The relation which
ought to exist between a chief and this description of advisers is
very accurately hit by the constitution of the Council of the
Governor-General and those of the different Presidencies in India.
These Councils are composed of persons who have professional knowledge
of Indian affairs, which the Governor-General and Governors usually
lack, and which it would not be desirable to require of them. As a
rule, every member of Council is expected to give an opinion, which is
of course very often a simple acquiescence: but if there is a
difference of sentiment, it is at the option of every member, and is
the invariable practice, to record the reasons of his opinion: the
Governor-General, or Governor, doing the same. In ordinary cases the
decision is according to the sense of the majority; the Council,
therefore, has a substantial part in the government: but if the
Governor-General, or Governor, thinks fit, he may set aside even their
unanimous opinion, recording his reasons. The result is, that the
chief is individually and effectively responsible for every act of the
Government. The members of Council have only the responsibility of
advisers; but it is always known, from documents capable of being
produced, and which if called for by Parliament or public opinion
always are produced, what each has advised, and what reasons he gave
for his advice: while, from their dignified position, and ostensible
participation in all acts of government, they have nearly as strong
motives to apply themselves to the public business, and to form and
express a well-considered opinion on every part of it, as if the whole
responsibility rested with themselves.
Pages:
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291