CONTRADICTORY ORDERS REGARDING STARVATION. 317

all doubt as to the principles they have maintained and the measures they have recommended for dealing with the famine.'

Point by point it was shown that the subordinate authority was right and the supreme authority wrong, whilst as regards economy, Sir Philip Wodehouse averred that he had never lost sight of it, had indeed anticipated all instructions on the subject. Instances were cited in proof thereof, and even so recently as January 5 a resolution had been issued disallowing pay on Sundays, whilst the Government were at that moment devising measures which they hoped would still further diminish the expenditure. The letter concluded: His Excellency in Council, in future measures he may be compelled to take or to advise, will not fail to bear in mind that he shares with the Government of India the responsibility of properly utilising the public funds, and for avoiding all needless or wasteful expenditure.'

เ

Two days subsequently further cause for annoyance was found, this time in the instructions issued to Sir R. Temple on the 16th instant (which will be found quoted at length in the Appendix to vol. ii.). By orders issued on January 18, village officers were directed to 'take care that no person is allowed through obstinacy to die of starvation.' This injunction was quite in conformity with the principle on which the Government was then acting, viz., that no person was to be allowed to die of starvation if it was in the power of the Government to prevent it. But his Excellency in Council now observes that in the instructions issued by the Government of India to Sir R. Temple on the 16th instant, the following very important qualification is introduced:-"Even for an object of such paramount importance as the preservation of life, it is obvious that

there are limits which are imposed upon us by the facts with which we have to deal." The letter in question does not lay down any general principles by which the district officers should be guided in refusing the aid needed to preserve life; and his Excellency in Council would view with satisfaction the issue of supplementary instructions on that point. In the meantime, however, he feels convinced that in no case could assistance be more properly refused than in that of a man who wilfully and deliberately refuses to render the reasonable equivalent demanded by the Government for the means of subsistence which it is ready to afford him. It is therefore ordered, in modification of the instructions issued by the Revenue Commissioner, that in the case of an individual refusing to perform work which he is capable of doing on the terms fixed by Government, no relief shall be afforded him at the public expense during the continuance of such refusal.'

On the following day (January 25) a resolution was published which proved to be the last symptom of independence and impatience of control which the Government of India would endure.

Sir Richard Temple's minutes were published as soon after they were written as possible, and those relating to Bombay quickly attracted attention, and called forth the following remonstrance, which, because of its importance, must be quoted in full:

'Extract from the Proceedings of the Government of Bombay, dated January 26, 1877.

'Resolution. - His Excellency the Governor in Council has had under consideration the minutes addressed to the Government of India by Sir Richard Temple on the 9th and 12th instant, conveying his

RESOLUTION OF BOMBAY GOVERNMENT.

319

impressions on the state of matters connected with the famine in this Presidency, as formed on the information he was able to obtain from Bombay officers during his rapid journey from the North-West Provinces and during his stay at Sholapur.

เ

The views expressed in these minutes agree on almost all points with those which the Government has throughout enunciated and endeavoured to carry out, and the Government feel it due to themselves to state clearly the principal cause of defects indicated as existing in the system of relief in this Presidency.

'So far back as October 16, 1876, they announced that they had for six weeks been spending money on minor works which they were satisfied were entirely inadequate to meet the serious demands they must inevitably encounter. They added: "His Excellency in Council is clearly of opinion that in all cases in which, with due regard to sanitation and other local circumstances, it may be found practicable, it will be far more convenient, and in the end far more economical, to select for relief works those of considerable magnitude, which have been well examined and approved, though unavoidably postponed, on which the labours of large bodies of men can be advantageously concentrated. There may be cases in which it may be necessary to have recourse to isolated works of a trifling nature, but these should as far as possible form the exceptions."

'About this time, in consequence of the departure of his Excellency the Viceroy on tour, the administration of the Government of India fell into the hands of the President in Council, and in the reply addressed to the Government of Bombay by his direction on October 25, 1876, is to be found the origin of the embarrassment with which this Government has had to

contend, and of the defects of system which Sir Richard Temple is understood to notice.

'In that letter, after reviewing what was believed to be the condition of the distressed districts, and pointing out how they should be dealt with, the President in Council intimated that the remarks of the collector of Poona as to the inexpediency of collecting large gangs away from their homes on large works have the full concurrence of the Government of India. The collector of Poona had observed: "I am strongly of opinion that as many small works should be undertaken as possible. I much fear that the collection of large numbers of people in localities where they must live in great discomfort and without shelter may lead to the outbreak of disease which it would be difficult to combat:" and he added, speaking of prickly pear clearance, "it would certainly be more popular because it would not take people away from their homes." It is not too much to say that at the present time there is nothing which more obviously requires to be checked than the "popularity" of the relief works.

The position was still further complicated by the President in Council in the same letter inviting the attention of this Government to a resolution of the Government of India of February 18, 1875, the 12th paragraph of which contained the following passage:"The experience of former famines with respect to the advantage of opening public works, especially at an early stage of the distress, has been fully confirmed. Large works should be opened at once, small local works subsequently, as the necessity for them arises."

'This letter was followed by further communications setting forth the objections of the President in Council to several of the large works recommended by the

RESOLUTION OF BOMBAY GOVERNMENT.

321

Bombay Government, and as a consequence the Government was reduced to greater dependence on the small works, of which the effect is now evident.

'About the middle of December his Excellency the Viceroy arrived in Bombay, and on December 20, in reply to an address from the Chamber of Commerce, he observed "I gladly take this opportunity to express the satisfaction of the Government of India with the manner in which the Government of Bombay is grappling with the difficult task imposed upon it. The principles avowed by that Government as those which will guide its action appear to me to be generally sound and excellent."

'On the same day on which these words were uttered, the Government of Bombay received a letter dated December 15, communicating the dissatisfaction of the President in Council with their measures on several points, and again urging the prosecution of minor works.

'This letter was subsequently much modified, and in that form, though still dated December 15, was not received in Bombay until the 11th instant.

'Sir Richard Temple has since been formally deputed to examine and criticise the proceedings in the Presidencies of Madras and Bombay. The instructions to him in his reports, and the despatches with which the latter have been transmitted to the Secretary of State, have been immediately published. With the tone and spirit in which those reports have thus far been framed, his Excellency in Council is quite satisfied. But he claims the right in cases in which this Government is concerned to supplement them with the information necessary to the full understanding of the bearings of the case; and having thus in the present instance explained the chief cause of the defects to which Sir Richard Temple has alluded, his Excellency sees with pleasure that by the