It is quite remarkable what little success has hitherto attended European cabinets in the administration of Indian empire. The ministers of the Portuguese Crown, absorbed in domestic politics, neglected and lost the magnificent dominion acquired by its admirals and commanders. The French Cabinet, though eager for territorial acquisitions, superseded their best Indian officers by red-tapists from home, who quickly dissipated a far fairer prospect of oriental empire than had yet dawned upon their British rivals. Our own different fortune has been due, under Providence, to the wise and generous support extended to our Indian officers by an administration that had nothing but India to care for. The East India Company, always resist ing territorial aggrandisement, seldom fell into the folly-especially ruinous in the presence of Asiatic neighbours of renouncing provinces once acquired. Still rarer were the instances of English injustice or illiberality to those who endured exile, hardship, and peril in India. The

The

one exception was forced upon an indignant public by a faction whose leaders disgraced their eloquence, and tarnished their party, by opprobrious invectives against a defenceless prisoner. Still, Warren Hastings was not sacrificed, though the Court of Directors yielded to the storm, and even Pitt was carried away for a moment by the declamation of Sheridan and Burke. larger Court of Proprietors, with the general public, stood his friends throughout; and when the seven years' persecution ended in an honourable acquittal upon every charge, the nation endorsed the verdict with its applause. The faction was still powerful enough to intercept the coronet which it has since placed on the distinguished head of Mr Vernon Smith()-but the "GREAT CIVILIAN" lived to receive the apology of the Commons, by the House rising uncovered as he approached their bar, and the Whig palinode has been since nobly uttered in Macaulay's Essay. Our first Governor-General sleeps amidst his accusers and defenders in "that great temple of silence and reconciliation," whose impassive

towers looked down on the school of his youth, and on the hall of his ordeal.

The East India Company, embodying the best qualities of our English middle classes, early discovered the error of the French aristocracy, and awarded to their Indian servants a scale of remuneration which placed them above the temptations of corruption, and attracted to its employ the first talent of the nation. The consequences were-a Civil Service never equalled, and an Army seldom surpassed, in Europe itself. Their combined exertions erected the Anglo-Indian Empire; while through their family connections, its great riches have ever flowed in a direct tide into the very bosom of the people. It was this peculiarity which lent such intense interest to the late deadly struggle. It was not only the dominion of the Crown and the honour of the nation which were in jeopardy, but the people's own domain; that which had been happily kept from the jaws of party politics and ministerial patronage, to reward the emulation, and exercise the charities, of the great British public.

The same peculiarity sharpened the apprehensions of those who, like ourselves, dreaded its destruction from the introduction of the direct administration of the Crown. Parliament was so far from being insensible to this danger, that it formed the chief subject of the little deliberation bestowed on the Act of 1858. Clauses were framed to secure the several services in all existing advantages. The army, it was said, feeling no change beyond the abolition of a Viceroyalty which stood between it and the Sovereign, could not but be gratified at the measure. The civil service would be carefully and considerately cherished. The vulgar motives of patronage were warmly disclaimed; and it was demanded why the Queen's Ministers should be less capable of protecting the public servants of India than the East India Company? Human nature, however, is stronger than any verbal assurances; and to those who had breathed the respective atmospheres of Downing Street and Leadenhall, it was too obvious that the effects of the trans

planting must be felt in every branch and twig of the tree.

Lord Stanley was undoubtedly faithful to the assurances given in Parliament. Attending daily at the India House, and cultivating a cordial intimacy with those who had conducted its former policy, his administration was marked by a kind and judicious liberality to the Company's servants. His first duty was to reconstruct the official staff at home. The Act had transferred the establishments of the India House and the Board of Control to the department of the Indian Secretary of State, directing him to consolidate a "permanent establishment" out of the two, and awarding compensation to those whom it might be necessary to reduce. The new establishment was to be sanctioned by the Queen in Council, within six months from the assumption of the government.

In performing this necessarily invidious duty, Lord Stanley desired the advice of the experienced heads of the two former departments; and proceeding on the recognition of existing rights and prospects, the reconstruction was accomplished with very general satisfaction. One important step was thus taken towards the execution of an Indian policy, when anything worthy of the name should be conceived. From the Home establishment, the Minister was called to consider the state of the Indian services. The army, as we have said, was designed by Parliament to remain substantially as it had been under the East India Company. The forces in their service were transferred by the Act to the Crown, and power was given to enlist recruits in England for Indian service only, in the Queen's name as before in that of the Company. A "local" force was thus continued in each Presidency, identical with the Company's armies, while the contingent of" Queen's troops" supplied from the line remained unaltered.

This arrangement was displeasing to the authorities of the Horse Guards. It continued at the India Office all the military power and patronage formerly possessed by the Directors; and it offended the Commander-inChief's ideas of uniformity and discipline. Before the Act was in opera

tion, a demand was made for the transfer of the local forces to the direct authority and supervision of the Horse Guards, which Lord Stanley resisted. The question was then raised in all its issues before a Military Commission appointed to consider the future organisation of the Indian army. For the Horse Guards it was argued that two armies under one Crown is an anomaly unprecedented in history; that there can only be one Queen's army, and every local force must stand in an inferior and derogatory position; that only one system of recruiting at home is practicable; and that, consequently, the Indian forces must consist wholly of native troops, the European portion being amalgamated with the line. These arguments were encountered by the objection to making too extensive a change; by showing that there had always been two armies under the Crown in India; that the empire had been won and kept by their united arms; that it was necessary to limit the sphere of employment to India, in order to induce officers to acquire a proper knowledge of the country and its natives, and especially to prevent troops from being withdrawn at the discretion of the Horse Guards, when India might be imperilled by their absence; that reliefs from one general army would be constantly coming and going, so locking up large numbers in transports, and giving India a succession of raw and inexperienced troops. Such considerations taken alone, might have fairly balanced the opposite arguments. The scale was turned by the general dread of subjecting the great middle-class army to the patronage of the Horse Guards. Those authorities have not lately enjoyed the confidence which is desirable in their own department of the profession; and it could not be forgotten that some of our greatest disasters in India were connected with their interference and patronage. Their arguments, therefore, made little impression on the Legislature. Both Whigs and Tories declared in favour of the existing system, and the question appeared to be settled.

It surprised no one to find, on the publication of the Commission

ers' Report, that the Queen's officers, who constituted the majority, were in favour of "amalgamation," while Lord Stanley and his Indian colleagues stood out as stoutly for the separate organisation. The same division of sentiment appeared among the witnesses examined. Company's officers and Queen's were ranged in opposing ranks. Among the former were Sir J. Lawrence, Sir James Outram, Sir R. H. Vivian, Colonel Durand, Mr Willoughby, and a host of Indian servants, civil and military; the exceptions, indeed, being only two civilians and one artillery officerviz., Sir G. Clerk, Sir Charles Trevelyan, and Sir Archdale Wilson.* On the other hand, the Horse Guards were loyally supported by Sir Edward Lugard, Sir Willoughby Cotton, Sir Thomas Franks, and other officers of the line; above all, by H.R.H. the Duke of Cambridge, who sat on the Commission, and took a warm interest in its proceedings. The India side of the question, as we may fairly call it, was espoused further by Lords Canning, Eilenborough, and Harris; the Horse Guards obtaining the adhesion of Lord Elphinstone, who, as a single authority, is perhaps inferior to no other person. Turning, however, from numbers and names to the weight of the respective arguments, the question was again determined in favour of the Indian view, and so rested for the remainder of Lord Derby's administration.

Such was the state of things when the fate of India again reverted to the Whigs; and, as if to verify the worst apprehensions of those who had dreaded the effect of these fluctuations of English politics, Lord Stanley was replaced by Sir Charles Wood; a Minister who, though tried in various Cabinet offices-with the universal aptitude that attaches to a certain standing in the Whig family partyhas never impressed the world with a high sense of capacity, either in office or in Parliament. It is true that India had before been subject to his authority at the Board of Control, but that was when the Court

of Directors interposed to sustain the first shock, and supply the defects of incompetency. As Secretary of State, Sir Charles Wood became entrusted with the dictatorship we have alluded to; and we now entreat the attention of our readers to the manner in which he proceeded to exercise its unlimited authority.

The first effects of the change were experienced in the Indian Council, the institution created by Parlia ment, with the view of retaining as much as possible of the old regime. The Statute empowers the Secretary of State to divide this Council into committees, which Lord Stanley consistently effected as nearly as possible on the principles observed in the Court of Directors. The result was to continue the initiative in the despatch of business, with the committee to whose department it pertained. The committee reported to the Council; and the Secretary of State having considered their report, and consulted any of the executive officers he might think fit, came into the Council, prepared to discuss and decide the matter in deliberation with his parliamentary advisers. Sir Charles Wood has altered the whole process. He has removed the initiative to himself or one of his under-secretaries, referring any points he thinks fit to a committee, composed of such members of the Council as he may name for the particular occasion. Their report, we understand, instead of going as a matter of course to the Council, is considered by the Secretary of State in private, and comes before the Council, if the Council is consulted at all, in the form that may be given to it in his private room. The members of the Council complain that they are reduced to the position of simply offering an opinion, when the Secretary of State may think fit to ask for it. has decided the question, they are made acquainted with the result, and may record their dissents if they please; but their collective vote, whether in committee or in council,

When he

has become absolutely powerless, save in the few cases where the Act has made the consent of the Council indispensable.

Now, we are not inquiring at present whether Lord Stanley or Sir Charles Wood has best interpreted the intentions of the Legislature in establishing a Council of Indian statesmen. The Conservative Minister may have been wrong, and his Whig successor may have more accurately discriminated between the value of Indian experience and the rights and duties of a Cabinet Minister. All we now urge is, that results have been attained not generally anticipated in passing the Act, and which entirely sweep away the notion of the Council being a check on the Secretary of State.

The Council itself has not been slow to discover and resent the nature and extent of the blow inflicted on its privileges; but it was in vain to struggle the ground has continued to slip away under the feet of its members; and, in removing to the West End, the Minister will probably discover that it was quite unnecessary to have brought them with him. The disunion naturally consequent on the new treatment will only irritate Parliament. Official men on both sides of the House will feel the "inconvenience" of retaining colleagues who can correct their chief in the newspapers without resigning office; and a short bill, to save India the salaries of fifteen gentlemen, who, in their present position, it must be confessed, are of no great utility to the public service, will provoke but little discussion, and less opposition.

After revolutionising the Council, Sir C. Wood proceeded to revise, a second time, the establishment of the India office. The reductions having been completed by Lord Stanley, and a "permanent establishment sanctioned by the Queen in council, under the authority of an express statute, there might seem to be no power in the Secretary of State to effect another reorganisation. At all events, the Company's servants, after passing the ordeal prescribed by Parliament on the change of masters, and being continued in the service of the Crown, thought them

selves safe from further peril. But those who so argued knew little of the prerogative of the Crown in the hands of a Whig minister. Sir Charles Wood not only determined on a second reorganisation of the whole establishment, but obtained a second order in council, to sanction his scheme, before those who were most injuriously affected knew what was to be done with them. We cannot pretend to know what passes in the office of the Secretary of State; but we hear much complaint of the manner in which the clerks in different departments have been brought together in one classified order of promotion. A special difficulty arising from the peculiar nature of the appointments held by the gentlemen called "writers," was disposed of by simply omitting that word from the new order in council, forty or fifty appointments being thus cancelled at a stroke. Some of the holders were actually sent away, while the remainder were drafted into the new establishment, on greatly reduced emoluments. A further question with respect to a fund for the benefit of the widows and families of the established clerks has been settled by putting an end to the fund altogether. The Secretary of State undertakes to make good the claims of existing subscribers from the revenues of India, and the door is closed against any new admissions for ever. By what process the Indian revenues can be legally saddled with this charge, or the trust-deed be abrogated without the consent of every individual subscriber and pensioner, are questions which the Legislature or the Courts may some day have to consider. Meantime, it is interesting to the Indian services, and to the Indian creditor, to know the extent of authority actually exercised by the Secretary of State over securities upon which they have advanced their money.

The Home establishment remains under the conviction that nothing is secured. The existing arrangements may be abrogated by Sir C. Wood's successor as easily as he overturned Lord Stanley's; and the Company's servants, destitute of political and parliamentary interest, can expect

but little consideration in the various mutations of office.

A little personal incident in these arrangements may serve to illustrate the position. In the inquiry subsequent on the break-down of our commissariat and military store departments in the Crimea, attention was often directed to the corresponding offices under the East India Company. We remember that some 70,000 cases of military stores were despatched from the India House in the course of a year, every one of which arrived with regularity and in good order at its destined station in India. These results were due to the military store department at the India House, long presided over by General Bonner. Lord Stanley augmented the strength and efficiency of this department, by adding an assistant inspector-general, in the person of Colonel Willoughby, a Bombay artillery officer of experience and ability. General Bonner having lately closed a long official career by accepting the pension to which he was entitled, it was natural to expect that Colonel Willoughby would succeed his superior. To the astonishment, however, of every one, Sir C. Wood conferred the vacant office on the Hon. Mr Talbot, a civilian whom Lord Stanley had established in the appointment of "precis writer" in the Secretary's department. This appointment Sir C. Wood, always reversing the acts of his more distinguished predecessor, wished to abolish; and, on that pretext, he has actually placed an inexperienced clerk over the head of Colonel Willoughby, with the chief direction of the supply of military stores to the Indian army! To smooth matters over, Colonel Willoughby is complimented with the title of Inspector-General, and some small addition to his salary; but Mr Talbot takes the head of the department, with the new designation of "Director-General," and the salary of £1200 per annum, vacated by General Bonner.

As Sir Charles Wood, in a recent debate, declared," upon his honour as a gentleman," that during his administration of the Admiralty he never made a single appointment from any other consideration than the merits of

the candidate, we abstain from applying to this transaction the brief appellation it would be sure to receive if perpetrated by a less immaculate minister. Still, in our benighted condition, we are utterly unable to discover what claims Mr Talbot could possess to supersede Colonel Willoughby; or what benefit can result to the Indian army from removing the direction of its military stores out of the hands of an experienced military officer to a civilian, who perhaps never saw anything approaching nearer to the subjects of his official charge than his own saddle.

This contempt for the Company's system and servants at home augured ill for the Indian establishments. Sir Charles Wood was as distinctly committed to the maintenance of a local army as Lord Stanley. Still, the powerful influences of the Horse Guards were at work on the opposite track, and sundry indications soon appeared that Ministers would be glad of a pretext to change their views. The excuse was found in what has been ludicrously termed the "European mutiny," a disturbance provoked by the Government itself, and ending in its ignominious defeat, after an undignified alternation of bullying and coaxing. Technically wrong, because the letter of the new act was against them, the men felt themselves substantially right, inasmuch as Parliament had no moral right to dispose of their services behind their backs, and without their consent. A call for volunteers, on the usual terms, would have brought the whole force to the Queen's standard. The attempt to coerce them lost India a body of 10,000 valuable soldiers, and about half a million of money. The dispute never had the slightest bearing on the question of a local force. The soldiers had not been long enough in India to be infected with any local peculiarities. Their claim was founded on a transaction of the Imperial Legislature, which can never be repeated. It would have equally arisen among Queen's soldiers had it been attempted to transfer them to another service and it was dealt with by the same authorities, in India and at