17
Deputy Chairman of the East India Company* A despatch was in
18
preparation and he wished to emphasize that power to appoint the extra members, or to renew any appointments made, must not be abandoned to the Governor-General, but retained by the Court of Directors* However, he had still to amend extensively the
Company's "draft" on the subject when it came before him* "The Board [of Control]", wrote Robert Lowe, then the parliamentary Under-secretary, to the Court, "**• do not consider it expedient to sanction the appointment by the Governor-General in India, of additional members to the Legislative Council of India, without having given their approbation in each case, after being convinced
19
of the necessity for such appointments*" Wood opened the
17 ... . . ■
Paper initialled "C«W«" and endorsed "Memorandum Legislative Council* Copy sent to Major Oliphant* June 30 1834", ibid*
18
Draft No* 612 ("East India House date", 6 June), Register of Drafts, Vol* 8, I*0«L*
19
R* Lowe to J* Melvill, 17 July 1834, Letters from Board to Court, Vol* 179 I*0*L*
passage which he inserted in the draft with the words:
The attention of the Members of the Legislative Council will be exclusively directed to making Laws and will not be diverted from this object by any of those forms of discussion whi6h occupy so much of the time of popular Assemblies) and it is our belief that for such merely Legislative Business under ordinary circumstances the Legislative Council will be sufficiently numerous without these Members
Whilst Wood was framing this reply to Dalhousie*s request) Dalhousie constituted the Legislative Council, apart from the members in question, took the chair, and set the Council to the
21
task of drafting standing orders and procedures* The Council adopted a parliamentary form of procedure, and Dalhousie allowed
22
the public to attend its meetings* Wood professed never to have 25
approved of these proceedings* "Your bill of fare for the Legislative Council's work," he wrote to Dalhousie, "is as bad
24
as that for the House of Commons*" The parallel did not end there* Dalhousie also put into effect his recommendation of October 1 8 5 2, that the Governor-Generalfs power over the Council should be limited to a veto upon its enactments* As its first piece of legislation, he requested the Council to prepare a bill
20 r \
Legislative Despatch to Gov*-Gen* in Council, 26 July (No*20) 1854, paras* 3*5 (Court's copy), Despatches to India and Bengal, Vol* 8 7.
^Dalhousie to Wood, 30 May and 13 June 1 8 5 4, W*P* 22
Dalhousie1s diary entry of 12 October 1854, cited in W* Lee- Warner, The Life of the Marquis of Dalhousie« 2 vols«, London 1904, II, 234-5 5 Sir C* Ilbert, The Government of India ♦** , Oxford
1 8 9 8, pp* 103, 5 2 2 ff*
2^Wood to C* Beadon, 24 April 18551 W*P*
25
to enact a Code of Civil Procedure* Wood asked that the Code
26 o
be sent home for review before being enacted* On 18 September 1854, Dalhousie replied that the request would be "impracticable to enforce", for his own, and the Indian minister*s, "power over the Legislative Council ••• Qwas] limited exclusively to the
right of disallowing any act wh* they may pass & of requiring its repeal*" "The Legislative Council," he continued, "is a separate body constituted by law and, with the exception I have just named, wholly independent of all authority*" Wood might expect to
"find them asserting their legislative independence just as strongly as the 6 5 8 English gentlemen at Westminster", and he could "rest assured that if any demand *•• [were] made upon them to submit, either generally or specifically their legislation for previous consideration in England, they ••* [_would] most decidedly refuse*" Wood was taken aback* In December, he tried to clarify the
Councilvs constitutional position* "I never intended," he wrote, "to raise up a great independent body in India* I look to the Governor~General* India must be ruled very despotically, and I
see no other safety for our empire there or security for our native subjects •••• I do not wish to make it a body likely to take upon itself more weight or authority than is necessary for the purpose of elaborating laws, and I do not look upon it as •*• the nucleus and beginning of a constitutional parliament in
25 ,
Dalhousie to Wood, 30 May and 13 June 1854*
26
27
India*” In essence, Vood was opposed to the emergence in India of any governing authority which was not subject to
control and direction from home at all times* He was in funda~ mental disagreement with Dalhousie's plans for the centralization and concentration of authority at Calcutta* In executive
/
government he would not surrender his power to appoint and to
correspond with the local governors* Neither would he countenance the alienation of his right to interfere with the process of
legislation at all stages*
Vood went out of office before he could impose his policy for the Legislative Council* Towards the end of 1 8 5 5, Lord
Canning set sail to take up the $overnor~£eneralship* Before his departure, Wood apprised him of Dalhousiefs perversion of his
28
intentions* He followed up the conversation with the note: I am annoyed a little at the vapouring about the
independence of the Legislative Council in India* The **• House of Commons will unmake them as readily as it made them so that you may hold as high a tone 'with them as you please*2^
Prom Calcutta, Canning replied that the Councillors were ”convinced of their right” , and that "nothing short of a Declaratory Act *•• [wouldJ remove that conviction*” However, such an Act would be
"offensive ••* and ••* [wasj not ••* absolutely necessary”, for ”with a little management any serious differences between the Government and the Council might be avoided, and •*• the Govt*
2^Vood to Dalhousie, 25 December 1854, V*P*
28
Vood to Canning, 7 November 1859» V*P* ■ 29
30
might carry any important point that it desired*N Though
Canning wished not to wdeterw the home government from proposing a "Declaratory Act", Vood seems to have taken comfort from his remarks and dropped the matter* It was not until he went to the India Office that he became convinced of the need to reconstitute the lawmaking body* However, by that time, cracks had appeared in the structure of the executive, and it was to these that Canning directed his attention most urgently*
The task of reconstruction after the mutiny placed a burden upon every department of government* The collective handling of business by a corporate Executive Council meant that the Governor- General was involved in a great deal of group discussion of
important administrative details* Delays in administration
resulted* Early in 1859« Canning sought relief from the cumbersome process of consultation by assigning departmental responsibilities
31
to some of the Councillors* Towards the middle of the year, he wrote to Lord Stanley to suggest a thorough application of the
32
departmental principle of organization* Executive decisions might be taken by departmental heads after discussion with the Viceroy, and for major decisions all of the departmental heads might be brought together* Stanley favoured the change, and he referred the recommendation to a committee of the Council of India, 30
Canning to Wood, 29 March 1 8 5 6, Halifax Papers, B*M*Add*MS* 49558, fols. 1 0 9-1 3*
31
M* Maclagan, ^Clemency* Canning* London 1962, p* 2 6 7*
which approved the principle of organising not only the Executive Council at Calcutta, but also those at Bombay and
33
Madras, on a departmental basis* Canning distinguished two 34
means of affecting the reform* First, Councillors might simply take responsibility for departments whilst remaining members
of a corporate Executive Council# The alternative was to abolish the Supreme Council and replace its corporate responsibility with
35
the individual authority of the Viceroy# Business would then be discharged by secretaries of a higher status than the existing heads of departments# The Viceroy might, if he chose, call the secretaries together to form a consultative or advisory council# Both Canning and Stanley expressed a preference for the latter scheme and valued the saving of the salaries of the old Supreme
36
Councillors# However, Canning pointed out that it would be necessary to make provision for discharging business in the absence of the Viceroy, and that abolishing the Supreme Council
37