribanks, Wm. Wigram, and Rt. Hon’ble C. Grant, indicating the involvement of multiple officials in the discussion.

Additionally, a subsequent letter dated July 13, 1833, from C. Grant to the gentlemen of the India Board acknowledges receipt of their letters and the observations made regarding the proposed Bill related to the constitution of Indian governments and the condition of the natives. Grant assures that the observations will be taken into serious consideration during the Bill’s progress. He also mentions the desire for law officers to communicate freely, indicating a collaborative approach to the legislative process. The correspondence reflects the complexities of governance, religious establishment, and financial responsibility in colonial India, highlighting the tensions between the promotion of Christianity and the economic realities faced by the native population.

In a subsequent letter dated June 11, 1846, the Court of Directors of the East India Company responds to the proposal. The Court acknowledges the request from the Bishop of Calcutta and reiterates the principles outlined in a previous communication from July 10, 1833. The Court emphasizes that the expenses associated with the Church Establishment in India should not be borne by the native population, as they do not share a community of feeling with the Church. The Court expresses concern regarding the growing number of missionaries in India, who are under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Calcutta, and asserts that while the spread of Christianity is a noble goal, it should not be funded by the natives. The Court further notes that although Parliament established Bishoprics at Madras and Bombay in 1833, it did not see the necessity for a fourth Bishopric at Agra, particularly since the separate governance of Agra has been discontinued.

The Court articulates that the ecclesiastical establishment should not be proportionate to the geographical extent of British territories in India but rather to the number of individuals affiliated with the Church of England. The Court concludes that the existing number of Bishops in India is sufficient and that the proposal for a new Bishopric at Agra is unwarranted. In a follow-up letter dated June 29, 1846, the India Board expresses regret over the Court’s decision and argues that the objections raised in 1833 are no longer applicable given the successful establishment of the Bishoprics at Bombay and Madras. The Board contends that the geographical spread of the Christian population necessitates a larger ecclesiastical establishment to ensure adequate pastoral care. The Board also highlights the recent territorial expansions in Sind and other regions, which would require additional public officers and, consequently, a larger ecclesiastical presence. Despite the Court’s objections, the Board maintains its conviction regarding the importance of establishing a new Bishopric at Agra and hopes for a favorable reconsideration from the Court of Directors, who have historically supported initiatives aimed at promoting Christianity in India.

The correspondence begins by acknowledging the recent dispatches sent to India, which indicated the intention of the Court to implement distinct orders regarding necessary retrenchments within the Company’s establishments. The authors express their recognition of the urgency and necessity of these changes, emphasizing their commitment to conducting a thorough investigation before presenting their findings and recommendations to the Court. They propose a new administrative structure that consolidates various departments into four primary branches: the Board of Council, the Military Board, the Board of Revenue, and the Board of Trade.

The Board of Council is proposed to function as the central executive authority, overseeing the other departments. The Military Board would consist of key military leaders responsible for all military affairs within the settlements. The Board of Revenue is suggested to include a Junior Member of Council and four senior servants, tasked with the administration and collection of revenues, while being restricted from issuing funds without explicit orders from the Board of Council. The final proposed branch, the Board of Trade, would focus on the Company’s commercial interests, comprising another Junior Member of Council and four senior servants. The authors stress the importance of establishing this Board on an economical basis to ensure that trade operations adhere to strict commercial principles.

The correspondence further addresses the need for reform in the compensation structure for members of the Board of Trade, suggesting that their salaries should reflect their responsibilities and the importance of their roles in securing quality goods for the Company’s investments. The authors advocate for the elimination of positions with salaries below £400 per annum, proposing that those displaced by reductions in establishments should be considered for these roles. They also recommend limiting the number of members in the Boards of Revenue and Trade at the Madras presidency to four, while suggesting that the Bombay presidency could operate effectively with only four Councillors for non-military affairs.

The authors express their desire for the Court to expedite the preparation of the commercial establishment plans, highlighting the importance of timely communication regarding the final decisions on all establishments to India. The document concludes with a reiteration of the authors’ commitment to working collaboratively with the Court on these matters, emphasizing the need for a unified approach to administrative restructuring. The subsequent letter dated August 24, 1785, addresses the applicability of the regulations and orders to the presidencies of Madras and Bombay, requesting drafts of instructions consistent with the proposed changes for those settlements.

Overall, the correspondence reflects the authors’ strategic vision for enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of the Company’s administration in India, while also addressing concerns regarding compensation and operational integrity.

In his letter, Lord Ellenborough acknowledges the suggestions made by the Court of Directors but critiques their limited proposals for addressing the delays. He suggests a comprehensive restructuring of the correspondence process, advocating for separate letters on distinct subjects from military and civil functionaries in India, along with the inclusion of abstracts to facilitate quicker reference and understanding. He proposes that all communications should be sent in lithographed form to expedite the process and ensure that the Home Authorities receive timely updates on the actions and decisions made by local governments in India.

Furthermore, Lord Ellenborough discusses the necessity of enhancing the administrative capacity at the India House to manage existing arrears and prevent future delays. He argues that while the current system has its merits, it is imperative to adapt to the evolving demands of governance in a vast empire. He stresses the importance of maintaining a balance between local discretion and oversight from the Home Authorities to ensure effective governance. The letter concludes with a call for immediate reforms to restore efficiency in communication, which he believes is essential for the financial and administrative stability of British India.

In response, the East India Company acknowledges receipt of Lord Ellenborough’s letter and expresses agreement with the need for reform. They recognize the challenges posed by the delays in correspondence but caution against attributing the financial difficulties solely to these delays. The Company argues that many of the financial issues stem from the broader context of military engagements and territorial expansion, which have led to increased administrative burdens. They emphasize that while prompt communication is vital, it is equally important to consider the complexities of governance and the need for a well-calibrated response to the evolving political landscape in India. The Company commits to addressing the issues raised and suggests that a draft of instructions be prepared to implement the necessary changes in correspondence practices. This exchange reflects the ongoing dialogue between the British authorities in India and the Home Government regarding the administration of the colony and the imperative for effective communication in governance.

The correspondence begins by acknowledging the receipt of a letter from the Government of India, which returned Draft No. 625 and explained the rationale behind the extensive alterations made by the Commissioners for Indian affairs. The Board concurs with the Court’s opinion that significant changes in public establishments and methods of conducting public business should not be introduced without prior sanction from the authorities in England, especially when there is ample time for such a reference. The document emphasizes that changes in the designations of public officers and departments should be justified and that the practical defects prompting these new arrangements should have been thoroughly explained.

The Court of Directors expresses concern regarding the new designation of ‘Foreign and Diplomatic’ as less appropriate than the previously used term ‘Political’. The document argues that the change complicates the classification of Indian affairs rather than simplifying it. Furthermore, it is noted that while the principle of relieving the Government of India from administrative details is commendable, it is impractical in reality, particularly in the military and financial departments of the Bengal Presidency, which remain under the direct control of the Government of India.

The Board of Commissioners is noted to share the sentiment that the new arrangement fails to relieve the Government of India from administrative responsibilities, as the military and financial departments continue to be managed as before. The substantial change is characterized as a shift in the supervision of the Revenue, Judicial, and General Departments from the Secretaries of the Government of India to the Government of Bengal, which raises concerns about the effectiveness of governance, especially in the absence of a Council for the Bengal Presidency. The document highlights the gravity of the duties devolved upon the Governor and Secretary of Bengal, emphasizing the need for increased vigilance from the Supreme Government due to the lack of a Council.

The Court of Directors further states that the new arrangement does not impose additional duties on the Governor of Bengal, but rather presents a disadvantage due to the absence of a Council and the support of experienced Secretaries. It is argued that the Governor’s lack of local knowledge and experience could lead to adverse outcomes in governance. Additionally, the Board expresses doubts regarding the adequacy of the provisions made for the performance of the multifarious functions assigned to the Bengal Secretary, suggesting that the arrangement may lead to increased expenses.

The document concludes by reiterating the Court’s objections to the new arrangement, asserting that it renders the provisions of the Charter Act for the internal administration of Bengal even more defective. The Court expresses a strong conviction that the recent changes in public affairs have been frequent and executed without proper reference to the Home Authorities, which necessitates a decisive remedy. The correspondence emphasizes the importance of requiring prior sanction for any changes to be made in the future. The Court expresses hope that the Board will reconsider their alterations to the Draft and allow it to be framed into a Despatch in its original state, underscoring the significance of the matter at hand.

In the initial letter dated March 18, 1843, Melvill informs Baring that the Board has returned Draft No. 142 of paragraphs intended for the Governor General in the Political Department. The Board has made a verbal alteration in the second paragraph and omitted the third paragraph due to doubts regarding its validity. The Board acknowledges that the Governor General viewed the removal of the Gates as a military trophy, and since no information had been received indicating that this action was offensive to the inhabitants of India, the Board made several modifications to the subsequent paragraphs to reflect the circumstances appropriately.

In the follow-up letter dated March 28, 1843, Baring communicates the Court of Directors’ observations on the draft. The Court expresses disappointment that the alterations made by the Board do not adequately convey their disapproval of the Governor General’s actions. They emphasize that the draft should reflect a clear and unequivocal disapproval, as the conduct of the Governor General is deemed open to criticism. The Court acknowledges that while no official complaints have been received from the inhabitants of India, they believe that the removal of the Gates has likely offended the Muslim community and deviated from the recent policy of non-interference with the religious practices and temples of India.

The Court articulates their concern that failing to communicate their true sentiments to the Governor General may lead him to believe that his actions were satisfactory, potentially placing the Court in a difficult position should further dissatisfaction arise. They urge the Board to reconsider the draft and allow the Court to address their proposed letter to the Government of India, emphasizing the need for a more serious and clear admonition regarding the Governor General’s conduct. The correspondence reflects the complexities of colonial governance and the sensitivity surrounding religious sentiments in India during this period.

The document elaborates on the historical context of the Chokeedarry system, referencing earlier regulations and despatches that had previously sanctioned its principles. The Court emphasizes that the original draft was consistent with prior approvals and that the substituted paragraphs reflect an increased municipal power derived from earlier regulations. The Board acknowledges that the introduction of the Chokeedarry system is likely to improve police conditions, yet it raises concerns about the rapid extension of the system without adequate inquiry into local needs and sentiments.

The correspondence further discusses the defects of the existing police system in the territories under the Presidency of Fort William, citing the need for community cooperation in supporting the police as a remedy for past issues of insecurity and crime. The Court references previous communications with the Bengal Government, indicating that the local populace should contribute to their own protection and improvement. The document outlines the financial structure of the Chokeedarry system, detailing the contributions levied on different classes of inhabitants to maintain the police force, which is designed to be economically efficient and rooted in local customs.

The Court notes that while the Chokeedarry system has been met with some resistance in certain areas, it has generally been successful in places where it has been implemented. Several Magistrates report positive outcomes from the system, indicating a general satisfaction among the inhabitants. However, the Court also acknowledges temporary opposition in specific regions and emphasizes that initial resistance should not deter the implementation of beneficial reforms. The document concludes with the Court’s observations on the Board’s objections regarding uniformity in the police system, arguing for a balance between general principles and local adaptations. The Court expresses hope that the Board will reconsider the recent arrangements and modify the substituted paragraphs to address their concerns.

The initial letter from the Board, dated August 19, 1834, outlines several amendments made to Draft No. 327, which was sent to the Governor General of India in Council. The Board emphasizes the need for clarity in distinguishing between immediate and prospective changes in the law, arguing that without this distinction, confusion may arise in the implementation of legal enactments. The Board also highlights the importance of including provisions for the revision of laws, which had previously been under the purview of the Supreme Court. Furthermore, the Board stresses the necessity for law-makers to have comprehensive access to knowledge across various subjects to ensure the effective formulation of laws.

In subsequent communications, the Court of Directors expresses disagreement with several alterations proposed by the Board. They argue that certain additions do not contribute to clarity and suggest that the distinction between periods of legislative change is self-evident. The Court also raises concerns regarding the potential over-reliance on external opinions in the legislative process, advocating for a more self-sufficient approach among Indian legislators. They assert that the inclusion of specific suggestions from the Board might inadvertently restrict the independent judgment of the Government and the Law Commissioners in India.

The correspondence further addresses the structure and function of the proposed judicial system, with discussions on the uniformity of judicial procedures across India. The Board acknowledges the desirability of uniformity but cautions against disregarding local customs and circumstances. They argue that the Law Commissioners should have the freedom to explore diverse legal frameworks that respect the rights and feelings of various communities within India. The Court of Directors, however, expresses skepticism about the practicality of implementing such uniformity, highlighting the need for careful consideration of local contexts.

The final letters reflect ongoing negotiations between the Board and the Court regarding the framing of rules for the legislative process, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the statutory requirements set forth by Parliament. The Board ultimately agrees to modify certain paragraphs in response to the Court’s objections while maintaining their original stance on several key issues. The correspondence concludes with a reiteration of the necessity for the Court to frame rules that align with the legislative powers granted by the Act, ensuring that the governance of India is conducted in accordance with both legal and practical considerations.

In summary, the document encapsulates a critical period in the development of India’s judicial system, characterized by deliberations on legislative clarity, the role of local customs in law-making, and the balance between external influences and internal governance.

The Court of Directors contends that the rationale provided by the Board is based on a misunderstanding of the situation. They emphasize that families of European Officers and Soldiers are already provided with passage accommodations to England at public expense, and that provisions for widows and children are supported by various military funds, which have recently been increased due to the high number of casualties in the Sutlej Campaign.

The Court further argues against maintaining the distinction between the families of European and Native soldiers, pointing out the inequities that arise from the current rules regarding Donation Batta. They illustrate this with examples, such as the case of families of Sepoys who were denied Donation Batta despite having served in operations, while a different rule applies to Prize Money, which is granted to the estates of both European and Native deceased soldiers.

The correspondence concludes with the Court expressing hope that the Board will reconsider its position and retain the original paragraph 11 of Draft No. 161, thereby eliminating the discriminatory practices against the families of Native Officers and Soldiers. The document reflects ongoing discussions about military allowances and the need for equitable treatment of all soldiers’ families, regardless of their background.

The correspondence begins by emphasizing the importance of recruiting soldiers who are not of European descent, suggesting that such diversity would help prevent potential unrest among the troops. The author proposes looking to various regions around the world for suitable recruits, starting with the colonies. It is noted that there are significant numbers of fugitive slaves of African descent in Canada, who, despite being distanced from their original stock, may possess the resilience required to serve in the Indian climate. These individuals are described as likely to speak English and have a respectful attitude towards Europeans, making them potential candidates for military service. The document suggests forming small regiments of these recruits, ideally not exceeding 500 men, and recommends dispatching officers to Canada to initiate recruitment efforts.

Furthermore, the correspondence raises concerns about the potential reluctance of proprietors in the West Indies to support recruitment for Indian service, particularly in Jamaica, where there have been complaints about the limited demand for recruits affecting labor wages. To address this, the author suggests sending circular letters to the governors of various colonies to solicit their opinions on the feasibility of recruiting efforts in their jurisdictions. The document advises that officers be dispatched to central positions in the West Indies to facilitate recruitment, with instructions to be provided by the governors.

In addition to the Americas, the correspondence discusses the potential for recruiting soldiers from the West Coast of Africa and the Cape Colony. The author expresses doubt about the prudence of recruiting Hottentots from the Cape, citing concerns about their health and suitability for service in India. However, it is acknowledged that the Cape Mounted Riflemen, a mixed corps of Europeans and Hottentots, could be utilized, albeit cautiously. The document also mentions the possibility of recruiting Malays from Penang, indicating that they have previously served effectively in police roles. An officer is recommended to be sent to Singapore to gather information and explore recruitment opportunities among the Malays.

The correspondence concludes with a mention of Chinese laborers engaged in a military expedition at Hong Kong, suggesting that they may be more beneficial in naval capacities rather than as field troops. The author expresses urgency in finding solutions to the recruitment challenges posed by the mutiny of the Bengal Army, indicating that all potential sources of manpower must be explored. The document is signed by Ellenborough, the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the East India Company, reflecting the high-level nature of the discussions and decisions being made regarding military organization in the aftermath of the mutiny.

The initial focus of the inquiry pertains to the composition of regiments, where it is suggested that a uniform approach to army formation may not be prudent. The author argues that the absence of uniformity in regiment composition could serve as a safeguard against potential uprisings among native troops. Historical rivalries and differences among the three armies are viewed as advantageous, and it is proposed that these differences should be extended to the regiments themselves. Seven distinct methods for composing regiments are recommended for the Bengal Army, including raising corps in specific districts, composing corps from separate tribes or castes, and enlisting natives from other tropical countries.

The document also addresses the situation of the Madras and Bombay armies, indicating that no immediate changes are necessary for them, although the principles suggested for the Bengal Army should not be overlooked. Recommendations are made regarding the continuation of the Native Commissioned Officer grade and the introduction of European sergeants and corporals in each company, although concerns are raised about the potential negative impact on soldiers’ motivation. The promotion of non-commissioned officers is discussed, suggesting that distinguished soldiers could be advanced to commissioned ranks, while also allowing for gradual promotion of long-serving soldiers.

The correspondence emphasizes the importance of maintaining a distinct military police force, separate from regular troops, and proposes that promotions within the police should reward good conduct while also allowing for the inclusion of well-qualified individuals from the army. The document advocates for restoring the powers of commanding officers in native regiments and emphasizes the need for discipline, suggesting that soldiers must respect their officers and fear punishment. Furthermore, it is proposed that all courts martial should consist solely of European officers, reserving minor offenses for native courts martial.

The author expresses concern regarding the training of cadets in European regiments, suggesting that they may not acquire necessary language skills or develop a favorable view of the natives. The document concludes with a reflection on the challenges of addressing the demand for European officers in various staff and detached roles without compromising the efficiency of regiments. The author expresses a desire for the Court to concur with the views presented and for instructions to be promptly conveyed to the Government of India.

The document outlines the Board’s concerns regarding the strict adherence to judicial procedures in a context where such formalities may be inappropriate, particularly in a region with a small population of approximately 1,500 inhabitants. It highlights the disproportionate nature of deploying extensive military operations in such a setting, especially when historical evidence suggests that troops are often rendered ineffective due to climatic conditions. The correspondence references Mr. Arbuthnot, a former Magistrate, who had previously linked the disturbances to a reduction in guards at the hill passes, while the current Magistrate, Mr. Smollett, attributes the unrest to indiscreet actions by a local Tehsildar in a minor police case. Similar disturbances in Rajahmundry are noted to have arisen from comparable circumstances.

The document further discusses the prevailing feudal authority in the region, suggesting that local chiefs should be held accountable for maintaining peace. It warns against infringing upon this policy, as such actions have historically led to unrest in various districts, including Visagapatam and Rajahmundry. The Court of Directors expresses concern that the proposed alterations to the Draft might imply a shift away from this policy, which has been emphasized in previous communications. The Board is urged to reconsider these changes to avoid any misinterpretations that could undermine established governance practices.

Subsequently, on August 17, 1848, the correspondence continues with a letter from Mr. Stark, addressing the Court of Directors regarding the Board’s inability to retract the alterations made to Draft No. 501. The Court of Directors had intended to forward the altered Despatch to the Government of Fort St. George but was hindered by a letter from that Government dated May 23, which reported on the military operations conducted to suppress disturbances in Golgondah. The military force deployed included 13 companies of native infantry, 60 of the Nizan’s Reformed House under a European officer, and 150 local peons. However, after only twenty-seven days in the hills, the troops were deemed ineffective due to fever, with many soldiers falling ill and the overall strength significantly reduced.

Brigadier General Dyce, who oversaw the operations, reported that the troops could not remain efficient in the region for extended periods and expressed regret over the large military presence allocated to address what he deemed a minor insurrection. He recommended reducing the troop strength while maintaining sufficient forces to ensure the security of the low country. The capture of three principal chiefs and the potential for further submissions from remaining leaders were noted, prompting the Government to consider offering terms for surrender and provisions for the Golgondah family.

The Court of Directors concluded that it was not the intention of the Board to suggest that military operations should be resumed in light of the failure of conciliatory measures, especially in a climate known for its adverse effects on troop efficiency. They proposed that the Despatch be adjusted to reflect the current circumstances, advocating for general approval of the Government’s actions and emphasizing the importance of addressing the grievances of the Zemindar’s family and local populace. The document underscores the necessity for local officers to exercise restraint and avoid actions that could further disturb the peace.

In the first letter dated 7 August 1856, it is noted that the Board has made alterations to paragraphs 8, 12, and 13 of Draft 849, with the intention of strengthening the directives and emphasizing the serious nature of the subject matter. The modifications are described as primarily verbal, although they aim to enhance the clarity and impact of the document.

The second letter, dated 1 September 1856, acknowledges the receipt of a letter from the Court dated 22 August, which urges the restoration of specific paragraphs in Draft 849. The Court expresses a belief that the public does not doubt the government’s earnestness in curbing the misuse of authority by its native servants. The Board, however, responds that, after careful consideration of the Court’s reasons, they cannot agree to restore the initial part of the paragraph as requested. They do, however, express willingness to omit certain concluding phrases that suggest a lack of public confidence in approaching magistrates due to their dual role as collectors. The Board also indicates that they have inserted the word ‘however’ in a subsequent paragraph to reflect a nuanced belief. The correspondence concludes with a request for the revised draft to be sent to India without further delay, indicating the Board’s urgency in addressing the matter at hand.

Furthermore, the correspondence references the Board’s addition to paragraph 183 and notes that the information requested is already included in the narrative of the Revenue Department from the second quarter of 1856. The Court forwards this narrative as an additional volume to Collection 73 of the Draft. The Court proposes a revision to the wording used by the Board, suggesting that instead of ‘disloyalty or turbulence,’ the phrase ‘signs of dissatisfaction’ be used to reflect a more accurate sentiment regarding local sentiments.

In a subsequent letter dated December 5, 1857, the India Board acknowledges the objections raised by the Court of Directors concerning the alterations made to paragraphs 152 and 193 of Public Draft No. 1315. The Board maintains its position on the necessity of the additions but expresses a willingness to accommodate the Court’s wishes by agreeing to the substitution of the term ‘signs of dissatisfaction.’ Regarding paragraph 183, the Board concurs that the information provided about compensation for the deterioration of lands in the village of Bahobe is sufficient to withdraw the previous addition. They approve the Court’s proposed wording, which states that compensation has been granted to the Zamindars of Bahobe in the form of an annual remission of revenue, which may become a permanent reduction at the next settlement if the village does not recover in the meantime. The correspondence concludes with signatures from James C. Melvill, Secretary, and Mr. Loach, indicating the formal nature of the communication and the ongoing discussions regarding land compensation and local governance issues in India during this period.

In the initial correspondence dated 26th November 1857, the Court of Directors acknowledges Mr. Lonch’s letter regarding a draft despatch to India. They request the submission of comments on the alteration of a specific paragraph concerning allegations of partiality shown by local authorities towards Christian converts in Chota Nagpur. The Lieutenant Governor’s opinion, which found no grounds for doubt regarding the impartiality of the officers, is noted. However, he cautioned that any connection between officers and missionary activities could foster distrust among local inhabitants, potentially undermining their authority. The Court expressed hope that the Board would not insist on including a clause that would require the names of any officers who may have engaged in missionary activities to be reported, as this could lead to misunderstandings.

Subsequent letters, including one dated 8th December 1857, reveal that the Board consented to some alterations in the judicial draft but maintained the necessity of identifying local officers involved in missionary proceedings. The Court reiterated their concerns regarding the implications of such a list, suggesting that it could misrepresent the past conduct of government officials and lead to unwarranted assumptions about their actions. They emphasized that while they do not wish to prohibit private contributions to missionary causes, the official capacity of government servants must remain distinct from personal beliefs and actions.

By 29th December 1857, the Board acknowledged further representations from the Court, highlighting the peculiar features of the insurrection and the hostility towards church activities, which they believed indicated a failure to heed previous cautions against creating unease among the populace. The Board criticized instances of indiscretion among public officials, particularly citing a missionary meeting that drew significant attention and was deemed inappropriate given the prevailing circumstances. They argued that the connection between civil authority and missionary efforts could exacerbate tensions and lead to rebellion.

In the following months, the correspondence continued to reflect a struggle between the Board and the Court regarding the appropriate level of involvement by government officials in missionary work. The Board insisted on the necessity of maintaining a clear separation between private actions of officials and their public duties, especially in light of the unrest caused by the rebellion. The Court, while agreeing on the need for caution, expressed concerns about the potential misinterpretation of their past policies and the implications of the Board’s proposed language in the drafts.

The final letters from January and February 1858 indicate a gradual consensus on the need to revise the language of the drafts to avoid misrepresentation of government policies and actions. The Board acknowledged the Court’s observations and made necessary alterations to the drafts while emphasizing the importance of maintaining public order and the welfare of the British dominions in India. The correspondence reflects the complexities of governance in colonial India, particularly concerning religious sensitivities and the responsibilities of public officials amidst a backdrop of rebellion and unrest.

In March 1809, a letter from East India House addresses a complaint from Private Emig of the 8th Regiment Light Dragoons against the Chief Mate of the Castle Eden, showcasing the board’s role in addressing grievances related to personnel returning from India. The correspondence continues with various requests for permissions and applications, such as Mr. Edmund E. Sturmid’s application to reside in Calcutta, and the board’s responses to these requests, indicating the bureaucratic processes in place.

Throughout the years, the correspondence includes the appointment of officials, such as the appointment of Sir Charles Grey as one of the Pusine Judges of Bengal in August 1824, and the resolution to appoint Monstuart Elphinstone as Governor of Fort St. George upon the vacancy of Major General Sir Thomas Munro. The letters also reflect financial decisions, such as the approval of expenditures for military supplies and personnel, including the resolution to accept tenders for coal supplies and other materials necessary for operations in India.

By the late 1850s, the correspondence illustrates the ongoing administrative challenges faced by the East India Company, including issues related to labor, military supplies, and the management of resources. The letters also encompass legal matters, such as the forwarding of petitions and resolutions regarding the treatment of individuals associated with the Company. The document concludes with references to the approval of resolutions regarding military supplies and the engagement of ships for transporting goods, demonstrating the continued logistical efforts of the Company in maintaining its operations in India. Overall, the correspondence provides insight into the governance, administrative challenges, and operational logistics of the East India Company during this period.