"The ••• administration of the law has not," he continued, "been impartial*" However, he stressed the importance of the indigo trade and raised the possibility of encouraging it without
introducing "legislation which would confer upon indigo planters greater power and facility than are accorded to other classes in the making or enforcing of contracts, or in the punishment of breach of contract*" This assistance might be afforded by extending to "contracts for the delivery of any agricultural
8 3
Wood to Canning, 19 November i860, W*P*
8 4
Pari* Pap* (H*C*), l8 6l, xliv, Report of Indigo Commission* Off
Gov.-Genl. to Sec. of State, 29 December (Home Dept. No. 3)
produce (not of indigo alone) where breach of contract was fraudulent" an existing law which provided for punishing
"fraudulent breach of contracts for service" by fine or imprison-
86
ment* Before receiving Wood's reply to this suggestion, Canning arranged for a Bill to this effect to be read for the
8 7
first time in the Legislative Council*
Wood opposed Canning's proposal with the utmost vigour* Early in April l8 6l, knowing of Canning's thoughts but not, as yet, of the introduction of the Contracts Bill, he advised:
The true remedy ••• is not to be found in a resort to legislative measures •••, by making the ryot criminally punishable for breach of civil contract •••*It is rather to be found in dealing fairly by him, and in making him feel that a violation ••• of his contract will involve the loss of what is advantageous to himself*®®
The temporary Act XI had led to "not a little injustice,"
showing thereby "the danger of transferring to criminal function aries, matters which more properly belong to the jurisdiction of the civil courts*" When, later in the month, he heard of the introduction of the Bill, he elaborated upon the need for careful judicial investigation "as to the formation of the contract,
and ••* as to the circumstances which have induced the ryot to
1 1 1 11 1 1
Canning was alluding to Act. XIII of l859« See W* Stokes (ed*), Sir Henry Maine ♦»»* Speeches and Minutes« London 1 8 9 2, pp* 85-91*
87
Gov**Genl* to Sec* of State, 2 8 February (Home Dept* No* 21) l8 6l* The despatch and the Bill appear in Pari* Pap* (H*C*), l8 6l, xlv, pp* 1 8 6-7, 19 0-1*
88
Sec. of State to Gov.-Genl.-in-Council, 8 April (Judicial No. 6 3), 1 8 6 1, ibid., pp. 12 7-3 0.
89
break it*" This pointed to the "necessity for a lengthened and patient enquiry *•• which can only be conducted in a civil court, and for which the course of business and necessity for immediate dispatch in a magisterial court are wholly inappro priate*" He drew attention to the Bill's violation of one of the illustrations in the Penal Code, which expressly stated that offenders were "'liable only to a civil action for breach of contract**" He wrote explicitly that he was "not prepared ••* to •*• sanction ••• the law," and requested that "the Bill ••• be withdrawn*"
Wood was genuinely surprised at Canning's proposed Bill* He rendered the proposal intelligible to himself by reference to what he had earlier described as "an antagonistic feeling
90
between the English settlers and the natives•" He had been loth, in i8 6 0, to explain Act XI in terms of the "too English and planter-like a view" which many "supposed" the Government of
$ 1
India to have taken of the question* But his first reaction to the l8 6l Bill was to conclude that "the Bengal element" had
92
been "too strong"* He explained the wording of his despatch to Canning thus:
89
Sec* of State to Gov*—Genl*-in-Counci1, 18 April (Judicial No* 71) l8 6l, ibid*, pp* 19 9-2 0 1* See also Wood's private letter to Canning, 18 April (No* 2) l8 6l, and his statement to the Commons on 19 April (Hansard« clxii, cols* 819-21)*
90wood to Wilson, 16 May, i860, W*P*
9 1Xbid. 92
*.** I thought that I was saving you, by writing it so strongly* That you were beset by English opinion in Calcutta was clear •••• I thought that you would be relieved from annoyance by having
it in your power to refer to the despatches from home*93
Later, he reflected that Canning had been "anxious", on this occasion, "to conciliate the English party which had been very
94
violent against him during the mutiny*" Here was an instance of the Indian Government being overborne by local pressure from English interests* "The [_ home] Government," he told the Commons,
"**• had done their duty ••• by holding the scales as impartially 95
as possible between the ryots and the planters*"
Wood turned from dLsposing of the Contracts Bill only to be faced with "A Bill relating to Breaches of Contract committed
96
in bad faith*" This measure, which the law member, W* Ritchie, introduced to the Legislative Council in 1862, subjected breaches of contract to civil process* However, if the court decided that a breach was made in "bad faith", it might order the payment of damages at,' penalty rates, in default of which the defendant
Wood to Canning, 3 July l8 6l, W*P*
q4
Wood to Maine, 7 January 1 8 6 5, W*P*
^ Hansard, clxiv, 25 July l8 6l, col* 1517# Maclagan, in his
recent biography of Canning (op* cit*, p* 277)9 failed to enquire into the motive behind the Bill* Instead, he drew attention to Wood's "ffart letter ••• announcing that he would veto it", and
introduced an aside on Canning's opinion of Wood as "hasty", "snappish" and "thick-skinned"*
9$
Pari* Pap»(H*C*)t 1862, xl*; Gov-Gen* to Sec* of State, 3 March (Home Dept* No* 9)1 1862*
might be sentenced to imprisonment* Again Wood objected* In 97
April, he asked Elgin to ”keep back” the Bill* Though it
did not subject breaches of contract to criminal jurisdiction, he believed that ”fine & imprisonment under criminal proceedings
98
would have as mild or milder effect than this bill*” In effect) 11it did convert a civil into a criminal proceeding
99