Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T01:53:39.331Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Problem of Recruitment for the Indian Civil Service During the Late Nineteenth Century

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 March 2011

Bradford Spangenberg
Get access

Abstract

Historians have continued to view the Indian Civil Service (i.e., the British Indian bureaucracy or the “Covenanted Civil Service”) of the late nineteenth century as a highly popular and exclusive career for university-trained men in England. This is one specific aspect of the I.C.S. mydiology which views the nineteenth century British administrators in India as a superior body of highly efficient administrators. The sources, however, do not support the notions of exdusiveness and popularity. Even in the early years of the competition system, inaugurated in 1855, the caliber and educational background of the candidates failed to reach the high expectations of the Civil Service Commissioners. In the years between 1855 and 1874, both the number of nonuniversity candidates and nonuniversity recruits increased steadily. By 1874, nonuniversity men constituted over 74 percent of the competition candidates and approximately 55 percent of the selected recruits. In the same period, the representation of the Great English universities (Oxford and Cambridge) in the competition fell dramatically. Oxbridge students took 60 percent of the available positions in 1858, but only 18 percent of those offered in 1871. A disappointed British aristocracy (i.e., ruling class) became increasingly critical and apprehensive as to the future of the service. The secretary of state for India instituted a new system of recruitment in 1876, lowering the age limit for examination to 19 in hopes that the best students from the public schools would seek admittance. According to eminent spokesmen, such as Benjamin Jowett and Lord Ripon, the Viceroy Salisbury's reforms proved unsuccessful. The better students did not enter die competition, and a majority of the candidates came from unpretentious social and educational backgrounds. Authorities introduced other devices diroughout the remainder of the century to improve recruitment, but none achieved any improvement.

The reasons for the relative unpopularity of the I.C.S. careers were legion and included a complex mixture of the following factors: arrogant criticism voiced by the aristocracy concerning alleged low social origins of the civilian recruits; the general stigma attached to any close connection with India among the British aristocracy; the several and increasing grievances of the civilians, which the aristocratic ruling class did little to ameliorate; the pressures of Indian educated elements for employment in the I.C.S.; the declining value of the rupee; the widening spheres of professional employment in England; and what may be called the “natural” disadvantages of an Indian career.

Type
Articles
Information
The Journal of Asian Studies , Volume 30 , Issue 2 , February 1971 , pp. 341 - 360
Copyright
Copyright © The Association for Asian Studies, Inc. 1971

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 The term “Covenanted Civil Service” emerged Induring the administration of Lord Cornwallis in the late eighteenth century as a result of the covenants rendered by British Indian administrators with the East India Company. During the first half of the nineteenth century, from 1813, the title was reserved for the graduates of Haileybury College, the training school operated by the East India Company. After 1855, it was applied to the successful candidates of the competitive examinations which replaced Haileybury in the program of recruitment. This body of men, numbering between 900 and 1000 at any one time, was almost exclusively British. While Indians were not technically excluded from the competition in London, the obstacles to their candidacy were so great that by 1888, only twelve Indians had entered the covenanted service. Indians who manned the lower echelons of the administration were called “un-covenanted servants.” After 1892, they belonged to what was known as the Subordinate Civil Service. As a consequence of the Public Service Commission of 1886–87, the government attempted to replace the term covenanted service with the phrase “The Civil Service of India.” But British officials still found it convenient to speak of themselves as covenanted servants vis-à-vis the subordinate Indian services.

2 For examples of these assumptions, see the following: Woodruff, Philip, The Guardians, Vol. II of The Men who Ruled India (London: Jonathan Cape, 1954), 79Google Scholar; (Woodruff makes the blanket statement that recruits were university men and usually classical scholars.); Strachey, John, The End of Empire (New Delhi: The Publications Division of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting of the Government of India, 1962Google Scholar; reprint of first edition), p. 61; Moore, R. J., Liberalism and Indian Politics; 1872–1922 (London: Edward Arnold, 1966), p. 12Google Scholar; O'Malley, L. S. S., the Indian Civil Service; 1601–1932 (London: Frank Cass and Co. Ltd., 1965 edition), pp. 238–257Google Scholar; Reader, William J., Professional Men; The Rise of the Pronamed fessional Classes in Nineteenth-Century England (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1966), pp. 93 and 186Google Scholar; Mr. Reader refuses to believe that the I.C.S. could have been unpopular in England; statements to the contrary are regarded by Mr. Reader as misjudgments.

3 Some interesting examples of these distortions are cited by L. S. S. O'Malley, The Indian Civil Service; 1601–1932, pp. 173 f. (O'Malley, however, does not view them as distortions.)

4 Curzon quoted in the Earl of Ronaldshay, The Life of Lord Curzon (London: Ernest Benn, Ltd., 1928) Vol. II, pp. 3Google Scholar ff; but in the same book, see pp. 62 ff, e.g., for citations of Curzon's earlier criticisms of the I.C.S.

5 Mr. Maitland to Mr. Plowden, Civil Service Commission, 1 Sept. 1858, Fourth Report of the Civil Service Commissioners (London, 1859), p. 228Google Scholar.

6 Ibid., p. 231.

7 L. S. S. O'Malley, The Indian Civil Service, p. 243f; and Fourth Report of the Civil Service Commissioners, p. 231.

8 Fourth Report, p. 232.

9 Eleventh Report of the Civil Service Commissioners (London, 1866), p. 225Google Scholar.

10 Article II, The Edinburgh Review, CXXXIX (April 1874), p. 336.

11 “Aristocratic opinion” may be defined as coterminous with the views of those who dominated British political life in the late nineteenth century. These men included the peerage, the landed gentry, and to a lesser extent industrial and commercial dynasties. J. P. Cornford, in his essay titled “The Parliamentary Foundations of the Hotel Cecil,” has shown that these groups were dominant among the ruling Conservative Party M.P.'s during the period 1885–1905: Peerage, 99 (14%); Gentry, 179 (25%); Industrial-Commercial dynasties and wealthy entrepreneurs, 154 (22%). Men of the nineteenth century may have cited only peers and gentry in their own definition of the aristocracy, but since wealthy industrialists and commercialists had come to play an increasingly important role in political life alongside the landed elements, it would be safe for our purpose to include them in the highest social classification. It is clear from available correspondence and other material that all these groups had a strong tendency to think disparagingly both of India and of the Englishmen who ruled it. When speaking of the aristocracy's attitude toward the I.C.S., this essay refers specifically to the recorded opinions of spokesmen from these social groups.

See Cornford, J. P., “The Parliamentary Foundations of the Hotel Cecil,” in Ideas and Institutions of Victorian Britain, ed. Robson, Robert (London: G. Bell and Sons, Ltd., 1967), p. 277Google Scholar.

12 See quotation from testimony of John Stuart Mill before a Parliamentary Committee, quoted in Hutchins, Francis G., The Illusion of Permanence; British Imperialism in India (Princeton University Press, 1967), p. 89ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13 Compton, J. M., “Open Competition and the Indian Civil Service, 1854–1876,” The English Historical Review, 83 (April 1968), p. 28Google Scholar.

14 See memoranda and statistics relating to the system of selection and training for the I.C.S., Government of India (hereafter cited G.O.I.), Home Department, Public Branch, A Proceedings, ‣202–202a, June 1875, ‣202a, National Archives of India (hereafter cited as N.A.I.).

15 See statement of SirWood, Charles quoted in J. M. Compton, “Open Competition and the Indian Civil Service,” The English Historical Review, 83 (April 1968), p. 270Google Scholar.

16 See Reports of the Civil Service Commissioners, 1856–187;. The higher recruitment figures of 1860 to 1863 require explanation, and give opportunity to remark concerning possible effects of the 1857–58 Mutiny on the competition. The Mutiny does not appear to have had any direct or depressing effect on the competition (note the higher numbers of both university and nonuniversity competitors in the years 1859–63); but it did create vacancies for which the commissioners attempted to compensate through expanded recruitment. The additional openings apparently encouraged more nonuniversity men to enter competition. Their share increased both in their percentage of candidates (10.4% in 1859 to 43.9% in 1863) and in their total number of participants (7 in 1859 to 83 in 1863). While the total of university competitors rose somewhat in these same years, their percentage actually decreased in rather dramatic fashion (see table on page 345). The failure to achieve broader university participation in the years of high recruitment indicates the limited base of appeal among students. It is possible that the experience of competition with nonuniversity men may have limited the appeal even further. By the last year of the expanded recruitment (1863) there was a noticeable drop in recruits from Oxford and Cambridge, while the number of nonuniversity men reached a new high. In short, it might be concluded that the expanded possibilities created by the Mutiny may have been one of the prime catalysts encouraging middle-class families to place their nonuniversity sons in the competition. These young men proved to be formidable competitors; and this, by the 1870's, may have been one of the considerations deterring more sophisticated young men at the universities from the competition.

17 See Fourth Report of the Civil Service Commission, 1859, p. 339.

18 See J. M. Compton, op. cit., p. 271.

19 See Fourth Report of the Civil Service Commission, 1859, p. 332 f.; Fifth Report, 1860; Appointment of 23 gendemen to the Bengal Civil Service, G.O.I., Home, Public, B, ‣33–37, 5 Dec. 1868, ‣34, N.A.I.; Appointment of 25 gentlemen to Bengal Civil Service, G.O.I., Home, Public, B, ‣323–325, 20 Nov. 1869, ‣324, N.A.I.; New Appointments to the Bengal Civil Service, G.O.I., Home, Public, ‣290–293, Oct., 1872, ‣291, N.A.I.; Sixteenth Report of Civil Service Commission, 1871, p. 464 f.

20 See statement of Sir Charles Wood quoted in J. M. Compton, op. cit., p. 270.

21 See Schools and Colleges attended by the Candidates selected in 1866 and Distinctions obtained by them, in G.O.I., Home, Public, B, ‣33–37, 5 Dec. 1868, ‣34, N.A.I.; Tables of schools and colleges, etc., of candidates selected in 1867 and certified by the Civil Service Commissioners in 1969, G.O.I., Home, Public, B, ‣323–325, 20 Nov. 1869, ‣324, N.A.I.

22 Memoranda and statistics relating to the system of selection and training for I.C.S., G.O.I., Home, Public, A, ‣202–202a, June, 1875, ‣202a, N.A.I.

23 Luttman-Johnson, Memorandum on the I.C.S., in Papers Relating to the Selection and Training of Candidates for the Indian Civil Service (Calcutta: Office of the Superintendent of Government Printing, 1876), p. 407. (Hereafter cited as Papers Relating to (he I.C.S.)

24 Article II, Edinburgh Review, CXXXIX (April 1874), p. 337.

25 C. L. Tupper to the Secretary to Government of Punjab, 24 July 1875, in Papers Relating to the I.C.S., p. 282.

26 Benjamin Jowett, Master of Balliol College, to Sec. of State, 27 Dec. 1874, Papers Relating to I.C.S., p. 11.

27 O'Malley, The Indian Civil Service, p. 245.

28 “The Old Reproach,” letter to editor by Henry Palin Gurney, London, 17 March 1892, The Oxford Magazine, X (March 23, 1892), p. 271.

29 Singh, Hira Lai, Problems and Policies of the British in India, 1885–1898 (London: Asia Publishing House, 1963), p. 28Google Scholar.

30 Jowett to Ripon, undated (Oct.-Nov. 1882), in G.O.I., Home, Public, A, ‣86–92, Oct. 1883, N.A.I.

31 Ibid.

32 Ibid.

33 Ripon to Harrington, Calcutta, 4 Dec. 1882, Ripon Papers, I.S. 290, Vol. 5, ‣ 74, British Museum; for comments of others who believed the I.C.S. was losing ground under Salisbury's regulations, see the Earl of Northbrook to Ripon, Stratton, 29 Dec. 1882, Ripon Papers, I.S. 290, Vol. 7, ‣159; note by E. Baring, 6 Aug. 1883, in file on the maximum limit of age of candidates for the Covenanted Civil Service, G.O.I., Home, Public, A, ‣86–92, Oct. 1883, N.A.I.; note by C. P. Ilbert, 3 Sept. 1883, Ibid.

34 Note by W. C. Bennett, Secretary to Government, North-Western Provinces,Proceedings of the Public Service Commission, 1886–87 (Calcutta: Superintendent of Government Printing, 1888) Vol. II, p. 9Google Scholar.

35 Sir C. A. Elliott, Public Works Member of the Viceroy's Council, to Sir Donald Mackenzie Wallace, Private Sec. to Viceroy, Simla, 3 May 1888, Dufferin, microfilm, correspondence with people in India, 1888, ‣520.

36 Sir A. Godley, Under-Secretary of State for India, to Mr. Courthope, Civil Service Commissioner, India Office, 23 August 1889, Godley Papers, India Office Library (I.O.L.).

37 Godley to Benjamin Jowett, India Office, 13 March 1889, Godley Papers, I.O.L.

38 Godley to Lord Lansdowne, India Office, 3 Nov. 1893, Lansdowne Papers, Vol. 5, ‣145; Lansdowne to Godley, Viceroy's Camp, Mysore, 17 Nov. 1892, Godley Papers, I.O.L.

39 See Reports of the Civil Service Commissioners (1882–1905); see also A. Mackenzie, Secretary to Government of India in the Home Department, to H. W. Primrose, Private Sec. to Viceroy, Simla, 27 Sept. 1883, Ripon Papers, I.S. 290, Vol. 8, ‣131.

40 Oxford Magazine, XI (Feb. 15, 1893), p. 218.

41 “The Home Civil Service,” Oxford Magazine, XIII (7 Nov. 1894), p. 59Google Scholar.

42 “The Home and Indian Civil Service Examination,” Oxford Magazine, XIV (Oct. 30, 1895), p. 41Google Scholar.

43 “The Civil Service Competition of 1897,” Oxford Magazine, XV (Nov. 3, 1897), p. 47 fGoogle Scholar.

44 SirO'Dwyer, Michael, India as I Knew It (London: Constable and Co., 1925), p. 24Google Scholar.

45 Lytton to the Queen, Suez, 25 March 1875, Lytton Papers, Vol. I, India Office Library. (Lytton expresses agreement with the Prince. Written before Lytton's arrival in India as Viceroy, this letter clearly belies Lytton's later statement that he had not come to India with any preformed bias against the convenanted civil service; that he had come “with the most profound respect for [its] reputation” Lytton to Stephen, Simla, 29 May 1867, Stephen Correspondence, microfilm, N.A.I.)

46 Hamilton to Curzon, Deal Castle, 31 Aug. 1899, Hamilton Papers, Vol. I, ‣ 35.

47 Lytton to Stephen, Simla, 29 May 1877, Stephen Correspondence, microfilm, N.A.I.

48 Stephen to Lytton, London, 16 March 1876; see also Stephen to Lytton, London, 24 June 1876, Stephen Correspondence.

49 Stephen to Lytton, London, 7 May 1876, Stephen Correspondence.

50 See, e.g., the following: Ripon to Lord Kimberley, Simla, 26 April 1884, Ripon Papers, I.S. 290, Vol. 5, ‣ 2 5; see also Ripon to Kimberley, Simla, 13 June 1884, Ibid., ‣ 33; Dufferin to Viscount Cross, Simla, 3 Sept. 1886, Dufferin Papers, Correspondence with Secretary of State, 1886, ‣ 39, microfilm, N.A.I.; Dufferin to Kimberley, Simla,

26 April 1886, Ibid., ‣ 17; Dufferin to Kimberley, Simla, 24 Aug. 1886, Ibid., ‣ 3 6; Lord Lansdowne to Lord Cross, Calcutta, 2 April 1889, Lansdowne Papers, Vol. 9, ‣ 20, N.A.I.; see also Lansdowne to Cross, Simla, 23 Sept. 1890, Ibid., ‣ 4 1.

51 Curzon to Hamilton, Calcutta, 6 March 1902, Hamilton Papers, Vol. 22, ‣ 10, I.O.L.

52 Hamilton to Curzon, India Office, 2 April 1901, Hamilton Papers, Vol. 3, ‣ 13.

53 Hamilton to Curzon, India Office, 27 July 1900, Hamilton Papers, Vol. 2, ‣ 32; see also Hamilton to Curzon, India Office, 15 Nov. 1900, Hamilton Papers, Vol. 2, ‣ 50.

54 Sir A. Mackenzie, Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal, to Lord Elgin, Belvedere, Calcutta, 14 Dec. 1896, Elgin Papers, Vol. 69, ‣ 286, I.O.L.

55 A. P. MacDonnell to Lansdowne, Darjeeling, 29 Oct. 1893, MacDonnell Papers, the Bodleian Library, Oxford University.

56 Ripon to Kimberley, Simla, 23 April 1883, Ripon Papers; I.S. 290, Vol. 5, ‣ 36.

57 Morley to Minto, India Office, 1 April 1910, Morley Collection, A5, I.O.L.

58 Lytton to Marquis of Salisbury, Simla, 28 Sept. 1876, Lytton Papers; similar opinions were expressed by Hamilton and Curzon; see, e.g., Hamilton to Curzon, India Office, 1 May 1902, Hamilton Papers, Vol. 4, ‣ 18.

59 Hamilton to Curzon, Deal Castle, 27 Aug. 1902, Hamilton Papers, Vol. 4, ‣35.

60 Hamilton to Curzon, India Office, 8 Oct. 1902, Hamilton Papers, Vol. 4, ‣ 41.

61 Morley to Minto, India Office, 10 Sept. 1908, Morley Papers, A3.

62 Morley to Minto, India Office, 21 May 1908, Morley Papers, Ibid.

63 Morley to Minto, India Office, 6 June 1906, Morley Papers, AI.

64 See Sir Mortimer Durand to Lord Lansdowne, Indiki, 8 Oct. 1895, Lansdowne Papers, Vol. VII, ‣342.

65 Sir Fitzjames Stephen to Lord Lytton, London, 28 Oct. 1878, Stephen Correspondence.

66 Hamilton to Curzon, India Office, 6 Aug. 1903, Hamilton Papers, Vol. 5, ‣ 31.

67 C. H. T. Crosthwaite to C. P. Ilbert, Edinburgh, 13 May 1886, Ilbert Papers, I.O.L.

68 The Bengal Civil Service; a Chapter of Indian Experiences (London: W. O. Walbrook, 1875), p. 104. [written anonymously]Google Scholar

69 Carstairs, Robert, The Little World of an Indian District Officer (London: Macmillan and Co. Ltd., 1912), p. 4Google Scholar.

70 Maconochie, Evan, Life in the Indian Civil Service (London: Chapman and Hall, Ltd., 1926), p. 13Google Scholar.

71 SirO'Dwyer, Michael, India as I Knew It (London: Constable and Co., 1925), p. 20Google Scholar and 23; see also Lord Wenlock, Governor of Madras, to Lansdowne, Guindy, 4 March 1893, Lansdowne Papers, Vol. 7, ‣216.

72 Article in the Daily Telegraph, London, 30 June 1875, quoted in “Opinions of the Press on the Report of the Debate on the I.C.S. in the House of Commons of June 29,” G.O.I., Home, Public, A, ‣ 192, Feb. 1876, N.A.I.

73 R. M. King, Deputy Commissioner, Fyzabad, to the Officiating Sec. to the Chief Commissioner, Oudh, 5 July 1875, in Papers Relating to I.C.S., p. 333; The Bengal Civil Service; A Chapter of Indian Experiences, p. 24; see also references in Beames, John, Memoirs of a Bengal Civilian (London: Chatto and Windus, 1961)Google Scholar, and many others.

74 Memorandum by T. J. Chichele Plowden, 8 June 1875, in Papers Relating to l.C.S., p. 442.

75 Note of T. C. Mackenzie, Acting Chief Sec. in the Revenue, Financial, and General Dept., Bombay, Proceedings of the Public Service Commission, Vol. 4, Section 4, p. 80.

76 Note by T. C. Hope, 16 Nov. 1881, in file concerning indent for civilian recruits from home, G.O.I., Home, Public, A, ‣106–155, June 1882, ‣139, N.A.I.

77 Elsmie, G. R., Thirty-Five Years in the Punjab; 1858–1893 (Edinburgh: David Douglas, 1908), p. 186Google Scholar.

78 See, e.g., Memorial of E. J. Barton, Magistrate and Collector of Jessore, 30 June 1884, G.O.I., Home, Public, A, ‣103–141, June 1885, ‣127, N.A.I.

79 See, e.g., Davis, J. S. C., Bengal Civil Service, “Oxford and the Indian Civil Service,” Oxford Magazine, X (March 2, 1892), p. 208Google Scholar.

80 See, e.g., Memorial of Frederick Beatson Taylor, Officiating Joint Magistrate, 20 July 1884, Ibid., ‣133: “[It is ] incumbent on the Indian Government to offer some corresponding advantages of a pecuniary nature [to balance the detractions], if it wishes to enlist good men for its service.”

81 Financial Despatch to India, ‣ 91, 15 March 1877, G.O.I., Home, Public, B, ‣242–243, July 1877, ‣242, N.A.I.

82 Financial Despatch to India, ‣ 101, 31 March 1887, G.O.I., Home, Public, B, ‣73–75. Sept. 1887, ‣ 74, N.A.I.

83 Note by A. P. MacDonnell, Home Secretary, 28 May 1887, Ibid.

84 Financial Despatch from India, ‣187, 23 July 1887, Ibid., ‣ 75.

85 Resolution of the Government of India, 18 Aug. 1893, enclosure to Financial Despatch from India, ‣312, Financial Letters from India, Vol. 178, 1893, I.O.L.

86 Elgin to Hamilton, Simla, 28 July 1896, Elgin Papers, Vol. 14, ‣ 30; see also Elgin to Hamilton, Simla, I June 1897, Ibid., Vol. 15, ‣ 25.

87 Elgin to Hamilton, Simla, 5 May 1898, Ibid., Vol. 16, ‣ 22.

88 D. R. Lyall to Col. J. C. Ardagh, Private Sec. to Viceroy, Calcutta, 29 Aug. 1892, Lansdowne Papers, Vol. 7, ‣ 182.

89 Hamilton to Elgin, India Office, 9 July 1896, Elgin Papers, Vol. 14, ‣ 39; sec also Col. J. C. Ardagh, Private Sec. to Viceroy, to Lansdowne, Carlsbad, 7 June 1892, Lansdowne Papers.

90 Civil Service Regulations, The India List for 1896 (London: Harrison and Sons, 1896), p. 210Google Scholar.

91 See relevant volumes of the India List.

92 Hamilton to Curzon, Dalkeith, N.B., 14 Jan. 1903, Hamilton Papers, Vol. 5, ‣2.

93 C. H. T. Crosthwaite to Ilbert, Edinburgh, May 1886, Ilbert Papers; see also Hamilton to Curzon, India Office, 9 Feb. 1900, Hamilton Papers, Vol. II, ‣6; Hamilton accuses civilians of looking upon India primarily “as a place from which to abstract rupees.”

94 Crosthwaite to Ilbert, Edinburgh, May 1886.

95 Stephen to Lytton, Knebworth, 21 May 1876, Stephen Correspondence.

96 Crosthwaite to Ilbert, Edinburgh, May 1886, Ilbert Papers.

97 Cotton, H. J. S., Indian and Home Memories London: T. Fisher Unwin, 1911), p. 125Google Scholar.

98 Crosthwaite to Ilbert, Edinburgh, 17 Aug. 1886, Ilbert Papers.

99 John Beames, Memoirs of a Bengal Civilian.

100 H. J. S. Cotton, Indian and Home Memories, p. 56.

101 Rivett-Carnac, J. H., Many Memories of Life in India, at Home, and Abroad (London: William Blackwood and Sons, 1910), p. 23Google Scholar.

102 Robert Carstairs, The Little World, p. 103.

103 Compton, J. M., “Open Competition and the Indian Civil Service, 1854–1876,” The English Historical Review, 83 (April 1968), p. 272Google Scholar.

104 Her Majesty's Secretary of State for India, to His Ex'cy. the Right Hon. the Governor-General of India in Council, India Office, London, 13 July 1876, G.O.I., ‣223–280, Home, Public, Sept. 1877, ‣247, N.A.I.

105 See Compton, op. cit., p. 277.