Lord Lawrence

by Sir Richard Carnac Temple

In the civil administration the Board desired that, in the first instance at least, the forms of British procedure should be simplified, cheap, speedy and substantial justice dispensed, and affairs conducted after what was termed the patriarchal model. The native races here were more frank in their utterance, more open in their demeanour, more direct in all their ways, than is usual in most parts of India. Every European officer was directed to cultivate from the outset a friendly understanding with them, so as to banish all sense of strangeness from their minds, and to make them feel at home and at ease under the British rule. This object is indeed aimed at universally in India, but it was attained with unrivalled success in the Punjab, and thereby was laid the foundation of that popular contentment which stood the Government in good stead during the season of dire trial eight years later in 1857.

The intense application, bestowed by the Board on many diverse subjects simultaneously, aggravated the toils of the members. But they derived relief and benefit from the division of labour (already mentioned) whereby for ordinary business the political and military branches were allotted to Henry, the fiscal and financial to John, the judicial to Montgomery.

In the fiscal department John found the noblest sphere for his special ability, because herein was included the settlement of the land revenue, the all-important scope of which has been explained in a preceding chapter. Then despite his unfavourable recollections of Etawah in 1838-39, he must have looked back with some gratitude to that place which had given him priceless experience in settlement-work. Here he was, happily for the Punjab, at home and in his element; as a consequence the field-survey, the assessment of the land-tax, the adjudication of rights and interests, the registration of tenures, were conducted with admirable completeness, promptitude and efficiency. He well knew that such operations were not likely to be turned out complete offhand; the affairs themselves were novel both to the officials and to the people; errors, failures, oversights, would occur, but he would have them rectified, again and again, until at last after re-constructing, re-casting, re-writing,—a full, accurate and abiding result was obtained. This cardinal operation has been one of the first cares of the Government in every province of India; but in no province has it ever been effected so completely, within a comparatively short time, as it was in the Punjab under his supervision. Its success conduced largely to that popular contentment which proved a bulwark of safety to British rule, during the danger which eight years afterwards menaced the Province.

Before the Native population, before the world, and for the most part before the European officers, the Board preserved an unbroken front and kept up the appearance of solidarity. But though the wheels of the great machine moved powerfully, and with apparent smoothness, still within the Board itself there was increasing friction. It became known, not perhaps to the public, but to the European officers around the centre of affairs, that Henry and John were not always in accord regarding policy and practice. And this matter affected the future for both of them, and especially for John.

Between Henry and John there was agreement in many essential matters such as the military occupation and the pacification of the province, the guarding of the Trans-Indus Frontier, the political relations with the Native States comprised within the Punjab, the development of material resources, the progressive policy of the administration. They were absolutely united in the diffusion of zeal among all grades and classes of officers and officials, and in stamping the best possible characteristics upon the public service. But they differed more or less on certain other points, and this difference must unavoidably be noticed, however briefly, because among other consequences, it had a considerable effect on the subsequent career of John. It was, however, official only and did not affect the sentiments of admiration and affection with which each regarded the other.

The difference then related to three points: the system of collecting the land revenue, the management of the finances, and the treatment of the feudal classes on the introduction of British rule. Some brief allusion must be made to each of these three points.

Under Native rule the land revenue had been collected sometimes in kind and sometimes in cash. John abhorred the system of collection in kind, as being the parent of oppressive abuses. His voice was consonant with the best traditions of British rule, and was at first popular with the agriculturists. But from various circumstances the prices of produce fell for several years abnormally, and the men had difficulty in obtaining money for their produce wherewith to pay their land-tax in cash. So they began to ask that it might as heretofore be paid in kind. Henry, partly from tenderness to old customs under Native rule, partly too from want of familiarity with fiscal abuses, inclined his ear to these murmurs which were indeed coming to be requests. John of course insisted on the cash system being maintained, though he was willing, indeed anxious, that the tax should be so assessed that the people could pay it easily even in the altered circumstances.

The finance of the province was ever present to the mind of John. Though keenly anxious for improvements of all sorts, he held that such measures must be regulated according to the financial means available within the province. Henry would not deny this in theory but would overlook it in practice. Having initiated projects tending to civilisation in a newly annexed province, he would press them forward without adequately considering how the cost was to be defrayed. He had an inner conviction that once a very desirable thing had been accomplished successfully, the difficulties on the score of expenses would either vanish or right themselves.

The treatment of the feudal classes on the introduction of British rule depended on a certain method which had been adopted under Native rule in the Punjab as in other parts of India. The land revenue belonged to and was the mainstay of the State. The ruler of the day would assign to an individual the revenue thus receivable from specified lands or villages. The right of the assignee extended only to the receipt of the land revenue. It did not necessarily affect the right to the property, that is to say, he had not thereby any title to collect the rent, as that would depend on whether he did or did not acquire the property. The assignment would be made generally on one or other of three grounds, the maintenance of religious establishments, the bestowal of favour, the reward or remuneration of services. The difference of opinion between Henry and John showed itself less on the first of the three grounds, but more on the second, and still further on the third. The discussion between the two brothers on the third or feudal ground may be summarised in this wise.

The Native ruler or sovereign would assign temporarily to his chieftains the land revenue of certain villages, or whole tracts of territory, on the condition of feudal service, chiefly military, being rendered. This service is not wanted under British rule, and cannot be maintained; then the question arises whether the assignment of the land revenue is to be continued. Similarly, allowances in cash from the State treasury are made to local chiefs in consideration of duty nominal or real being performed. This duty cannot be accepted under British rule, and a discussion springs up regarding the extent to which the allowances are to be withdrawn. When these cases exist on a large scale, involving extensive interests, it will be seen at a glance that there is much room for divergence of opinion between statesmen equally able, humane and conscientious. Henry thought that liberal concessions ought to be made to these feudal classes, for reasons of policy in allaying discontent among influential sections of the community. He held that the greater part of the former grants ought to be continued, although the obligation of service might be remitted. This must be effected, despite the financial cost which such arrangements might involve. John would rejoin that these grants must at once be curtailed, and provision made for their cessation on the demise of present incumbents. The government could not bear the double expense of continuing grants for the old service just dispensed with, and of defraying the charge of the newly organized service which the British Government must introduce according to its own ideas.