Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-2n9c9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T16:43:25.684Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

John Stuart Mill and Royal India

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 January 2009

Robin J. Moore
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Though John Stuart Mill's long employment by the East India Company (1823–58) did not limit him to drafting despatches on relations with the princely states, that activity must form the centrepiece of any satisfactory study of his Indian career. As yet the activity has scarcely been glimpsed. It produced, on average, about a draft a week, which he listed in his own hand. He subsequently struck out items that he sought to disown in consequence of substantial revisions made by the Company's directors or the Board of Control. He also listed items that achieved publication (mostly only in part) as parliamentary papers and they amount to about ten per cent of his drafts. The two lists, published in the most recent volume of his Collected Works, reveal, at the least, the ‘political’ despatches from which he did not seek to dissociate himself. The despatches were not entirely his work and authorship in the conventional sense may not be assumed. They were the product of an elaborate process, in which many hands were engaged. At worst, they were his work in much the same way that an Act of Parliament is the work of the Crown Solicitor who drafts the bill. At best they were his as are the drafts of a civil servant who believes in policy statements that he prepares for his political masters. The greatest English philosopher and social scientist of the nineteenth century was, in his daily occupation, an employee. His Company was charged with initiating policies for the Indian states and they were subject to the control of a minister of the Crown.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Utilitas , Volume 3 , Issue 1 , May 1991, pp. 85 - 106
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1991

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1 See my ‘John Mill of John Company’, East India Company Studies: Papers Presented to Professor Sir Cyril Philips, ed. Ballhatchet, Kenneth and Harrison, John, Hong Kong, 1986, pp. 153–82.Google Scholar

2 Writings on India, ed., Robson, M., Moir, M. and Moir, Z., Toronto, 1990Google Scholar The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, xxx. 239–308.Google Scholar

3 See Moir, M., ‘Introduction’Google Scholar, ibid., pp. vii–liv; , M. and Moir, Z., ‘John Stuart Mill's Indian Despatches and the Problem of Bureaucratic Authorship’, unpublished conference paper, 1990Google Scholar; and Moir, M., ‘The Examiner's Office and the Drafting of East India Company Despatches’Google Scholar, Ballhatchet, and Harrison, , pp. 123–52.Google Scholar

4 See my ‘India and the British Empire’, British Imperialism in the Nineteenth Century, ed. Eldridge, C. C., London, 1984, pp. 64–84, esp. pp. 68–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5 Cited in Philips, C. H., The East India Company, 1784–1834, 2nd ed., Manchester, 1961, p. 240.Google Scholar

6 ibid., p. 241.

7 Mill, to Morley, John, 26 09 1866Google Scholar, Later letters, 1849–73, ed. Mineka, Francis E. and Lindley, Dwight N., 4 vols., Toronto and London, 1972Google Scholar, CW, xvi. 1202–3.Google Scholar

8 The Oxford History of India, ed. Spear, , 3rd ed., Oxford, 1958, p. 572.Google Scholar

9 Parliamentary Papers, 1831–1832Google Scholar, CW, xiv. 16 02 1832.Google Scholar

10 Mill, to Motley, John, 26 09 1866Google Scholar, CW, xvi. 1202–3.Google Scholar

11 Stokes, Eric, The English Utilitarians and India, London, 1959, p. 250.Google Scholar

12 Macnaghten, E. to Dalhousie, , 27 08 1855Google Scholar, Dalhousie Papers, Scottish Record Office, GD45/6/66.1 owe this reference to Kenneth Ballhatchet.

13 Autobiography and Literary Essays, ed. Robson, John M. and Stillinger, Jack, Toronto and London, 1981Google Scholar CW, i. 83.Google Scholar

14 Extract Political Letter to Bengal, , 9 11 1825Google Scholar, Parl.Pap., 1831–1932, xiv. 335–7.Google Scholar

15 The treaty and British relations with Oudh pursuant to it are discussed authoritatively by Pemble, John, The Raj, the Indian Mutiny and the Kingdom of Oudh, 1801–1859, London, 1977, esp. pp. 48–116Google Scholar, and Metcalf, Thomas R., Land, Landlords and the British Raj: Northern India in the Nineteenth Century, Berkeley, 1979, esp. pp. 17–43.Google Scholar

16 Political Despatch to Bengal, , 1 10 1828Google Scholar, E/4/723, India Office Library. Jumma =jama = full rent payable.

17 Political Despatch to India, 16 July (11), 1834, E/4/741.

18 Draft Despatch, 11 April (26), 1838, E/4/754.

19 See Wainwright, M. D., ‘Continuity in Mysore’Google Scholar, and Single, R. J., ‘Changing Attitudes to the Indian States, 1820–1850: a study of Oudh, Hyderabad and Jaipur’, Indian Society and the Beginnings of Modernization, c.1830–1850, ed. Philips, C. H. and Wainwright, M. D., London, 1976, pp. 165–85, and pp. 69–79.Google Scholar

20 Draft Despatch, 11 April (26), 1838, fos. 1004–52, paras. 2–20, approved by Court, 23 February 1838, altered by Board, 10 April 1838. As sent the despatch covered minor matters only, and a fresh despatch, embodying Mill's draft disallowing the proposed treaty, was prepared and sent (Political Despatch, 11 April (27), 1838).

21 For the successive rulers of Oudh see Metcalf, , Land, p. 20.Google Scholar

22 Political Despatch to India, 7 March (5), 1845, para. 7, E/4/782.

23 Political Despatch to India, 4 July (14), 1848, E/4/797.

24 For Mill's responses to Sleeman's report, see Political Despatches, 16 January (3), 1850, and 16 July (26), 1851, E/4/803, 810. Sleeman in Oudh: An Abridgement of W.H. Sleeman's A Journey through the Kingdom of Oudh in 1849–50, ed. Reeves, P. D., Cambridge, 1971.Google Scholar

25 Political Despatch to India, 21 November (33), 1855, Parl.Pap., 1856, xlv. 233–6.Google Scholar

26 Essays on Equality, Law, and Education, ed. Robson, John M., Toronto and London, 1984Google Scholar, CW, xxi. 109–24, esp. 118–21.Google Scholar

27 ibid. In his essay, ‘Civilization’ (London and Westminster Review, 04 1836Google Scholar), Mill argued that ‘none but civilized nations have ever been capable of forming an alliance. The native states of India have been conquered by the English one by one’.

28 Extract Political Letter to Bengal, , 26 11 1828Google Scholar, Parl.Pap., 1831–1832Google Scholar, CW xiv 340.Google Scholar

29 Extract Political Letter to Bengal, , 1 02 1832Google Scholar, ibid., 346.

30 Extract Political Letter to Fort St. George, 6 March 1833, ibid., 348.

31 Political Letter to Bombay, 30 December (2), CW, 1842Google Scholar, Parl.Pap., 1850Google Scholar, CW, xli 216–17.Google Scholar

32 Political Letter to Bombay, 15 May 1841, Parl.Pap., 1850, xli.Google Scholar CW, 214–5.Google Scholar

33 Political Letter to Bombay, 24 January 1849, Parl.Pap., 1849Google Scholar, CW, xxxix. 150–1.Google Scholar

34 Political Letter to India, 2 August 1854, Parl.Pap., 1854–1855Google Scholar, CW, xl. 49–50.Google Scholar

35 Metcalfe's Minute of 28 October 1837, ‘relative to the Right of the Native Princes of India to adopt Heirs, in failure of Heirs of their own Body’, Parl.Pap., 1849Google Scholar, CW, xxxix. 135–6.Google Scholar

36 e.g. H. St. G. Tucker and John Shepherd, ibid., 273 ff.

37 Low's Minute of 10 February 1854, Parl.Pap., 1854, xlviii. 355–67.Google Scholar

38 Zastoupil, Lynn, ‘J.S. Mill and India’, Victorian Studies, 32 (1), Autumn 1988, 31–54.Google Scholar

39 Wood, John R., ‘Rajkot: Indian Nationalism in the Princely Context: the Rajkot Satyagraha of 1938–9’, People, Princes and Paramount Power: Society and Politics in the Indian Princely States, ed. Jeffrey, Robin, Delhi, 1978, p. 241.Google Scholar

40 Jeffrey, , ‘Introduction’Google Scholar, ibid., p. 7.

41 Copland, Ian, The British Raj and the Indian Princes: Paramountcy in Western India, 1857–1930, London, 1982, p. 18.Google Scholar

42 ‘J.S. Mill and India’, 42.Google Scholar

43 Draft letter to Bombay, 20 July (7), 1830, E/4/1052, as cited by Zastoupil.

44 In Parl.Pap., 1831–1832Google Scholar, CW, xiv. 341–3Google Scholar, the extract from the despatch (20 July 1830) is erroneously described as ‘from’ instead of ‘to’ Bombay.

45 Board's Secret Drafts, 4 September 1830, as paraphrased, cited and discussed by Philips, C. H., East India Company, p. 273.Google Scholar

46 ibid., p. 278.

47 See n. 14.

48 Mill, to Maine, , 1 01 1869Google Scholar, Essays on Politics and Society, ed. Robson, John M., London and Toronto, 1977Google Scholar, CW, xvii. 1536–9.Google Scholar

49 ‘Maine on Village Communities’ (1 05 1871)Google Scholar, Writings on India, CW, xxx. 213–28.Google Scholar

50 Mill, to Dilke, C. W., 9 02 1869Google Scholar, Essays on Politics and Society, CW, xvii. 1559–63.Google Scholar

51 Mill, to Maine, , 1 01 1869.Google Scholar

52 Political Despatch to India, 20 September 1837, Parl.Pap., 1839Google Scholar, CW, xl. 265–7.Google Scholar

53 Political Letter to India, 26 October 1853, General Report of the Administration of the Punjab for the Years 1849–50 and 1850–51, London, 1854, pp. v–viGoogle Scholar; Bibliography of the Published Writings of John Stuart Mill, ed. MacMinn, N., Hainds, J. R. and McCrimmon, J. McN., Evanston, 1945, p. 87.Google Scholar

54 Evidence to Select Committee.

55 Writings on India, CW, xxx. 91–160.Google Scholar

56 ibid., 75–89.

57 Mill, to Dilke, , 9 02 1869.Google Scholar

58 Mill, to Morley, , 26 09 1866.Google Scholar

59 See n. 55.

60 In 1836 Mill's draft rejecting Macaulay's ‘Anglicist’ education policy was overruled by Sir John Hobhouse at the Board of Control. See my ‘John Mill of John Company’, pp. 154–7Google Scholar, and Zastoupil, Lynn, ‘J.S. Mill's Education and the Education of India’Google Scholar, in this edition of Utilitas.

61 Mill's draft, as cited in , M. and Moir, Z., ‘John Stuart Mill's Indian Despatches’.Google Scholar The Moirs note the Board of Control's changes to the argument of Mill's draft. See my Sir Charles Wood's Indian Policy, 1853–66, Manchester, 1966Google Scholar, which reveals the President of the Board's concern for the effect of annexing Karauli upon ‘Other Rajpoot states’ (pp. 16–4).

62 ‘Introduction’, Writings on India, CW, xxx. p. liv.Google Scholar

63 Jeffrey, , People, pp. 7–10.Google Scholar

64 See my ‘John Mill of John Company’, pp. 164–5.Google Scholar

65 See Copland, Ian, The British RajGoogle Scholar, and ‘The Other Guardians: Ideology and Performance in the Indian Political Servic’, Jeffrey, , People, pp. 275–305, esp. p. 285.Google Scholar