Die Jovis, 6° Maii 1852.

THE LORD PRIVY SEAL in the Chair.

JAMES COSMO MELVILL, Esquire, is called in, and further examined

as follows:

161. WILL you state to the Committee the constitution of the Home Government of India previously to the commencement of the present Charter?

Previously to 1834, the East India Company were a trading corporation, entrusted also with the government of India.

162. How was the Board of Directors then formed?

It was formed, as it is at present, by Proprietors of East India stock, possessed of a certain amount of qualification, elected to the office of Directors by vote taken by ballot in the General Court of Proprietors.

163. In what manner did the General Court of Proprietors interfere with the trading and political power of the Directors?

They had no authority, practically, to interfere with the political government of India; they were precluded by law from altering, varying or rescinding any resolution of the Court of Directors touching the government of India, after it had been approved by the Board of Commissioners. They could, however, call for papers, and meet and discuss questions affecting the government of India.

164. Could they interfere in the trading operations of the Company?

I apprehend that they had power to interfere in the trading operations; but they did not do so practically.

165. At the commencement of the present Charter, how was the power of the Proprietors restricted?

Under the Act of 1834 the Company ceased to trade, and were restricted to the government of India. The effect of this change was to make both the Court of Proprietors and the Court of Directors more Indian in their character than they had previously been. The number of Proprietors connected with India has been increased, and the number of Directors connected with India has been also increased. In the elections to the direction which have taken place since 1834, there has been only one instance of a Director chosen who had previously no connexion with India. In the period previously to 1834, a period of 20 years, there were seven such instances.

166. Can you state the number of Directors who have been elected since the commencement of the present Charter?

In the period between 1814 and 1834, 20 years, 26 Directors were elected, seven of whom had not been previously resident in India. During the present period, since 1834, there have been 21 Directors elected, and one only not previously resident in India.

167. Will you state the name of the Director elected since 1834 who is not connected with India?

Mr. Martin Tucker Smith.

168. Will you state what other changes have been made?

Another change consisted in an alteration in the mode of voting. Previously to 1834 the voting was all by ballot; in 1834 a system was introduced of voting

Evidence on the East India Company's Charter.

J. C. Melvill, Esq.

6th May 1852.

J. C. Melvill, Esq. by proxy, at the option of the voter, and the effect of that has been largely to increase the number of votes given. In the three contested elections previously 6th May 1852. to 1834, the average number of votes given was 1,467; in the three last contested elections, the average number of votes given was 2,036, and there has been very little variation in the number of votes available.

169. Can you state what is the usual number of votes available of the Court of Proprietors?

Two thousand three hundred and fifty is the total number of votes that could be given; that is the average number.

170. How many voters are there?

The number of voters is about 1,770.

171. How many votes can any individual give?

Four is the maximum.

172. Will you proceed in describing the changes which have taken place since 1834?

Previously to 1834, the East India Company had a large capital, and they had claims on the territory, which had been reserved by previous Acts of Parliament. Under the arrangements of 1834, they held that property only as Trustees for the Crown. The powers of the Board of Control and the jurisdiction of the Secret Committee were somewhat enlarged. Previously to 1834, the powers of the Board to control the Court were in some measure affected by the double character in which the Company then were with respect to the cases which were commercial as distinguished from those which were territorial. But since 1834, the trade having ceased, the whole of the acts of the Court of Directors have been subject to the control of the Board. The jurisdiction of the Secret Committee, which previously extended to treaties and negotiations with native states and princes in India, was extended so as to include "other states and princes.” Then, previously to 1834, the Court of Directors were allowed to grant gratuities of 600l. and annuities of 2007. without control on the part of the Board. The Board now control all money grants. The only other change affecting the Court of Directors made by the Act of 1834, was that it gave a power, in cases in which the Court might question the legality of any orders given to them by the Board of Commissioners, to draw up a case, stating the particulars, and to submit it to three Judges of the Court of Queen's Bench, whose decision is final. There has been no occasion to exercise that power since it was given.

173. That power was given in 1834?

Yes, and still remains.

174. What powers do the Court of Proprietors now possess?

They have the power, as the Committee are aware, of electing the Directors. They may make bye-laws, which are binding upon the Court of Directors, provided they are not inconsistent with the statute law. They may themselves grant sums of money, which grants are subject to control on the part of the Board. They may also control grants of money proposed by the Court of Directors, to an extent exceeding 600l. or 2004. a year to one person, which grants are also subject to the control of the Board. The General Court of Proprietors may also call for any papers that are in the custody of the Court of Directors; and if they pass a resolution ordering the production of those papers, they must be produced, and the Board have no power to prevent it. The General Court may also meet to discuss questions connected with the government of India, and they may pass resolutions of approval or condemnation in recommendation upon those subjects to the Court of Directors.

175. You have stated that the Court of Directors divide themselves into Committees; will you state what those Committees are?

There are three Committees: the Finance and Home, the Political and Military, and the Revenue and Judicial; and the functions of those Committees are to regulate the correspondence upon the several subjects designated by those titles.

176. You have mentioned the Secret Committee; how is that formed? The Secret Committee is formed of three Directors, and generally consists of the Chairman, the Deputy Chairman and the senior member of the Court. The Secret Committee is purely ministerial; it receives despatches from India, and

sends

sends despatches to India. But the despatches received are sent to the Board of J. C. Melvill, Esq. Control, and the despatches sent emanate from that Board.

177. Has not the Secret Committee the power of remonstrance?

The Secret Committee has no power of remonstrance given to it by Parlia

ment.

178. Do you mean to say, that, practically, they do abstain from making representations upon the subjects that come before them?

The members of the Secret Committee, if they see anything important in the proceedings, may address a letter upon the subject to the President of the Board. The Act of Parliament gives to the Court of Directors, in cases of difference with the Board upon public matters, the power of remonstrance, but it does not give that power to the Secret Committee.

179. In the case of the remonstrance made on the part of Directors not being acquiesced in by the Board, what course can the Court of Directors pursue? If the orders are consistent with the law, the Court of Directors have no alternative but to obey.

180. Have they any power of protesting?

The General Court, after 1834, passed a bye-law, which requires, that whenever the Court of Directors see fit to pass a resolution of protest against any order given to them by the Board of Commissioners which they think calculated to lead to evil, that resolution of protest shall be laid before the next General Court. 181. Have the General Court the power to make such a bye-law? Yes, I apprehend they had.

182. Have they the power to make such a bye-law with regard to the proceedings between the Secret Committee and the Board of Control?

Certainly not. The proceedings of the Secret Committee are not in the possession of the Court of Directors, and, therefore, the Court of Directors could not produce them.

183. You made use of the phrase, that the Court of Proprietors could call for any papers that were in the custody of the Court of Directors; are the papers belonging to the Secret Committee in any other custody?

They are in the custody of the Secret Committee only, and they cannot be disclosed without the consent of the Board of Commissioners.

184. The Committee understand that the Board of Control has the power to order any proceedings to take place, and any despatches to be sent out, as they may think right; is that order communicated to the Court of Directors?

The Board of Commissioners make what alterations they think fit in the despatches proposed by the Court of Directors, and the Court of Directors, upon receiving those alterations, may, within 14 days, address a remonstrance to the Board of Commissioners. The Board of Commissioners may answer that remonstrance as soon as they please; and whenever they answer it, their order is final.

185. The delay, therefore, that may take place is 14 days?

The power to remonstrate may cause a delay of 14 days.

186. What is the law with reference to the transmission of despatches to the Board of Control?

The law requires that every despatch from India shall be immediately sent to the Board, the Court of Directors having also a copy themselves. It rests with the Court of Directors then to prepare a reply to that despatch. The course is for the Chairman and Deputy Chairman first to frame the draft of a reply.

187. What is the law with respect to despatches going to India?

The Court of Directors having transmitted to the Board of Commissioners a draft of the proposed despatch to India, the Board of Commissioners are required within two months to return it, either approved or altered; and if altered, to state their reasons at large for the alteration.

188. For each alteration?

For each alteration. The Court of Directors then take into consideration those alterations, and, as I have before stated, 14 days is allowed to them to remonstrate, if they think fit, against the alterations. The Board of Commissioners,

6th May 1852.

J. C. Melvill, Esq.

6th May 1852.

after receiving the remonstrance, give the final orders; and the Court of Directors are then required to despatch the letter to India. In the event of the Court of Directors, in the opinion of the Board, neglecting any subject, or the Board seeing occasion to treat any subject connected with India which the Court of Directors have not brought before them, the Board may write to the Court, and call their attention to the circumstance, and desire them to prepare a despatch. If the Court of Directors fail to prepare such a despatch within 14 days, then the Board of Commissioners may themselves write a despatch, and send it to the Court to be transmitted to India. This is the only case in which the Board of Commissioners have the initiative with respect to despatches to India.

189. Having stated what the law is, will you now state what is the practice? The practice is for the Chairman and Deputy Chairman, in the first instance, to prepare a draft of a despatch, and to send it in what is called " previous communication" to the President of the Board; and the President of the Board in due time returns that previous communication, with his observations upon it. The Chairman and Deputy Chairman then either adopt the alterations wholly or partially, or reject them; and in the state in which they finally approve the draft, it is submitted to the Committee to which it belongs. The Committee alter it if they think fit, and send it to the Court of Directors; the Court of Directors then consider it, and after they have approved it, it goes to the Board officially; and then the Board deal with it in the manner which I have explained.

190. That practice was adopted with the view of saving time?

It was to establish a system of friendly communication, and to avoid collision. 191. Do you consider that the Court of Directors possess any real power? Yes, I think they do possess considerable power; they have the initiative in the preparation of all despatches to India; which rule is proved by the exceptional case which I have stated of the Board's power themselves to write, if after 14 days' notice the Court neglect to do so. The Court have also the initiative in money grants, the Board having the power to say "No" to any grant, to refuse any grant, but having no power to propose or increase, but, on the contrary, being prohibited from proposing or increasing any grant.

192. You are speaking of grants in England only?

Grants in India as well as in England, when they are treated of in the correspondence with India. The Court have also the absolute right of patronage to offices in the case of all persons upon their first appointment to the service. With these privileges, I cannot but consider that the Court in whom the government of India is vested, subject to the control of the Board, have still great power.

193. Can you state what the amount of patronage is, and in whom it is vested?

I presume this question refers to the home patronage: since the Act of 1834 there have been 642 civil appointments, 5,146 cadetships, 798 medical appointments of assistant surgeons, and 168 Indian navy appointments; the average has been 35 civil appointments, 286 cadetships, 44 assistant surgeons, and nine Indian navy appointments.

194. In whom is that patronage vested?

When the number of appointments to be made in the year is determined upon, that number is divided into 28 portions. Two of those portions go to the Chairman, two to the Deputy Chairman, one to each of the other 22 Directors, and two to the President of the India Board.

195. Is that exercise of patronage by the President of the Board of Control a matter of right, or a matter of favour?

It is a matter of courtesy.

196. Are the civil, military and medical appointments all grouped together, so as to make one gross number of appointments?

No, they are separated; and the division and allotments are of each class.

197. You have stated that the Court of Directors have power of making the first appointments; have they any power over the subsequent promotions, and if so, in what instances?

They have the power of appointing general officers on the staff for the Com

pany's

pany's army, the superintendent of the Indian navy, and the masters attendant in J. C. Melvill, Esq. Bengal and at Madras, and volunteers for the pilot service; they have also the 6th May 1852. power of appointing the law officers of the Government for each of the Presidencies, and chaplains to India; with those exceptions, the Court are precluded from interfering with appointments or promotions in India, except in any case in which they, with the Commissioners for the Affairs of India concurring, may think it necessary to interfere.

198. Have they not the power to appoint members of Council?

Yes, clearly they have the power to appoint the Governors, subject to the approbation of the Crown, and members of Council absolutely, except the Legislative Councillor, whose appointment must also be approved by the Crown.

199. Do not the Court of Directors sometimes make special appointments in India; for instance, were there not some officers sent out to superintend the cotton cultivation ?

Planters were obtained from America, in view to improve and extend cotton cultivation in India, and they were sent out from England in charge of an officer belonging to the Indian service; that was an exceptional case; there are also the assay-masters of the Mints, who are generally, but not always, selected from the services in India: they are appointed from this country, because it is necessary that they should qualify at the Royal Mint, or some other establishment for assaying in this country, so as to be able to produce proofs of competency for the office.

200. Then there are certain exceptional cases besides those that you have named, in which the Court of Directors do promote officers in India?

Occasionally; but I do not consider them as interfering with the general rule, which leaves all vacancies to be supplied by the local government, with the exceptions which have been stated.

201. In the case of the dismissal of any officer by the Indian Government, have the Court of Directors the power to order his reinstatement?

They have power to reinstate any officer, subject to the approval of the Board. 202. Do they frequently exercise that power?

Occasionally, but not frequently.

203. But in those cases the consent of the Board of Control is requisite ? It is.

204. In the cases of other minor appointments they appoint without reference to the Board?

They do.

205. In your enumeration of the powers of the Directors, you omitted to name that of appointing the Governor-general?

The Court of Directors have the power of naming persons for the high offices of Governor-general, Governors, Commanders-in-chief and Legislative Members of Council; all which appointments require the sanction of the Crown to give them validity, and that sanction is countersigned by the President of the Board.

206. In the event of a nomination by the Court of Directors in which the Board of Control did not coincide, what would be the course pursued?

If the Court of Directors make a nomination to one of those offices, and receive a communication in reply that Her Majesty has not been pleased to approve of it, they must proceed to make another nomination.

207. In the event of the nomination of the Court of Directors not being agreed to by the Board of Control, what is the next step taken?

The Directors are required to make another nomination.

208. To what extent does that proceed; how long is that to go on? Practically, it never goes on beyond the period of two months; at the expiration of two months from the notification of the vacancy, if it has not been filled up by nomination on the part of the Court of Directors, then the Crown may appoint; but I apprehend that it would be considered that the Court of Directors had fulfilled their part of the law if they made the nomination within the two (88.2.)