Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-vsgnj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-18T23:15:06.889Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Between Mars and Mammon; the East India Company and Efforts to Reform its Army, 1796–1832

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Douglas M. Peers
Douglas M. Peers
Affiliation:
University of Calgary
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The history of the East India Company's rule of India is marked by sporadic outbursts of civil-military conflict. It was not unknown in India for European officers to down tools and commit acts that bordered on outright mutiny. Perhaps this could be expected when, on the one hand, the Company, as a commercial body, sought to maximize its profits, while on the other, the army was essentially a mercenary force, ever grasping for a larger slice of the fiscal pie. If, however, we penetrate deeper into the labyrinth of their relations, we find that the issues at stake lose their simplicity. In the early nineteenth century, a third group came into play, further confusing the state of civil-military relations in India. The Anglo-Indian bureaucracy, which had incorporated military attitudes into the operating system of British India, had begun to assert itself. Through such spokesmen as Thomas Munro, John Malcolm, Charles Metcalfe and Mountstuart Elphinstone, an increasingly militarized rule of British India was put forward, angering the court of directors and allowing the officers to mask their private interest under the guise of the national interest. This ideology of militarism, however, must be firmly placed within the context of nineteenth-century British India for it bore little resemblance to those strains of militarism witnessed elsewhere.

Type
Articles
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 33 , Issue 2 , June 1990 , pp. 385 - 401
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Arnold, W. D., Oakfield or fellowship in the east (2 vols., London, 1973 edn), II, 120Google Scholar.

2 Elphinstone to Villiers, 19 Aug. 1832, in Colebrooke, T. E., Life of the Honourable Mountstuart Elphinstone (2 vols., London, 1884), II, 320Google Scholar.

3 Perlmutter, Amos and Bennett, Valerie Plave, (eds.), The political influence of the military (New Haven, 1980)Google Scholar.

4 Vagts, Alfred, A history of militarism; civilian and military (London, 1959), p. 13Google Scholar.

5 Janowitz, M., Military conflict (London, 1975), p. 59Google Scholar.

6 In an earlier article, Peers, Douglas M., ‘“He looked to India with Filial Affection”; the duke of Wellington and the administration of British India during the Liverpool administration, 1819 to 1827’, Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History, XVII (1988)Google Scholar, I have outlined how Wellesley was rather inconsequential in the formulation of this Indian point of view. Wellesley's ego certainly sparked the expansion, while his patronage guaranteed that his subordinates could articulate a theory that would explain how these territories were to be retained.

7 Stokes, Eric, The English Utilitarians and India (Oxford, 1959), pp. ix–xGoogle Scholar.

8 Malcolm, John, Political History of India from 1784 to 1823 (2 vols., London, 1826), II, 76Google Scholar.

9 Select Committee on the East India Company, (Parl. Papers, 1831/32, XIII), pp. 167–8.

10 Malcolm, , Political history, II, 208Google Scholar.

11 Cohn, Bernard S., ‘Representing authority in Victorian India’, in Hobsbawm, Eric and Ranger, Terence (eds), The invention of tradition (London, 1985), p. 173Google Scholar.

12 Huntington, Samuel, ‘The professional military ethic’, in Perlmutter, and Bennett, , The political influence of the military, p. 47Google Scholar.

13 ‘In the absence of differentiation between civil and military spheres of authority…armed forces are the synthesis and the purest image of the state’, Harries-Jenkins, Gwyn, ‘Legitimacy and the problem of order’, in Harries-Jenkins, Gwyn and van Doorn, Jacques (eds.), The military and the problem of legitimacy (London, 1976), p. 41Google Scholar.

14 Ravenshaw to Bentinck, 8 Aug. 1829, Nottingham, University archives, Bentinck papers, PwJf 1910.

15 Evidence of John Malcolm (P.P., 1831/32, XIII), p. 346.

16 Nottingham, Bentinck papers, Minute by Charles Metcalf, 11 Oct. 1829, PwJf 1522.

17 McCulloch, J. R., ‘Indian revenues’, Edinburgh Review, XLV (1827), 365Google Scholar.

18 Wellington to Melville, 13 March 1812, in Stocqueler, J. H., The Wellington manual (Calcutta, 1840), p. 5Google Scholar.

19 Razzell, P. E., ‘Social origins of officers in the Indian and British home army, 1758–1962’, British Journal of Sociology, XIV (1963), 249, 253Google Scholar.

20 Biographical information taken from: Dodwell, Edward and Miles, J. S., Alphabetical list of the officers of the Indian army, 1760–1837 (London, 1838)Google Scholar and Hodson, V. C. P., Officers of the Bengal army (4 vols., London, 1927–1947)Google Scholar.

21 See Taylor to Bathurst, 4 May 1825, London, Public Record Office (P.R.O.), CO. 323/202, fo. 39 for a table of the Order of the Bath. Indian army officers were only entitled to the two junior ranks and even then, they were only allowed fifty of the companion rank as compared to two hundred and fifty for the British army.

22 [AEO], United Services Journal, II (1831), 232Google Scholar.

23 Thackeray, William, The Newcomes (London, 1892), p. 728Google Scholar.

24 East Indian United Services Journal, I (1833), p. 264Google Scholar.

25 Stocqueler, J. H., The British officer (London, 1851), p. 284Google Scholar.

26 Example taken from staff salaries listed in S.C. on India (P.P., 1831/32, XIII), pp. 291–2.

27 Nottingham, , Bentinck papers, ‘Patronage of the British resident at Hyderabad’, 1 07 1820, PwJf 140Google Scholar. His counterpart in New South Wales could only expect to receive £278 for the whole year (P.P., 1835, VI), p. 92.

28 Arnold, , Oakfield I, 12Google Scholar.

29 Callahan, Raymond, The East India Company and army reform, 1783–1798 (Harvard, 1972), pp. 28–9Google Scholar. The most complete contemporary history of this was provided by Strachey, Henry, Narrative of the mutiny of the officers of the army in Bengal in the year 1766 (London, 1773)Google Scholar.

30 Callahan, , The East India Company, pp. 73–4Google Scholar.

31 The most complete study of the 1796 reforms is in ibid.

32 Ibid. pp. 148–55.

33 For example, a lieutenant in garrison (half batta) received monthly, Rs 60 pay, Rs 24 gratuity, Rs 50 tent allowance, Rs 30 house rent and Rs 60 half batta making a total of Rs 224. S.C. on India (P.P., 1831/32, XIII), pp. 501–2.

34 Callahan, , The East India Company, pp. 152–98Google Scholar.

35 Malcolm, J., Observations on the disturbances in the Madras army in 1809 (London, 1812)Google Scholar; the only recent study of this mutiny is the dated and narrative Cardew, Alexander, The white mutiny (London, 1929)Google Scholar.

36 Wynn to the duke of York, 25 Dec. 1823, London, India Office Records (I.O.R.), F/2/7, p. 207; Heber to Wynn, 1 March 1825, Heber, Reginald, Narrative of a journey through the upper provinces of India (2 vols., London, 1828), II, 374Google Scholar.

37 I.O.R., military letter to Bengal, 26 Feb. 1814, H/MISC/552, p. 337. Dum Dum, Allahabad and Tetalyah were included within these boundaries.

38 Ibid., military letter to Bengal, 5 May 1815, L/MIL/5/468.

39 Ramsay to Dalhousie, 18 Nov. 1824, Edinburgh, Scottish Record Office (S.R.O.), Dalhousie muniments, GD45/5/4.

40 I.O.R., Hastings to secret committee, 15 May 1815, L/MIL/5/401/197; Hastings to vice president in council, 31 May 1815, L/MIL/5/484.

41 Ibid., military letter to Bengal, 16 Apr. 1817, L/MIL/5/484.

42 Ibid., military dispatch to London, 10 Apr. 1817, L/MIL/5/386/98; minute by Hastings, 9 May 1816, L/MIL/5/484.

43 Ibid., military letter to Bengal, 25 Nov. 1823, L/MIL/5/468.

44 Ibid., Hastings to secret committee, 6 Jan. 1820, L/MIL/5/386/98.

45 Hastings, Francis Rawdon, marquess of Hastings, The private journal of the marquess of Hastings (2 vols., London, 1858), II, 113–14Google Scholar.

46 Ibid.; Hastings' point of view was elaborated in a private report prepared by his military secretary, Col. Young. See Col. Young's Report, 1820, London, B.L., Add. MS 38518, esp. fos. 10–11.

47 I.O.R., military letter to Bengal, 25 Nov. 1823, L/MIL/5/468.

48 Malcolm to Bentinck, 27 Nov. 1830, London, India Office Library (IOL), Bentinck papers, Eur. MS E424/4; ‘An old mulligatawny’, United Services Journal, II (1829), 755–6Google Scholar. The anonymous author of The subaltern's logbook (London, 1820)Google Scholar calculated that a subaltern on Rs 270 a month could expect to pay out Rs 251.

49 Jacquemont, Victor, Letters to India, 1829–1832 (London, 1936 edn), p. 22Google Scholar.

50 I.O.R., board of control, 18 July 1823, ‘Questions Relating to the Alleged Guarantee of the Army Arrangements of 1796’, L/MIL/5/483. In the Melville papers at the National Library of Scotland, there is a letter to John Shore which indicates that Dundas believed that his intervention amounted to a royal guarantee, Dundas to Shore, 24 Feb. 1795, Edinburgh, National Library of Scotland (N.L.S.), Melville papers, 1060, fos. 141–2.

51 I.O.R., military letter to Bengal, 25 Nov. 1823, L/MIL/5/392/139.

52 Ibid., unsigned memo, 1823, L/MIL/5/401/199.

53 Ibid., Draft instructions to Amherst, 10 March 1823, L/PS/5/585, no. 506.

54 S.R.O., Dalhousie muniments, Ramsay to Dalhousie, 18 Nov. 1824, GD45/5/4.

55 I.O.R., minute by Amherst, 11 June 1824, H/MISC/662/2, p. 1; military dispatch to court, 6 Nov. 1824, L/MIL/3/20.

56 Ibid., financial dispatch to court, 6 Feb. 1824, L/F/3/15.

57 Nottingham, Bentinck papers, Amherst to Bentinck, 7 March 1828, PwJf 125(a). The growth in the size of the staff corps had prompted special alarm. Although the total army in Bengal had fallen from 199,950 in 1814 to 194,865 in 1830, there had been an increase of 84 in staff posts, S.C. on India (P.P., 1831/32, XIII), pp. lxxix, 240. The ratio of field officers to subalterns had also grown from five for every forty in 1796 to three per seventeen in 1829. Memo by Ellenborough, 1829, London, Public Record Office (P.R.O.), Colchester papers, 30/9/4/3.

58 See for example Nottingham, Bentinck papers, T. C. Robertson, ‘State of the Bengal army’, PwJf 2584; Evidence of Major General Nicolls, Jasper, S.C. on India (P.P., 1831/1832, XIII), p. VGoogle Scholar. In his evidence before the committee, General Paget warned that ‘a sort of independence prevails amongst the officers, which is totally inconsistent with our ideas of military discipline’, ibid. p. 169.

59 Nottingham, Bentinck papers, Wyn n to Bentinck, 3 Nov. 1827, PwJf 2376; Whittingham to Bentinck, 11 March 1831, PwJf 2195.

60 Statistics taken from S.C. on India (P.P., 1831/32, XIII), p. 35; (P.P., 1831/32, X), Pt 1, p. ix.

61 Bearce, George, ‘Lord William Bentinck; the application of liberalism to India’, The Journal of Modern History, XXVIII (1956), 234–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

62 Rosselli, John, Lord William Bentinck; the making of a Liberal imperialist, 1774–1839 (London, 1974), passimGoogle Scholar. Rosselli places great emphasis on Bentinck's failure to command the allegiance of the authorities in London

63 Philips, C. H., ed., The correspondence of Lord William Cavendish Bentinck (2 vols., Oxford, 1977), I, xxii–xxiiiGoogle Scholar.

64 Rosselli, , Lord William Bentinck, p. 46Google Scholar.

65 I.O.L., Bentick papers, Bentinck to Wellington, 17 May 1830, Eur. MS E424/4; Nottingham, Bentinck papers, Bentinck, , ‘Memo on the Indian army’, 1827, PwJf 2863/1Google Scholar.

66 Nottingham, Bentinck papers, Bentinck to Ravenshaw, 17 Nov. 1832, PwJf 2685.

67 Ibid., ‘Indian army’, c. 1833, PwJf 2668.

68 General Sir Edward Barnes was recalled in 1833. See I.O.R., court to board, 25 Apr. 1833, L/MIL/5/407/262. Dalhousie's major argument with Bentinck was over Dalhousie's proposal to establish a convalescent depot for European troops at Chinsurah. Not only was Bentinck unwilling to consider it but it appears that his rejection of the idea was not very tactfully put. See S.R.O., Dalhousie muniments, Dalhousie to Hill, 10 May 1830, GD 45/5/25.

69 Ibid., Jeremiah Dickson to Dalhousie, 22 Oct. 1829, GD 45/5/28.

70 Henry Thoby Prinsep, a talented and influential member of the secretariat, was one key figure whom Bentinck immediately antagonized. See I.O.L., Prinsep's diaries, Eur. MS C97/2, especially p. 202.

71 Law, Edward, Ellenborough, Lord, A political diary (2 vols., London, 1881), II, 56Google Scholar.

72 The Times, 22 Oct. 1827.

73 Malcolm, , Observations, p. 48Google Scholar.

74 Nottingham, Bentinck papers, Ravenshaw to Bentinck, 1 Feb. 1830, PwJf 1913.

75 I.O.L., Bentinck papers, Bentinck to Wellington, 17 May 1830, Eur. MS E424/4.

76 Ibid., minute by Bentinck, 29 Nov. 1828, E424/2.

77 Ibid., Bentinck to Loch, 12 Aug. 1828, PwJf 1202.

78 Bentinck to Taylor, 14 Feb. 1829, Taylor, Herbert, The Taylor papers (London, 1913), p. 243Google Scholar.

79 Ellenborough, , 19 11 1829, Diary, II, 138Google Scholar; P.R.O., Colchester papers, Wellington to Ellenborough, 4 Sept. 1829, 30/9/4/1//2.

80 Nottingham, Bentinck papers, Whittingham to Bentinck, 18 Dec. 1832, PwJf 2254.

81 P.R.O., Colchester papers, Loch to Ellenborough, 13 Oct. 1829, 30/9/4/41.

82 Ibid., Wellington to Ellenborough, 17 Oct. 1829, 30/9/4/21.

83 Ibid., Loch to Ellenborough, 20 Oct. 1829, 30/9/4/41.

84 Combermere had first sparked Wellington's wrath when he criticized Amherst's conduct of the Burma War. See Wellington to Wynn, 4 Jan. 1827, university of Southampton, Wellington papers, WP1/881/5. Wellington and Ellenborough's decision to deny honours to Combermere is discussed in Ellenborough's, Diary, II, 283Google Scholar.

85 The Times, 5 Nov. 1829.

86 P.R.O., Colchester papers, Loch to Ellenborough, 27 Oct. 1829, 30/9/4/41.

87 Ibid., unsigned memo on reductions, 1829, 30/9/4/3.

88 S.C. on India (P.P., 1831/32, XIII), p. 280.

89 ‘they all thought it better to swallow his dinner than lose their commissions’, S.R.O., Dalhousie muniments. Note by Dalhousie, 16 Dec. 1830, GD 45/5/59; other insults are recorded in: Nottingham, Bentinck papers, memo by Bentinck, 1829, PwJf 2633.

90 The Times, 22 Oct. 1827.

91 See Ellenborough's, Diary, 16 12 1829, II, 149Google Scholar.

92 Nottingham, Bentinck papers, Ravenshaw to Bentinck, 10 Dec. 1831, PwJf 1924.

93 ‘Groans of the Bengal Army’, East Indian United Services Journal, II (1833), 483Google Scholar.

94 I.O.L., Bentinck papers, Bentinck to Col. J. Salmond, 6 July 1830, Eur. MS E424/4.