Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nmvwc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-02T23:20:34.745Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Bureaucracy and Ideology: Britain and India in the Nineteenth Century

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2009

E. T. Stokes
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Historians love to sail under bare poles with the spares tophamper of theoretical disquisition. Yet in the last resort their differences resolve themselves largely into differences of methodology, and nowhere more patently than in the history of bureaucracy where contingency and a priori ideas have long contested for the key position in historical explanation. This must be the excuse for an historian of colonial rule who finds himself driven to study the richer historiography of bureaucracy in metropolitan Britain and to trace out its movement with the simplicity of caricature before he can settle to his satisfaction the mechanics of historical causation in government house and secretariat.

Type
Research Article
Information
Transactions of the Royal Historical Society , Volume 30 , December 1980 , pp. 131 - 156
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Historical Society 1980

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 Dicey, A. V., Law and Opinion in England (London, 2nd edn., 1914), pp. 22 ff.Google Scholar

2 Ibid., p. 450 ff.

3 MacDonagh, O., A Pattern of Government Growth: The Passenger Acts and their Enforcement (London, 1961), p. 348.Google Scholar

4 Robinson, R. and Gallagher, J., ‘The Imperialism of Free Trade’, Econ. H. R., 2nd ser., vi (1) (1953).Google Scholar

5 See Parris, H., ‘The Nineteenth-Century Revolution in Government: A Reappraisal Reappraised’, Historical Journal, iii (1960).Google Scholar

6 On the support of Buller, Hume and other Radicals for the Opium Wars, see Semmel, B., The Rise of Free Trade Imperialism (Cambridge, 1970), p. 153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

7 See The Classical Economists and Economic Policy, ed. Coats, A. W. (London, 1971)Google Scholar; Great Britain and the Colonies, ed. Shaw, A. G. L. (London, 1970)Google Scholar; Halévy, E., La formation du radicalisme philosophique (Paris, 1904)Google Scholar; Redlich, J. and Hirst, F. W., Local Government in England (2 vols., London, 1903).Google Scholar

8 Supple, B., ‘Legislation and Virtue’, Historical Perspectives: Studies in English Thought and Society in Honour of J. H. Plumb, ed. McKendrick, N. (London, 1974), p. 212.Google Scholar

9 MacDonagh, O., ‘The Nineteenth-Century Revolution in Government: A Reappraisal’, Historical Journal, i (1958)Google Scholar; reprinted in The Victorian Revolution, ed. Stansky, P. (New York, 1973), p. 23.Google Scholar

10 MacDonagh, , Pattern of Government Growth, pp. 16–17.Google Scholar

11 Ibid., pp. 327, 344.

12 Robinson, R. and Gallagher, J., Africa and the Victorians (London, 1961), pp. 20–1.Google Scholar

13 Ibid., p. 19.

14 Ibid., p. 20.

15 Cf. Vincent, J., The Governing Passion: Cabinet Government and Party Politics in Britain, 1885–86 (London, 1974), pp. xiii–xivGoogle Scholar: ‘… all our evidence tends to show the rarity of contact between politicians and administrators, and the degree to which politicians lost interest in questions once they had turned from matters of cabinet antagonism into administrative grind.’

16 MacDonagh, O., Early Victorian Government, 1830–1870 (London, 1977), pp. 34 ff.Google Scholar

17 Finer, S. E., ‘The Transmission of Benthamite Ideas’, Studies in the Growth of Nineteenth-Century Government, ed. Sutherland, G. (London, 1972), p. 12.Google Scholar

18 Hilton, B., Corn, Cash, Commerce: The Economic Policies of the Tory Governments, 1815–1830 (Oxford, 1977), pp. 304–5.Google Scholar

19 Brown, L., The Board of Trade and the Free Trade Movement, 1830–42 (Oxford, 1958), p. 4Google Scholar; Hilton, , Corn, Cash, Commerce, p. 79.Google Scholar

20 Brown, , Board of Trade, p. 220.Google Scholar

21 Vincent, Even (Governing Passion, pp. 10, 18)Google Scholar allows that despite ‘the inner nihilism’ of party managers, the main actors were not necessarily always playing false, their ‘trades’ of ‘moral authority’ (Gladstone) or ‘intelligent traditionalism’ (Salisbury) also being ‘to some extent their genuine private selves’.

22 Cowling, M., The Impact of Hitler (Cambridge, 1975), p. 428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

23 Cf. MacDonagh, , Early Victorian Government, p. 9Google Scholar: ‘… taking a broad view of the period as a whole, we find that the initial waves of centralizing and administrative bustle in 1830–50 are followed by two decades of relative indifference and inaction.’

24 MacDonagh, , Pattern of Government Growth, p. 320Google Scholar; ‘Nineteenth-Century Revolution’, Victorian Revolution, ed. Stansky, , p. 6.Google Scholar

25 See Roberts, D., Victorian Origins of the British Welfare State (Yale, 1960), pp. 12 ff.Google Scholar; Lubenov, W. C., The Politics of Government Growth (Newton Abbot, 1971), p. 15.Google Scholar

26 Peacock, A. T. and Wiseman, J., The Growth of Public Expenditure in the United Kingdom (London, 1967), Table 1, p. 37Google Scholar; Mitchell, B. R. and Deane, P., Abstract of British Historical Statistics (Cambridge, 1962), pp. 396–7.Google Scholar

27 Parliamentary Papers, 1833, xxiii, 458–9Google Scholar; 1849, xxx, 163–6; 1854–5, xx 439. The figures are vitiated by the absence of a consistent scheme of classification.

28 Abramovitz, M. and Eliasberg, V. F., The Growth of Public Employment in Great Britain (Princeton, 1957), p. 17.Google Scholar

29 Ibid., p. 39. Figures of non-industrial civil servants for 1900, 1939 and 1955 are taken from Gladden, E. N., Civil Services of the U.K. 1853–1970 (London, 1967), Table I, p. 4.Google Scholar

30 Mitchell, and Deane, , British Historical Statistics, pp. 396, 410.Google Scholar

31 Ibid., pp. 397, 416.

32 Peacock, and Wiseman, , Growth of Public Expenditure, pp. 101, 108.Google Scholar

33 See Brundage, A., The Making of the New Poor Law (London, 1978), pp. 25 ff.Google Scholar; Levy, S. Leon, Nassau W. Senior, 1790–1864 (Newton Abbot, 1970), pp. 80 ff., 247, ff.Google Scholar

34 Finer, S. E., The Life and Times of Sir Edwin Chadwick (London, 1952), p. 43n.Google Scholar

35 S. and Webb, B., English Poor Law History. Part II: The Last Hundred Years, I (London, 1929), p. 32n.Google Scholar

36 Ibid., p. 72.

37 Finer, , Chadwick, pp. 91–2.Google Scholar On p. 18 he ascribes the statement to ‘1832 MSS’.

38 Edinburgh Review, xliii (1836), 520.Google Scholar

39 Finer, , Chadwick, p. 91.Google Scholar

40 Senior already appreciated these problems in January 1833, and re-emphasized them in 1846 (Levy, , Nassau W. Senior, pp. 260–1, 274 ff.).Google Scholar The arguments are repeated in the Poor Law Report (1834), pp. 179–80Google Scholar, cited by B. and Webb, S., English Poor Law History, I, pp. 74–5.Google Scholar

41 Cited by Finer, , Chadwick, p. 51.Google Scholar

42 Ibid., p. 79.

43 30 July 1833 (Hansard, XX, p. 176).Google Scholar

44 Poor Law Report (1834), pp. 296–7, 331Google Scholar; cited by B. and Webb, S., English Poor Law History, I, pp. 78–9, 82.Google Scholar

45 Chadwick, E., On the Evils of Disunity in Central and Local Administration … and also on the New Centralization for the People … (London, 1885).Google Scholar

46 Hart, J, ‘The Genesis of the Northcote-Trevelyan Report’, Growth of Nineteenth-Century Government, ed. Sutherland, p. 72.Google Scholar

47 MacDonagh, , ‘Nineteenth-Century Revolution’Google Scholar, cited in Victorian Revolution, ed. Stansky, , p. 24.Google Scholar

48 Chadwick, , On the Evils of Disunity, pp. 78–9.Google Scholar

49 Smith, J. Toulmin, Considerations in Respect to the Public Health Act, 1848 (printed for private use only, 03 1853: Cambridge University Library)Google Scholar; Centralization or Representation (1848)Google Scholar; Government by Commissions, Illegal and Pernicious (1849)Google Scholar; Local Self-Government and Centralization (1851).Google Scholar

50 Mill, J. S., Considerations on Representative Government (1861)Google Scholar, Collected Works, ed. Robson, J. M., XIX (Toronto and Buffalo, 1977), p. 544.Google Scholar

51 Mill, J. S., Centralisation (1862)Google Scholar, Collected Works, XIX, pp. 609–10.Google Scholar

52 MacDonagh, , Early Victorian Government, p. 20.Google Scholar

53 Ibid., pp. 169, 178 fr.

54 MacDonagh, , Pattern of Government Growth, pp. 348–9.Google Scholar

55 MacDonagh, , Early Victorian Government, p. 21.Google Scholar

56 Lambert, R., Sir John Simon, 1816–1904, and English Social Administration (London, 1963), p. 605 fr.Google Scholar

57 MacDonagh, , Pattern of Government Growth, pp. 347–8Google Scholar: ‘The mere fact that (speaking not loosely but exactly) a prototype of present-day government can be found in the 1850s is arresting.’ Cf. ibid., p. 345: ‘The more or less conscious Fabianism, which had growth up since 1842, was by then [the end of the 1840s] working itself out in modes of regulation which resemble, often astonishingly, our modern systems.’

58 See Thomas, W., The Philosophical Radicals (Oxford, 1979).Google Scholar

59 Hobsbawm, E. J., Industry and Empire (London, 1968), p. 148.Google Scholar

60 Robinson, and Gallagher, , ‘The Imperialism of Free Trade’Google Scholar, reprinted Great Britain and the Colonies, ed. Shaw, , p. 147.Google Scholar

61 Weber, M., General Economic History (New York, 1961), pp. 221–4Google Scholar; van Leur, J. C., Indonesian Trade and Society (The Hague, 1955).Google Scholar

62 Cited by Marshall, P. J., East Indian Fortunes (Oxford, 1976), pp. 180–1.Google Scholar

63 Speech on impeachment of Warren Hastings, 15 February 1788, cited by Chapman, G. W., Edmund Burke: The Practical Imagination (Cambridge, Mass., 1967), p. 253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

64 Roseveare, H., The Treasury (London, 1969)Google Scholar; Sutherland, L., The East India Company and Eighteenth-Century Politics (Oxford, 1952), p. 57.Google Scholar

65 Selections from the State Papers of the Governors-General of India: Lord Cornwallis, ed. Forrest, G. (Oxford, 1926), II, pp. 174–5Google Scholar; Aspinall, A., Cornwallis in Bengal (Manchester, 1931). pp. 81–2.Google Scholar

66 Selections from the State Papers, ed. Forrest, , pp. 95, 108.Google Scholar

67 Guha, Ranajit, A Rule of Properly for Bengal: An Essay on the Idea of Permanent Settlement (Paris and The Hague, 1963), pp. 170–1.Google Scholar

68 Aspinall, , Comwallis in Bengal, p. 81.Google Scholar

69 Selections from the State Papers, ed. Forrest, I, p. 123.Google Scholar

70 Regulation II, 1793 (cited by Stokes, E. T., The English Utilitarians and India (Oxford, 1959), p. 6).Google Scholar

71 For Munro, see Beaglehole, T. H., Thomas Munro and the Development of Administrative Policy in Madras, 1792–1818 (Cambridge, 1966), p. 28.Google Scholar See also Baden-Powell, B. H., The Indian Village Community (London, 1896), pp. 430 ff.Google Scholar

72 For the history of administrative developments, see Misra, B. B., The Central Administration of the East India Company 1773–1834 (Manchester, 1959), especially pp. 267 ff.Google Scholar

73 In 1827 the Court of Directors sent out orders to reduce expenditure to the 1823–4 standard (viz., pre-Burmese War). In two years Bentinck slashed expenditure from £18m to £16m (Chas. Grant, 13 June 1833 (Hansard, XVIII, p. 725)).Google Scholar

74 The Correspondence of Lord William Cavendish Bentinck, ed. Philips, C. H. (Oxford, 1977), II, p. 977.Google Scholar

75 The Correspondence of Lord William Bentinck, II, p. 1288.Google Scholar

76 See Ellenborough, to Bentinck, , 2 01 1830Google Scholar (Correspondence of Bentinck, ed. Philips, I, p. 380).Google Scholar

77 On Mackenzie's influence at the Board of Control, see Letters of T. B. Macaulay, ed. Pinney, T., II (Cambridge, 1974), pp. 266, 272, 274.Google Scholar

78 P.P., 1831–2, X, pt i, p. 18.

79 Cited by Stokes, , English Utilitarians and India, p. 152.Google Scholar

80 Ibid., p. 174; Rosselli, J., Lord William Bentinck (London, 1974), p. 323.Google Scholar

81 Cited by Hughes, E., ‘Civil Service Reform 1853–5’, History, n.s. xxvii (1942), 62.Google Scholar

82 Correspondence of Bentinck, ed. Philips, I, pp. 111 ff.Google Scholar

83 Evidence of Mill, James, 21 02 1832Google Scholar (P.P., 1831–2, X, pp. 42 fr.).

84 Hansard, XX, pp. 308 ffGoogle Scholar; XIX, pp. 667–71. Charles Buller cited Holt Mackenzie as a weighty authority for the abolition of councils at the subordinate presidencies.

85 See Black, R. D. Collison, Economic Thought and the Irish Question 1817–70 (Cambridge, 1960).Google Scholar

86 Ellenborough, to Bentinck, , 12 01 1830Google Scholar (Correspondence of Bentinck, ed. Philips, I, p. 382).Google Scholar

87 Bentinck's minute on steam navigation, 16 August 1830 (ibid., I, pp. 487–8). On the value of roads, see Bentinck to Loch, 12 August 1828 (ibid., I, pp. 60–1).

88 Moore, R. J., ‘Imperialism and “Free Trade” in India, 1835–4’, Econ. H. R., 2nd ser., xvii (1964), 135–45Google Scholar, and Sir Charles Wood's Indian Policy 1853–66 (London, 1966), ch. 7.Google Scholar

89 See Howlett, D. J., ‘Policy and Practice between Bentinck and Dalhousie: Public Works Policy’Google Scholar (unpublished paper in School of Oriental and African Studies Study Group on ‘Policy and Practice under Bentinck and Dalhousie’, 07 1978).Google Scholar

90 Cited P.P., 1852, X, p. 448.Google Scholar

91 Private Letters of the Marquess of Dalhousie, ed. Baird, J. G. A. (Edinburgh and London, 1910), pp. 284, 369Google Scholar; P.P. 1856, XLV, p. 113.Google Scholar

92 P.P., 1851–3, LXIX, p. 64; House of Lords Papers, 1857 (138); 1852 (105(e)).Google Scholar

93 Minute of Prinsep, H. T., 10 11, 1842Google Scholar (House of Lords Papers, 1852 (105(b))Google Scholar; Rosselli, , Bentinck, p. 202.Google Scholar

94 Cited by Stokes, , English Utilitarians and India, pp. 253–4.Google Scholar

95 Thomas, P. J., The Growth of Federal Finance in India (Madras, 1939), pp. 141 ff.Google Scholar; Moore, , Sir Charles Wood's Indian Policy, ch. 11.Google Scholar

96 Trevelyan's evidence, 7 July 1852 (P.P., 1852–1853, XXVIII, p. 490).Google Scholar See Minute of Trevelyan, 13 July 1859 (ibid., 1860, XLIX, p. 316).

97 P.P., 1873, XII, p. 98.Google Scholar

98 SirStrachey, John, India (1903 edn.), p. 115.Google Scholar

99 See Misra, B. B., The Administrative History of India, 1834–1947 (New Delhi, 1970), pp. 389–90.Google Scholar

100 Strachey, , India (1894 edn.), p. 63Google Scholar; ibid. (1903 edn.), p. 82. The Government of India laid down as official policy that the strength of the covenanted service was to be restricted to the numbers ‘absolutely necessary to fill the supervising and controlling offices for which Europeans are required’ (Memo, of Government of India to Secretary of State, i November 1892, para. 3 (P.P., 1894, LX, p. 71)).Google Scholar