The former had
even resolved to prepare an application to his Majesty
for Mr.
even resolved to prepare an application to his Majesty
for Mr.
Edmund Burke
Francis,) as highly meritorious, and
promise them their firmest support. " Some of the
cases," they say, "' are so flagrantly corrupt, and others
attended with circumstances so oppressive to the inhabitants, that it would be unjust to suffer the delinquents to
go unpunished. " With this observation their proceedinlgs appear to have ended, and paused for more than
a year.
On the 4th of March, 1778, the Directors appear to
have resumed the subject. In their letter of that date
they instructed the Governor and Council forthwith
to commence a prosecution in the Supreme Court of
Judicature against the persons who composed the
Committee of Circuit, or their representatives, and
also against Mr. Barwell, in order to recover, for the
use of the Company, the amount of all advantages
acquired by them from their several engagements in
salt contracts and farms. Adverting, however, to the
declaration made by Mr. Barwell, that he would account to the Court of Directors for the last shilling
he had received and abide implicity by their judgment, they thought it probable, that, on being acquainted with their peremptory orders for commencing a prosecution, he might be desirous of paying his share of profits into the Company's treasury; and
they pointed out a precaution to be used in accepting
such a tender on his part.
On this part of the transaction your Committee
observe, that the Court of Directors appear blamable
in having delayed till February, 1777, to take any
measure in consequence of advices so interesting and
important, and on a matter concerning which they
had made so strong a declaration, - considering that
? ? ? ? ON THE AFFAIRS OF INDIA. 163
early in April, 1776, they say " they had investigated
the charges, and had then come to certain resolutions
concerning them. " But their delaying to send out
positive orders for commencing a prosecution against
the parties concerned till March, 1778, cannot be accounted for. In the former letter they promise, if
they should find it necessary, to return the original
covenants of such of their servants as had been any
ways concerned in the undue receipt of money, in
order to enable the Governor-General and Council
to recover the same by suits in the Supreme Court.
But your Committee do not find that the covenants
were ever transmitted to Bengal. To whatever cause
these instances of neglect and delay may be attributed, they could not fail to create an opinion in Bengal
that the Court of Directors were not heartily intent
upon the execution of their own orders, and to discourage those members of government who were disposed to undertake so invidious a duty.
In consequence of these delays, even their first
orders did not arrive in Bengal until some time after
the death of Colonel Monson, when the whole power
of the board had devolved to Mr. Hastings and Mr.
Barwell. When they sent what they call their positive orders, in March, 1778, they had long been apprised of the death of Colonel Monson, and must have been perfectly certain of the effect which that
event would have on the subsequent measures and
proceedings of the Governor-General and Council.
Their opinion of the principles of those gentlemen
appears in their letter of the 28th of November, 1777,
wherein they say " they cannot but express their concern that the power of granting away their property
in perpetuity should have devolved upon such persons. "
? ? ? ? 164 NINTH REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE
But the conduct of the Court of Directors appears
to be open to objections of a nature still more serious
and important. A recovery of the amount of Mr.
Barwell's profits seems to be the only purpose which
they even professed to have in view. But your Committee are of opinion that to preserve the reputation and dignity of the government of Bengal was a much
more important object, and ought to have been their
first consideration. The prosecution was not the pursuit of mean and subordinate persons, who might with safety'to the public interest remain in their
seats during such an inquiry into their conduct. It
appears very doubtful, whether, if there were grounds
for such a prosecution, a proceeding in Great Britain
were not more politic than one in Bengal. Such a
prosecution ought not to have been ordered by the
Directors, but upon grounds that would have fully
authorized the recall of the gentleman in question.
This prosecution, supposing it to have been seriously
undertaken, and to have succeeded, must have tended to weaken the government, and to degrade it in the eyes of all India. On the other hand, to intrust
a man, armed as he was with all the powers of his
station, and indeed of the government, with the conduct of a prosecution against himself, was altogether inconsistent and absurd. The same letter in which
they give these orders exhibits an example which sets
the inconsistency of their conduct in a stronger light,
because the case is somewhat of a similar nature,
but infinitely less pressing in its circumstances. Observing that the Board of Trade had commenced a prosecution against Mr. William Barton, a member
of that board, for various acts of peculation committed by him, they say, " We must be of opinion, that,
? ? ? ? ON THE AFFAIRS OF INDIA. 165
as prosecutions are actually carrying on against him by
our Board of Trade, he is, during such prosecution
at least, an improper person to hold a seat at that
board; and therefore we direct that he be suspended
from the Company's service until our further pleasure concerning him be known. " The principle laid down in this instruction, even before their own opinion concerning Mr. Barton's case was declared, and merely on the prosecution of others, serves to render
their conduct not very accountable in the case of
Mr. Barwell. Mr. Barton was in a subordinate situation, and his remaining or not remaining in it was
of little or no moment to the prosecution. Mr.
Barton was but one of seven; whereas Mr. Barwell
was one of four, and, with the Governor-General,
was in effect the Supreme Council.
In the present state of power and patronage in
India, and during the relations which are permitted
to subsist between the judges, the prosecuting officers, and the Council-General, your Committee is very doubtful whether the mode of prosecuting the
highest members in the Bengal government, before
a court at Calcutta, could have been almost in any
case advisable.
It is possible that particular persons, in high judicial and political situations, may, by force of an unusual strain of virtue, be placed far above the
influence of those circumstances which in ordinary
cases are known to make an impression on the human mind. But your Committee, sensible that laws and public proceedings ought to be made for general situations, and not for personal dispositions, are not inclined to have any confidence in the effect of
criminal proceedings, where no means are provided
? ? ? ? 166 NINTH REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE
for preventing a mutual connection, by dependencies, agencies, and employments, between the parties who are to prosecute and to judge and those who are to be prosecuted and to be tried.
Your Committee, in a former Report, have stated
the consequences which they apprehended from the
dependency of the judges on the Governor-General
and Council of Bengal; and the House has entered
into their ideas upon this subject. Since that time
it appears that Sir Elijah Impey has accepted of
the guardianship of Mr. Barwell's children, and was
the trustee for his affairs. There is no law to prevent this sort of connection, and it is possible that
it might not at all affect the mind of that judge, or
(upon his account) indirectly influence the conduct
of his brethren; but it must forcibly affect the minds
of those who have matter of complaint against government, and whose cause the Court of Directors
appear to espouse, in a country where the authority of the Court of Directors has seldom been exerted but to be despised, where the operation of laws is but very imperfectly understood, but where
men are acute, sagacious, and even suspicious of
the effect of all personal connections. Their suspicions, though perhaps not rightly applied to every
individual, will induce them to take indications from
the situations and connections of the prosecuting parties, as well as of the judges. It cannot fail to be
observed, that Mr. Naylor, the Company's attorney,
lived in Mr. Barwell's house; the late Mr. Bogle, the
Company's commissioner of lawsuits, owed his place
to the patronage of Mr. Hastings and Mr. Barwell,
by whom the office was created for him; and Sir
John Day, the Company's advocate, who arrived in
? ? ? ? ON THE AFFAIRS OF INDIA. 167
Bengal in February, 1779, had not been four months
in Calcutta, when Mr. Hastings, Mr. Barwell, and
Sir Eyre Coote doubled his salary, contrary to the
opinion of Mr. Francis and Mr. Wheler.
If the Directors are known to devolve the whole
cognizance of the offences charged on their servants
so highly situated upon the Supreme Court, an excuse will be fiurnished, if already it has not been furnished, to the Directors for declining the use of their own proper political power and authority in examining into and animadverting on the conduct of their
servants. Their true character, as strict masters and
vigilant governors, will merge in that of prosecutors.
Their force and energy will evaporate in tedious and
intricate processes, --in lawsuits which can never end,
and which are to be carried on by the very dependants of those who are under prosecution. On their
part, these servants will decline giving satisfaction to
their masters, because they are already before another tribunal; and thus, by shifting responsibility from
hand to hand, a confederacy to defeat the whole spirit
of the law, and to remove all real restraints on their
actions, may be in time formed between the servants,
Directors, prosecutors, and court. Of this great danger your Committee will take further notice in another place.
No notice whatever appears to have been taken of
the Company's orders in Bengal till the 11th of January, 1779, when Mr. Barwell moved, that the claim
made upon him by the Court of -Directors should be submitted to the Company's lawyers, and that they should
be perfectly instructed to prosecute upon it. In his
minute of that date he says, " that the state of his
health had long since rendered it necessary for him to
return to Europe. "
? ? ? ? 168 NINTH REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE
Your Committee observe that he continued in Bengal another year. He says, " that he had hitherto waited for the arrival of Sir John Day, the Company's advocate; but as the season was now far advanced, he wished to bring the trial speedily to
issue. "
In this minute he retracts his original engagement
to submit himself to the judgment of the Court of
Directors, " and to account to them for the last shilling he had received" he says, " that no merit had been given him for the offer; that a most unjustifiable advantage had been attempted to be made of it, by first declining it and descending to abuse, and then
giving orders upon it as if it had been rejected, when
called upon by him in the person of his agent to
bring home the charge of delinquency. "
Mr. Barwell's reflections on the proceedings of the
Court of Directors are not altogether clearly expressed; nor does it appear distinctly to what facts
he alludes. He asserts that a most unjustifiable advantage had been attempted to be made of his offer. The fact is, the Court of Directors have nowhere declined accepting it; on the contrary, they caution the Governor-General and Council about the manner of
receiving the tender of the money which they expect
him to make. They say nothing of any call made on
them by Mr. Barwell's agent in England; nor does
it appear to your Committee that they " have descended to abuse. " They have a right, and it is
their duty, to express, in distinct and appropriated
terms, their sense of all blamable conduct in their
servants.
So far as may be collected from the evidence of
the Company's records, Mr. Barwell's assertions do
? ? ? ? ON THE AFFAIRS OF INDIA. 169
not appear well supported; but even if they were
more plausible, your Committee apprehend that he
could not be discharged from his solemn recorded
promise to abide by the judgment of the Court of
Directors. Their judgment was declared by their
resolution to prosecute, which it depended upon himself to satisfy by making good his engagement. To excuse his not complying with the Company's claims,
hie says, " that his compliance would be urged as a confession of delinquency, and to proceed from conviction of his having usurped on the rights of the Company. "
Considerations of this nature might properly have
induced Mr. Barwell to stand upon his right in the
first instance, " and to appeal" (to use his own
words) " to the laws of his country, in order to vindicate his fame. " But his performance could not have
more weight to infer delinquency than his promise.
Your Committee think his observation comes too
late.
If he had stood a trial, when he first acknowledged
the facts, and submitted himself to the judgment of
the Court of Directors, the suit would have been
carried on under the direction of General Clavering,
Colonel Monson, and Mr. Francis; whereas in the
year 1779 his influence at the board gave him the
conduct of it himself. In an interval of four years
it may be presumed that great alterations might have
happened in the state of the evidence against him.
In the subsequent proceedings of the GovernorGeneral and Council the House will find that Mr.
Barwell complained that his instances for carrying
on the prosecution were ineffectual, owing to the
legal difficulties and delays urged by the Company's
law officers, which your Committee do not find have
? ? ? ? 170 NINTH REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE
yet been removed. As far as the latest advices
reach, no progress appears to have been made in
the business. In July, 1782, the Court of Directors
found it necessary to order an account of all suits
against Europeans depending in the Supreme Court
of Judicature to be transmitted to them, and that
no time should be lost in bringing them to a determination.
SALTPETRE.
THE next article of direct monopoly subservient to
the Company's export is saltpetre. This, as well as
opium, is far the greater part the produce of the province of Bahar. The difference between the management and destination of the two articles has been this. Until the year 1782, the opium has been sold
in the country, and the produce of the sale laid out
in country merchandise for the Company's export.
A great part of the saltpetre is sent out in kind, and
never has contributed to the interior circulation and
commerce of Bengal. It is managed by agency on
the Company's account. The price paid to the manufacturer is invariable. Some of the larger undertakers receive advances to enable them to prosecute their work; but as they are not always equally careful or fortunate, it happens that large balances accumulate against them. Orders have been sent from Calcutta from time to time to recover their balances,
with little or no success, but with great vexation to all
concerned in the manufacture. Sometimes they have
imprisoned the failing contractors in their own houses,
-a severity which answers no useful purpose. Such
persons are so many hands detached from the im
? ? ? ? ON THE AFFAIRS OF INDIA. 171
provement and added to the burden of the country.
They are persons of skill drawn from the future supply
of that monopoly in favor of which they are prosecuted. In case of the death of the debtor, this rigorous
demand falls upon the ruined houses of widows and
orphans, and may be easily converted into a means
either of cruel oppression or a mercenary indulgence,
according to the temper of the exactors. Instead of
thus having recourse to imprisonment, the old balance
is sometimes deducted from the current produce.
This, in these circumstances, is a grievous discouragement. People must be discouraged from entering into a business, when, the commodity being fixed to one invariable standard and confined to one market, the
best success can be attended only with a limited advantage, whilst a defective produce can never be compensated by an augmented price. Accordingly, very little of these advances has been recovered, and after
much vexation the pursuit has generally been abandoned. It is plain that there can be no life and vigor
in any business under a monopoly so constituted; nor
can the true productive resources of the country, in
so large an article of its commerce, ever come to be
fully known.
The supply for the Company's demand in England
has rarely fallen short of two thousand tons, nor much
exceeded two thousand five hundred. A discretionary allowance of this commodity has been made to the
French, Dutch, and Danes, who purchase their allotted shares at some small advance on the Company's
price. The supply destined for the London market
is proportioned to the spare tonnage; and to accommodate that tonnage, the saltpetre is sometimes sent
to Madras and sometimes even to Bombay, and that
? ? ? ? 172 NINTH REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE
not unfrequently in vessels expressly employed for the
purpose.
Mr. Law, Chief of Patna, being examined on the
effect of that monopoly, delivered his opinion, that
with regard to the Company's trade the monopoly was
advantageous, but as sovereigns of the country they
must be losers by it. These two capacities in the
Company are found in perpetual contradiction. But
much doubt may arise whether this monopoly will be
found advantageous to the Company either in the one
capacity or the other. The gross commodity monopolized for sale in London is procured from the revenues in Bengal; the certain is given for the hazardous. The loss of interest on the advances, sometimes the loss of the principal, - the expense of carriage from Patna to Calcutta, - the various loading and unloadings, and insurance (which, though borne
by the Company, is still insurance), -- the engagement for the Ordnance, limited in price, and irregular in payment, - the charge of agency and management, through all its gradations and successions, --
when all these are taken into consideration, it may be
found that the gain of the Company as traders will be
far from compensating their loss as sovereigns. A
body like the East India Company can scarcely, in any
circumstance, hope to carry on the details of such a
business, from its commencement to its conclusion,
with any degree of success. In the subjoined estimate
of profit and loss, the value of the commodity is stated
at its invoice price at Calcutta. But this affords no
just estimate of the whole effect of a dealing, where
the Company's charge commences in the first rudi
ments of the manufacture, and not at the purchase
at the place of sale and valuation: for they [there? ]
? ? ? ? ON THE AFFAIRS OF INDIA. 173
may be heavy losses on the value at which the saltpetre is estimated, when shipped off on their account,
without any appearance in the account; and the inquiries of your Committee to find the charges on the
saltpetre previous to the shipping have been fruitless.
BRITISH GOVERNMENT IN INDIA.
THE other link by which India is bound to Great
Britain is the government established there originally
by the authority of the East India Company, and afterwards modified by Parliament by the acts of 1773
and 1780. This system of government appears to
your Committee to be at least as much disordered,
and as much perverted from every good purpose for
which lawful rule is established, as the trading system has been from every just principle of commerce.
Your Committee, in tracing the causes of this disorder through its effects, have first considered the
government as it is constituted and managed within
itself, beginning with its most essential and fundamental part, the order and discipline by which the supreme authority of this kingdom is maintained. The British government in India being a subordinate and delegated power, it ought to be considered
as a fundamental principle in such a system, that it
is to be preserved in the strictest obedience to the
government at home. Administration in India, at
an immense distance from the seat of the supreme
authority, -- intrusted with the most extensive powers, -- liable to the greatest temptations, - possessing the amplest means of abuse, - ruling over a people guarded by no distinct or well-ascertained
? ? ? ? 174 NINTH REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE
privileges, whose language, manners, and radical prejudices render not only redress, but all complaint on
their part, a matter of extreme difficulty, - such an
administration, it is evident, never can be made subservient to the interests of Great Britain, or even tolerable to the natives, but by the strictest rigor in exacting obedience to the commands of the authority lawfully set over it.
But your Committee find that this principle has
been for some years very little attended to. Before
the passing the act of 1773, the professed purpose of
which was to secure a better subordination in the
Company's servants, such was the firmness with
which the Court of Directors maintained their authority, that they displaced Governor Cartier, confessedly a meritorious servant, for disobedience of
orders, although his case was not a great deal more
than a question by whom the orders were to be
obeyed. * Yet the Directors were so sensible of the
necessity of a punctual and literal obedience, that,
conceiving their orders went to the parties who were
to obey, as w;ell as to the act to be done, they proceeded with a strictness that, in all cases except that
of their peculiar government, might well be considered as rigorous. But in proportion as the necessity
of enforcing obedience grew stronger and more urgent, and in proportion to the magnitude and importance of the objects affected by disobedience, this
rigor has been relaxed. Acts of disobedience have
not only grown frequent, but systematic; and they
have appeared in such instances, and are manifested
in such a manner, as to amount, in the Company's
* Vide Committee's Fifth Report, page 21, and Appendix to that
Report, No. 12.
? ? ? ? ON THE AFFAIRS OF INDIA. 175
servants, to little less than absolute independence,
against which, on the part of the Directors, there is
no struggle, and hardly so much as a protest to preserve a claim.
Before your Committee proceed to offer to the
House their remarks on the most distinguished of
these instances, the particulars of which they have
already reported, they deem it necessary to enter
into some detail of a transaction equally extraordinary and important, though not yet brought into the view of Parliament, which appears to have laid the
foundation of the principal abuses that ensued, as
well as to have given strength and encouragement
to those that existed. To this transaction, and to
the conclusions naturally deducible from it, your
Committee attribute that general spirit of disobedience and independence which has since prevailed
in the government of Bengal.
Your Committee find that in the year 1775 Mr.
Lauchlan Macleane was sent into England as agent
to the Nabob of Arcot and to Mr. Hastings. The
conduct of Mr. Hastings, in assisting to extirpate, for
a sum of money to be paid to the Company, the innocent nation of the Rohillas, had drawn upon him the censure of the Court of Directors, and the unanimous
censure of the Court of Proprietors.
The former had
even resolved to prepare an application to his Majesty
for Mr. Hastings's dismission.
Another General Court was called on this proceeding. Mr. Hastings was then openly supported by a maj6rity of the Court of Proprietors, who professed
to entertain a good opinion of his general ability
and rectitude of intention, notwithstanding the unanimous censure passed upon him. In that censure
? ? ? ? 176 NINTH REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE
they therefore seemed disposed to acquiesce, without
pushing the matter farther. But, as the offence was
far from trifling, and the condemnation of the measure recent, they did not directly attack the resolution of the Directors to apply to his Majesty, but voted in the ballot that it should be reconsidered.
The business therefore remained in suspense, or it
rather seemed to be dropped, for some months, when
Mr. Macleane took a step of a nature not in the least
to be expected from the condition in which the
cause of his principal stood, which was apparently as
favorable as the circumstances could bear. Hitherto
the support of Mr. Hastings in the General Court
was only by a majority; but if on application from
the Directors he should be removed, a mere majority
would not have been sufficient for his restoration.
The door would have been barred against his return
to the Company's service by one of the strongest and
most substantial clauses in the Regulating Act of
1773. Mr. Macleane, probably to prevent the manifest ill consequences of such a step, came forward
with a letter to the Court of Directors, declaring his
provisional powers, and offering on the part of Mr.
Hastings an immediate resignation of his office.
On this occasion the Directors showed themselves
extremely punctilious with regard to Mr. Macleane's
powers. They probably dreaded the charge of becoming accomplices to an evasion of the act by
which Mr. Hastings, resigning the service, would
escape the consequences attached by law to a dismission; they therefore demanded Mr. Macleane's
written authority. This -he declared he could not
give into their hands, as the letter contained other
matters, of a nature extremely confidential, but that,
? ? ? ? ON THE AFFAIRS OF INDIA. 177
if they would appoint a committee of the Directors,
he would readily communicate to them the necessary
parts of the letter, and give them perfect satisfaction with regard to his authority. A deputation was
accordingly named, who reported that they had seen
Mr. Hastings's instructions, contained in a paper in
his own handwriting, and that the authority for the
act now done by Mr. Macleane was clear and suf:
ficient. Mr. Vansittart, a very particular friend of
Mr. Hastings, and Mr. John Stewart, his most attached and confidential dependant, attended on this
occasion, and proved that directions perfectly correspondent to this written authority had been given by
Mr. Hastings in their presence. By this means the.
powers were fully authenticated; but the letter remained safe in Mr. Macleane's hands.
Nothing being now wanting to the satisfaction of
the Directors, the resignation was formally accepted.
Mr. Wheler was named to fill the vacancy, and presented for his Majesty's approbation, which was received. The act was complete, and the office that Mr. Hastings had resigned was legally filled. This
proceeding was officially notified in Bengal, and General Clavering, as senior in Council, was in course
to succeed to the office of Governor-General.
Mr. Hastings, to extricate himself from the difficulties into which this resignation had brought him,
had recourse to one of those unlooked-for and hardy
measures which characterize the whole of his administration. He came to a resolution of disowiiing his agent, denying his letter, and disavowing his friends. He insisted on cdntinuing in the executioni
of his office, and supported himself by such reasons
as could be furnished in such a cause. An open
VOL. VIII. 12
? ? ? ? 178 NINTH REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE
schism instantly divided the Council. General Clavering claimed the office to which he ought to succeed, and Mr. Francis adhered to him: Mr. Barwell
stuck to Mr. Hastings. Tile two parties assembled
separately, and everything was running fast into a
confusion which suspended government, and might
very probably have ended in a civil war, had not the
judges of the Supreme Court, on a reference to them,
settled the controversy by deciding that the resignation was an invalid act, and that Mr. Hastings was
still in the legal possession of his place, which had
been actually filled up in England. It was extraordinary that the nullity of this resignation should not
have been discovered in England, where the act authorizing the resignation then was, where the agent
was personally present, where the witnesses were examined, and where there was and could be no want
of legal advice, either on the part of the Company
or of the crown. The judges took no light matter
upon them in superseding, and thereby condemning
the legality of his Majesty's appointment: for such it
became by the royal approbation.
On this determination, such as it was, the division
in the meeting, but not in the minds of the Council,
ceased. General Clavering uniformly opposed the
conduct of Mr. Hastings to the end of his life. But
Mr. Hastings showed more temper under much greater provocations. In disclaiming his agent, and in effect accusing him of an imposture the most deeply injurious to his character and fortune, and of the grossest forgery to support it, he was so very mild
and indulgent as not to show any active resentment
against his unfaithful agent, nor to complain to the
Court of Directors. It was expected in Bengal that
? ? ? ? ON THE AFFAIRS OF INDIA. 179
some strong measures would have immediately been
taken to preserve the just rights of the king and of
the Court of Directors; as this proceeding, unaccompanied with the severest animadversion, manifestly struck a decisive blow at the existence of the most essential powers of both. But your Committee do
not find that any measures whatever, such as the case
seenled to demand, were taken. The observations
made by the Court of Directors on what they call
" these extraordinary transactions" are just and well
applied. They conclude with a declaration, " that the
measures which it might be necessary for them to take,
in order to retrieve the honor of the Company, and to
prevent the like abuse from being practised in future,
should have their most serious and earliest consideration "; and with this declaration they appear to have
closed the account, and to have dismissed the subject
forever.
A sanction was hereby given to all future defiance
of every authority in this kingdom. Several other
matters of complaint against Mr. Hastings, particularly the charge of peculation, fell to the ground at the
same time. Opinions of counsel had been taken relative to a prosecution at law upon this charge, from
the then Attorney and the then Solicitor-General and
Mr. Dunning, (now the Lords Thurlow, Loughborough, and Ashburton,) together with Mr. Adair (now
Recorder of London). None of them gave a positive
opinion against the grounds of the prosecution. The
Attorney-General doubted on the prudence of the proceedings, and censured (as it well deserved) the ill
statement of the case. Three of them, Mr. Wedderburn, Mr. Dunning, and Mr. Adair, were clear in favor of the prosecution. No prosecution, however, was
? ? ? ? 180 NINTH REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE
had, and the Directors contented themselves with censuring and admonishing Mr. Hastings.
With regard to the Supreme Council, the members
who chose (for it was choice only) to attend to the
orders which were issued from the languishing authority of the Directors continued to receive unprofitable applauses and no support. Their correspondence was always filled with complaints, the justice of which was always admitted by the Court of Directors;
but this admission of the existence of the evil showed
only the impotence of those who were to administer
the remedy. The authority of the Court of Directors,
resisted with success in so capital an instance as that
of the resignation, was not likely to be respected in
any other. What influence it really had on the conduct of the Company's servants may be collected from
the facts that followed it.
The disobedience of Mr. Hastings has of late not
only become uniform and systematical in practice,
but has been in principle, also, supported by him, and
by Mr. Barwell, late a member of the Supreme Council in Bengal, and now a member of this House.
In the Consultation of the 20th of July, 1778, Mr.
Barwell gives it as his solemn and deliberate opinion,
that, "while Mr. Hastings is in the government, the
respect and dignity of his station should be supported.
In these sentiments, I must decline an acquiescence
in any order which has a tendency to bring the government into disrepute. As the Company have the
means and power of forming their own administration
in India, they may at pleasure place whom they please
at the head; but in my opinion they are not authorized to treat a person in that post with indignity. "
By treating them with indignity (in the particular
? ? ? ? ON THE AFFAIRS OF INDIA. 181
cases wherein they have declined obedience to orders)
they must mean those orders which imply a censure
on any part of their conduct, a reversal of any of their
proceedings, or, as Mr. Barwell expresses himself in
words very significant, in any orders that have a tendency to bring their government into disrepute. The
amplitude of this latter description, reserving to them
the judgment of any orders which have so much as
that tendency, puts them in possession of a complete
independence, an independence including a despotic
authority over the subordinates and the country. The
very means taken by the Directors for enforcing their
authority becomes, on this principle, a cause of further disobedience. It is observable, that their principles of disobedience do not refer to any local consideration, overlooked by the Directors, which might supersede their orders, or to any change of circumstances, which might render another course advisable,
or even perhaps necessary, -- but it relates solely to
their own interior feelings in matters relative to themselves, and their opinion of their own dignity and reputation. It is plain that they have wholly forgotten
who they are, and what the nature of their office is.
Mr. Hastings and Mr. Barwell are servants of the
Company, and as such, by the duty inherent in that
relation, as well as by their special covenants, were
obliged to yield obedience to the orders of their masters. They have, as far as they were able, cancelled
all the bonds of this relation, and all the sanctions of
these covenants.
But in thus throwing off the authority of the Court
of Directors, Mr. Hastings and Mr. Barwell have
thrown off the authority of the whole legislative power of Great Britain; for, by the Regulating Act of the
? ? ? ? 182 NINTH REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE
thirteenth of his Majesty, they are expressly " directed and required to pay due obedience to all such orders as they shall receive from the Court of Directors of the said United Company. " Such is the declaration of the law. But Mr. Barwell declares that he
declines obedience to any orders which he shall inter.
pret to be indignities on a Governor-General. To the
clear injunctions of the legislature Mr. Hastings and
Mr. Barwell have thought proper to oppose their pretended reputation and dignity; as if the chief honor
of public ministers in every situation was not to yield
a cheerful obedience to the laws of their country.
Your Committee, to render evident to this House the
general nature and tendency of this pretended dignity, and to illustrate the real principles upon which
they appear to have acted, think it necessary to make
observations on three or four of the cases, already reported, of marked disobedience to particular and special orders, on one of which the above extraordinary doctrine was maintained.
These are the cases of Mr. Fowke, Mr. Bristow, and
Mahomed Reza Khan. In a few weeks after the death
of Colonel Monson, Mr. Hastings having obtained a
majority in Council by his casting vote, Mr. Fowke
and Mr. Bristow were called from their respective offices of Residents at Benares and Oude, places which
have become the scenes of other extraordinary operations under the conduct of Mr. Hastings in person.
For the recall of Mr. Bristow no reason was assigned.
The reason assigned for the proceeding with regard
to Mr. Fowke was, that " the purposes for which he
was appointed were then fully accomplished. "
An accotunt of the removal of Mr. Fowke was communicated to the Court of Directors in a letter of the
? ? ? ? ON THE AFFAIRS OF INDIA. 183
22d of December, 1776. On this notification the
Court had nothing to conclude, but that Mr. Hastings, from a rigid pursufit of economy in the management of the Company's affairs, had recalled a useless
officer. But, without alleging any variation whatsoever in the circumstances, in less than twenty days
after the order for the recall of Mr. Fowke, and
the very day after the dispatch containing all accoullnt
of the transaction, Mr. Hastings recommended Mr.
Grahamn to this very office, the end of which, he
declared to the Directors but the day before, had
been fully accomplished; and not thinking this sufficient, he appointed Mr. D. Barwell as his assistant,
at a salary of about four hundred pounds a year.
Against this extraordinary act General Clavering and
Mr. Francis entered a protest.
So early as the 6th of the following January the
appointment of these gentlemen was communicated
in a letter to the Court of Directors, without ainy
sort of color, apology, or explanation. That court
found a servant removed from his station without
complaint, contrary to the tenor of one of their standing injunctions. They allow, however, and with reason, that, " if it were possible to suppose that a saving, &c. , had been his motive, they would have approved his proceeding. But that when immediately afterwards two persons, with two salaries, had been
appointed to execute the office which had been filled
with reputation by Mr. Fowke alone, and that Mr.
Graham enjoys all the emoluments annexed to the
office of Mr. Fowke," - they properly conclude that
Mr. Fowke was removed without just cause, to make
way for Mr. Graham, and strictly enjoin that the former be reinstated in his office of Resident as Post
? ? ? ? 184 NINTH REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE
master of Benares. In the same letter they assert
their rights in a tone of becoming firmness, and declare, that " on no account we can permit our orders
to be disobeyed or our authority disregarded. "
It was now to be seen which of the parties was to
give way. The orders were clear and precise, and
enforced by a strong declaration of the resolution of
the Court to make itself obeyed. Mr. Hastings fairly joined issue upon this point with his masters,
and, having disobeyed the general instructions of the
Company, determined to pay no obedience to their
special order.
On the 21st July, 1778, he moved, and succeeded
in his proposition, that the execution of these orders should be suspended. The reason he assigned
for this suspension lets in great light upon the true
character of all these proceedings: " That his consent to the recall of Mr. Graham would be adequate
to his own resignation of the service, as it would inflict such a wound on his authority and influence that
he could not maintain it. "
If that had been his opinion, he ought to have resigned, and not disobeyed: because it was not necessary that he should hold his office; but it was necessary, that, whilst he held it, he should obey his superiors, and submit to the law. Much more truly
was his conduct a virtual resignation of his lawful
office, and at the same time an usurpation of a sitlation which did not belong to him, to hold a subordinate office, and to refuse to act according to its dltties. Had his authority been self-originated, it would have been wounded by his submission; but in this
case the true nature of his authority was affirmed,
not injured, by his obedience, because it was a power
? ? ? ? ON THE AFFAIRS OF INDIA. 185
derived from others, and, by its essence, to be executed according to their directions.
In this determined disobedience he was supported
by Mr.
promise them their firmest support. " Some of the
cases," they say, "' are so flagrantly corrupt, and others
attended with circumstances so oppressive to the inhabitants, that it would be unjust to suffer the delinquents to
go unpunished. " With this observation their proceedinlgs appear to have ended, and paused for more than
a year.
On the 4th of March, 1778, the Directors appear to
have resumed the subject. In their letter of that date
they instructed the Governor and Council forthwith
to commence a prosecution in the Supreme Court of
Judicature against the persons who composed the
Committee of Circuit, or their representatives, and
also against Mr. Barwell, in order to recover, for the
use of the Company, the amount of all advantages
acquired by them from their several engagements in
salt contracts and farms. Adverting, however, to the
declaration made by Mr. Barwell, that he would account to the Court of Directors for the last shilling
he had received and abide implicity by their judgment, they thought it probable, that, on being acquainted with their peremptory orders for commencing a prosecution, he might be desirous of paying his share of profits into the Company's treasury; and
they pointed out a precaution to be used in accepting
such a tender on his part.
On this part of the transaction your Committee
observe, that the Court of Directors appear blamable
in having delayed till February, 1777, to take any
measure in consequence of advices so interesting and
important, and on a matter concerning which they
had made so strong a declaration, - considering that
? ? ? ? ON THE AFFAIRS OF INDIA. 163
early in April, 1776, they say " they had investigated
the charges, and had then come to certain resolutions
concerning them. " But their delaying to send out
positive orders for commencing a prosecution against
the parties concerned till March, 1778, cannot be accounted for. In the former letter they promise, if
they should find it necessary, to return the original
covenants of such of their servants as had been any
ways concerned in the undue receipt of money, in
order to enable the Governor-General and Council
to recover the same by suits in the Supreme Court.
But your Committee do not find that the covenants
were ever transmitted to Bengal. To whatever cause
these instances of neglect and delay may be attributed, they could not fail to create an opinion in Bengal
that the Court of Directors were not heartily intent
upon the execution of their own orders, and to discourage those members of government who were disposed to undertake so invidious a duty.
In consequence of these delays, even their first
orders did not arrive in Bengal until some time after
the death of Colonel Monson, when the whole power
of the board had devolved to Mr. Hastings and Mr.
Barwell. When they sent what they call their positive orders, in March, 1778, they had long been apprised of the death of Colonel Monson, and must have been perfectly certain of the effect which that
event would have on the subsequent measures and
proceedings of the Governor-General and Council.
Their opinion of the principles of those gentlemen
appears in their letter of the 28th of November, 1777,
wherein they say " they cannot but express their concern that the power of granting away their property
in perpetuity should have devolved upon such persons. "
? ? ? ? 164 NINTH REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE
But the conduct of the Court of Directors appears
to be open to objections of a nature still more serious
and important. A recovery of the amount of Mr.
Barwell's profits seems to be the only purpose which
they even professed to have in view. But your Committee are of opinion that to preserve the reputation and dignity of the government of Bengal was a much
more important object, and ought to have been their
first consideration. The prosecution was not the pursuit of mean and subordinate persons, who might with safety'to the public interest remain in their
seats during such an inquiry into their conduct. It
appears very doubtful, whether, if there were grounds
for such a prosecution, a proceeding in Great Britain
were not more politic than one in Bengal. Such a
prosecution ought not to have been ordered by the
Directors, but upon grounds that would have fully
authorized the recall of the gentleman in question.
This prosecution, supposing it to have been seriously
undertaken, and to have succeeded, must have tended to weaken the government, and to degrade it in the eyes of all India. On the other hand, to intrust
a man, armed as he was with all the powers of his
station, and indeed of the government, with the conduct of a prosecution against himself, was altogether inconsistent and absurd. The same letter in which
they give these orders exhibits an example which sets
the inconsistency of their conduct in a stronger light,
because the case is somewhat of a similar nature,
but infinitely less pressing in its circumstances. Observing that the Board of Trade had commenced a prosecution against Mr. William Barton, a member
of that board, for various acts of peculation committed by him, they say, " We must be of opinion, that,
? ? ? ? ON THE AFFAIRS OF INDIA. 165
as prosecutions are actually carrying on against him by
our Board of Trade, he is, during such prosecution
at least, an improper person to hold a seat at that
board; and therefore we direct that he be suspended
from the Company's service until our further pleasure concerning him be known. " The principle laid down in this instruction, even before their own opinion concerning Mr. Barton's case was declared, and merely on the prosecution of others, serves to render
their conduct not very accountable in the case of
Mr. Barwell. Mr. Barton was in a subordinate situation, and his remaining or not remaining in it was
of little or no moment to the prosecution. Mr.
Barton was but one of seven; whereas Mr. Barwell
was one of four, and, with the Governor-General,
was in effect the Supreme Council.
In the present state of power and patronage in
India, and during the relations which are permitted
to subsist between the judges, the prosecuting officers, and the Council-General, your Committee is very doubtful whether the mode of prosecuting the
highest members in the Bengal government, before
a court at Calcutta, could have been almost in any
case advisable.
It is possible that particular persons, in high judicial and political situations, may, by force of an unusual strain of virtue, be placed far above the
influence of those circumstances which in ordinary
cases are known to make an impression on the human mind. But your Committee, sensible that laws and public proceedings ought to be made for general situations, and not for personal dispositions, are not inclined to have any confidence in the effect of
criminal proceedings, where no means are provided
? ? ? ? 166 NINTH REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE
for preventing a mutual connection, by dependencies, agencies, and employments, between the parties who are to prosecute and to judge and those who are to be prosecuted and to be tried.
Your Committee, in a former Report, have stated
the consequences which they apprehended from the
dependency of the judges on the Governor-General
and Council of Bengal; and the House has entered
into their ideas upon this subject. Since that time
it appears that Sir Elijah Impey has accepted of
the guardianship of Mr. Barwell's children, and was
the trustee for his affairs. There is no law to prevent this sort of connection, and it is possible that
it might not at all affect the mind of that judge, or
(upon his account) indirectly influence the conduct
of his brethren; but it must forcibly affect the minds
of those who have matter of complaint against government, and whose cause the Court of Directors
appear to espouse, in a country where the authority of the Court of Directors has seldom been exerted but to be despised, where the operation of laws is but very imperfectly understood, but where
men are acute, sagacious, and even suspicious of
the effect of all personal connections. Their suspicions, though perhaps not rightly applied to every
individual, will induce them to take indications from
the situations and connections of the prosecuting parties, as well as of the judges. It cannot fail to be
observed, that Mr. Naylor, the Company's attorney,
lived in Mr. Barwell's house; the late Mr. Bogle, the
Company's commissioner of lawsuits, owed his place
to the patronage of Mr. Hastings and Mr. Barwell,
by whom the office was created for him; and Sir
John Day, the Company's advocate, who arrived in
? ? ? ? ON THE AFFAIRS OF INDIA. 167
Bengal in February, 1779, had not been four months
in Calcutta, when Mr. Hastings, Mr. Barwell, and
Sir Eyre Coote doubled his salary, contrary to the
opinion of Mr. Francis and Mr. Wheler.
If the Directors are known to devolve the whole
cognizance of the offences charged on their servants
so highly situated upon the Supreme Court, an excuse will be fiurnished, if already it has not been furnished, to the Directors for declining the use of their own proper political power and authority in examining into and animadverting on the conduct of their
servants. Their true character, as strict masters and
vigilant governors, will merge in that of prosecutors.
Their force and energy will evaporate in tedious and
intricate processes, --in lawsuits which can never end,
and which are to be carried on by the very dependants of those who are under prosecution. On their
part, these servants will decline giving satisfaction to
their masters, because they are already before another tribunal; and thus, by shifting responsibility from
hand to hand, a confederacy to defeat the whole spirit
of the law, and to remove all real restraints on their
actions, may be in time formed between the servants,
Directors, prosecutors, and court. Of this great danger your Committee will take further notice in another place.
No notice whatever appears to have been taken of
the Company's orders in Bengal till the 11th of January, 1779, when Mr. Barwell moved, that the claim
made upon him by the Court of -Directors should be submitted to the Company's lawyers, and that they should
be perfectly instructed to prosecute upon it. In his
minute of that date he says, " that the state of his
health had long since rendered it necessary for him to
return to Europe. "
? ? ? ? 168 NINTH REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE
Your Committee observe that he continued in Bengal another year. He says, " that he had hitherto waited for the arrival of Sir John Day, the Company's advocate; but as the season was now far advanced, he wished to bring the trial speedily to
issue. "
In this minute he retracts his original engagement
to submit himself to the judgment of the Court of
Directors, " and to account to them for the last shilling he had received" he says, " that no merit had been given him for the offer; that a most unjustifiable advantage had been attempted to be made of it, by first declining it and descending to abuse, and then
giving orders upon it as if it had been rejected, when
called upon by him in the person of his agent to
bring home the charge of delinquency. "
Mr. Barwell's reflections on the proceedings of the
Court of Directors are not altogether clearly expressed; nor does it appear distinctly to what facts
he alludes. He asserts that a most unjustifiable advantage had been attempted to be made of his offer. The fact is, the Court of Directors have nowhere declined accepting it; on the contrary, they caution the Governor-General and Council about the manner of
receiving the tender of the money which they expect
him to make. They say nothing of any call made on
them by Mr. Barwell's agent in England; nor does
it appear to your Committee that they " have descended to abuse. " They have a right, and it is
their duty, to express, in distinct and appropriated
terms, their sense of all blamable conduct in their
servants.
So far as may be collected from the evidence of
the Company's records, Mr. Barwell's assertions do
? ? ? ? ON THE AFFAIRS OF INDIA. 169
not appear well supported; but even if they were
more plausible, your Committee apprehend that he
could not be discharged from his solemn recorded
promise to abide by the judgment of the Court of
Directors. Their judgment was declared by their
resolution to prosecute, which it depended upon himself to satisfy by making good his engagement. To excuse his not complying with the Company's claims,
hie says, " that his compliance would be urged as a confession of delinquency, and to proceed from conviction of his having usurped on the rights of the Company. "
Considerations of this nature might properly have
induced Mr. Barwell to stand upon his right in the
first instance, " and to appeal" (to use his own
words) " to the laws of his country, in order to vindicate his fame. " But his performance could not have
more weight to infer delinquency than his promise.
Your Committee think his observation comes too
late.
If he had stood a trial, when he first acknowledged
the facts, and submitted himself to the judgment of
the Court of Directors, the suit would have been
carried on under the direction of General Clavering,
Colonel Monson, and Mr. Francis; whereas in the
year 1779 his influence at the board gave him the
conduct of it himself. In an interval of four years
it may be presumed that great alterations might have
happened in the state of the evidence against him.
In the subsequent proceedings of the GovernorGeneral and Council the House will find that Mr.
Barwell complained that his instances for carrying
on the prosecution were ineffectual, owing to the
legal difficulties and delays urged by the Company's
law officers, which your Committee do not find have
? ? ? ? 170 NINTH REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE
yet been removed. As far as the latest advices
reach, no progress appears to have been made in
the business. In July, 1782, the Court of Directors
found it necessary to order an account of all suits
against Europeans depending in the Supreme Court
of Judicature to be transmitted to them, and that
no time should be lost in bringing them to a determination.
SALTPETRE.
THE next article of direct monopoly subservient to
the Company's export is saltpetre. This, as well as
opium, is far the greater part the produce of the province of Bahar. The difference between the management and destination of the two articles has been this. Until the year 1782, the opium has been sold
in the country, and the produce of the sale laid out
in country merchandise for the Company's export.
A great part of the saltpetre is sent out in kind, and
never has contributed to the interior circulation and
commerce of Bengal. It is managed by agency on
the Company's account. The price paid to the manufacturer is invariable. Some of the larger undertakers receive advances to enable them to prosecute their work; but as they are not always equally careful or fortunate, it happens that large balances accumulate against them. Orders have been sent from Calcutta from time to time to recover their balances,
with little or no success, but with great vexation to all
concerned in the manufacture. Sometimes they have
imprisoned the failing contractors in their own houses,
-a severity which answers no useful purpose. Such
persons are so many hands detached from the im
? ? ? ? ON THE AFFAIRS OF INDIA. 171
provement and added to the burden of the country.
They are persons of skill drawn from the future supply
of that monopoly in favor of which they are prosecuted. In case of the death of the debtor, this rigorous
demand falls upon the ruined houses of widows and
orphans, and may be easily converted into a means
either of cruel oppression or a mercenary indulgence,
according to the temper of the exactors. Instead of
thus having recourse to imprisonment, the old balance
is sometimes deducted from the current produce.
This, in these circumstances, is a grievous discouragement. People must be discouraged from entering into a business, when, the commodity being fixed to one invariable standard and confined to one market, the
best success can be attended only with a limited advantage, whilst a defective produce can never be compensated by an augmented price. Accordingly, very little of these advances has been recovered, and after
much vexation the pursuit has generally been abandoned. It is plain that there can be no life and vigor
in any business under a monopoly so constituted; nor
can the true productive resources of the country, in
so large an article of its commerce, ever come to be
fully known.
The supply for the Company's demand in England
has rarely fallen short of two thousand tons, nor much
exceeded two thousand five hundred. A discretionary allowance of this commodity has been made to the
French, Dutch, and Danes, who purchase their allotted shares at some small advance on the Company's
price. The supply destined for the London market
is proportioned to the spare tonnage; and to accommodate that tonnage, the saltpetre is sometimes sent
to Madras and sometimes even to Bombay, and that
? ? ? ? 172 NINTH REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE
not unfrequently in vessels expressly employed for the
purpose.
Mr. Law, Chief of Patna, being examined on the
effect of that monopoly, delivered his opinion, that
with regard to the Company's trade the monopoly was
advantageous, but as sovereigns of the country they
must be losers by it. These two capacities in the
Company are found in perpetual contradiction. But
much doubt may arise whether this monopoly will be
found advantageous to the Company either in the one
capacity or the other. The gross commodity monopolized for sale in London is procured from the revenues in Bengal; the certain is given for the hazardous. The loss of interest on the advances, sometimes the loss of the principal, - the expense of carriage from Patna to Calcutta, - the various loading and unloadings, and insurance (which, though borne
by the Company, is still insurance), -- the engagement for the Ordnance, limited in price, and irregular in payment, - the charge of agency and management, through all its gradations and successions, --
when all these are taken into consideration, it may be
found that the gain of the Company as traders will be
far from compensating their loss as sovereigns. A
body like the East India Company can scarcely, in any
circumstance, hope to carry on the details of such a
business, from its commencement to its conclusion,
with any degree of success. In the subjoined estimate
of profit and loss, the value of the commodity is stated
at its invoice price at Calcutta. But this affords no
just estimate of the whole effect of a dealing, where
the Company's charge commences in the first rudi
ments of the manufacture, and not at the purchase
at the place of sale and valuation: for they [there? ]
? ? ? ? ON THE AFFAIRS OF INDIA. 173
may be heavy losses on the value at which the saltpetre is estimated, when shipped off on their account,
without any appearance in the account; and the inquiries of your Committee to find the charges on the
saltpetre previous to the shipping have been fruitless.
BRITISH GOVERNMENT IN INDIA.
THE other link by which India is bound to Great
Britain is the government established there originally
by the authority of the East India Company, and afterwards modified by Parliament by the acts of 1773
and 1780. This system of government appears to
your Committee to be at least as much disordered,
and as much perverted from every good purpose for
which lawful rule is established, as the trading system has been from every just principle of commerce.
Your Committee, in tracing the causes of this disorder through its effects, have first considered the
government as it is constituted and managed within
itself, beginning with its most essential and fundamental part, the order and discipline by which the supreme authority of this kingdom is maintained. The British government in India being a subordinate and delegated power, it ought to be considered
as a fundamental principle in such a system, that it
is to be preserved in the strictest obedience to the
government at home. Administration in India, at
an immense distance from the seat of the supreme
authority, -- intrusted with the most extensive powers, -- liable to the greatest temptations, - possessing the amplest means of abuse, - ruling over a people guarded by no distinct or well-ascertained
? ? ? ? 174 NINTH REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE
privileges, whose language, manners, and radical prejudices render not only redress, but all complaint on
their part, a matter of extreme difficulty, - such an
administration, it is evident, never can be made subservient to the interests of Great Britain, or even tolerable to the natives, but by the strictest rigor in exacting obedience to the commands of the authority lawfully set over it.
But your Committee find that this principle has
been for some years very little attended to. Before
the passing the act of 1773, the professed purpose of
which was to secure a better subordination in the
Company's servants, such was the firmness with
which the Court of Directors maintained their authority, that they displaced Governor Cartier, confessedly a meritorious servant, for disobedience of
orders, although his case was not a great deal more
than a question by whom the orders were to be
obeyed. * Yet the Directors were so sensible of the
necessity of a punctual and literal obedience, that,
conceiving their orders went to the parties who were
to obey, as w;ell as to the act to be done, they proceeded with a strictness that, in all cases except that
of their peculiar government, might well be considered as rigorous. But in proportion as the necessity
of enforcing obedience grew stronger and more urgent, and in proportion to the magnitude and importance of the objects affected by disobedience, this
rigor has been relaxed. Acts of disobedience have
not only grown frequent, but systematic; and they
have appeared in such instances, and are manifested
in such a manner, as to amount, in the Company's
* Vide Committee's Fifth Report, page 21, and Appendix to that
Report, No. 12.
? ? ? ? ON THE AFFAIRS OF INDIA. 175
servants, to little less than absolute independence,
against which, on the part of the Directors, there is
no struggle, and hardly so much as a protest to preserve a claim.
Before your Committee proceed to offer to the
House their remarks on the most distinguished of
these instances, the particulars of which they have
already reported, they deem it necessary to enter
into some detail of a transaction equally extraordinary and important, though not yet brought into the view of Parliament, which appears to have laid the
foundation of the principal abuses that ensued, as
well as to have given strength and encouragement
to those that existed. To this transaction, and to
the conclusions naturally deducible from it, your
Committee attribute that general spirit of disobedience and independence which has since prevailed
in the government of Bengal.
Your Committee find that in the year 1775 Mr.
Lauchlan Macleane was sent into England as agent
to the Nabob of Arcot and to Mr. Hastings. The
conduct of Mr. Hastings, in assisting to extirpate, for
a sum of money to be paid to the Company, the innocent nation of the Rohillas, had drawn upon him the censure of the Court of Directors, and the unanimous
censure of the Court of Proprietors.
The former had
even resolved to prepare an application to his Majesty
for Mr. Hastings's dismission.
Another General Court was called on this proceeding. Mr. Hastings was then openly supported by a maj6rity of the Court of Proprietors, who professed
to entertain a good opinion of his general ability
and rectitude of intention, notwithstanding the unanimous censure passed upon him. In that censure
? ? ? ? 176 NINTH REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE
they therefore seemed disposed to acquiesce, without
pushing the matter farther. But, as the offence was
far from trifling, and the condemnation of the measure recent, they did not directly attack the resolution of the Directors to apply to his Majesty, but voted in the ballot that it should be reconsidered.
The business therefore remained in suspense, or it
rather seemed to be dropped, for some months, when
Mr. Macleane took a step of a nature not in the least
to be expected from the condition in which the
cause of his principal stood, which was apparently as
favorable as the circumstances could bear. Hitherto
the support of Mr. Hastings in the General Court
was only by a majority; but if on application from
the Directors he should be removed, a mere majority
would not have been sufficient for his restoration.
The door would have been barred against his return
to the Company's service by one of the strongest and
most substantial clauses in the Regulating Act of
1773. Mr. Macleane, probably to prevent the manifest ill consequences of such a step, came forward
with a letter to the Court of Directors, declaring his
provisional powers, and offering on the part of Mr.
Hastings an immediate resignation of his office.
On this occasion the Directors showed themselves
extremely punctilious with regard to Mr. Macleane's
powers. They probably dreaded the charge of becoming accomplices to an evasion of the act by
which Mr. Hastings, resigning the service, would
escape the consequences attached by law to a dismission; they therefore demanded Mr. Macleane's
written authority. This -he declared he could not
give into their hands, as the letter contained other
matters, of a nature extremely confidential, but that,
? ? ? ? ON THE AFFAIRS OF INDIA. 177
if they would appoint a committee of the Directors,
he would readily communicate to them the necessary
parts of the letter, and give them perfect satisfaction with regard to his authority. A deputation was
accordingly named, who reported that they had seen
Mr. Hastings's instructions, contained in a paper in
his own handwriting, and that the authority for the
act now done by Mr. Macleane was clear and suf:
ficient. Mr. Vansittart, a very particular friend of
Mr. Hastings, and Mr. John Stewart, his most attached and confidential dependant, attended on this
occasion, and proved that directions perfectly correspondent to this written authority had been given by
Mr. Hastings in their presence. By this means the.
powers were fully authenticated; but the letter remained safe in Mr. Macleane's hands.
Nothing being now wanting to the satisfaction of
the Directors, the resignation was formally accepted.
Mr. Wheler was named to fill the vacancy, and presented for his Majesty's approbation, which was received. The act was complete, and the office that Mr. Hastings had resigned was legally filled. This
proceeding was officially notified in Bengal, and General Clavering, as senior in Council, was in course
to succeed to the office of Governor-General.
Mr. Hastings, to extricate himself from the difficulties into which this resignation had brought him,
had recourse to one of those unlooked-for and hardy
measures which characterize the whole of his administration. He came to a resolution of disowiiing his agent, denying his letter, and disavowing his friends. He insisted on cdntinuing in the executioni
of his office, and supported himself by such reasons
as could be furnished in such a cause. An open
VOL. VIII. 12
? ? ? ? 178 NINTH REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE
schism instantly divided the Council. General Clavering claimed the office to which he ought to succeed, and Mr. Francis adhered to him: Mr. Barwell
stuck to Mr. Hastings. Tile two parties assembled
separately, and everything was running fast into a
confusion which suspended government, and might
very probably have ended in a civil war, had not the
judges of the Supreme Court, on a reference to them,
settled the controversy by deciding that the resignation was an invalid act, and that Mr. Hastings was
still in the legal possession of his place, which had
been actually filled up in England. It was extraordinary that the nullity of this resignation should not
have been discovered in England, where the act authorizing the resignation then was, where the agent
was personally present, where the witnesses were examined, and where there was and could be no want
of legal advice, either on the part of the Company
or of the crown. The judges took no light matter
upon them in superseding, and thereby condemning
the legality of his Majesty's appointment: for such it
became by the royal approbation.
On this determination, such as it was, the division
in the meeting, but not in the minds of the Council,
ceased. General Clavering uniformly opposed the
conduct of Mr. Hastings to the end of his life. But
Mr. Hastings showed more temper under much greater provocations. In disclaiming his agent, and in effect accusing him of an imposture the most deeply injurious to his character and fortune, and of the grossest forgery to support it, he was so very mild
and indulgent as not to show any active resentment
against his unfaithful agent, nor to complain to the
Court of Directors. It was expected in Bengal that
? ? ? ? ON THE AFFAIRS OF INDIA. 179
some strong measures would have immediately been
taken to preserve the just rights of the king and of
the Court of Directors; as this proceeding, unaccompanied with the severest animadversion, manifestly struck a decisive blow at the existence of the most essential powers of both. But your Committee do
not find that any measures whatever, such as the case
seenled to demand, were taken. The observations
made by the Court of Directors on what they call
" these extraordinary transactions" are just and well
applied. They conclude with a declaration, " that the
measures which it might be necessary for them to take,
in order to retrieve the honor of the Company, and to
prevent the like abuse from being practised in future,
should have their most serious and earliest consideration "; and with this declaration they appear to have
closed the account, and to have dismissed the subject
forever.
A sanction was hereby given to all future defiance
of every authority in this kingdom. Several other
matters of complaint against Mr. Hastings, particularly the charge of peculation, fell to the ground at the
same time. Opinions of counsel had been taken relative to a prosecution at law upon this charge, from
the then Attorney and the then Solicitor-General and
Mr. Dunning, (now the Lords Thurlow, Loughborough, and Ashburton,) together with Mr. Adair (now
Recorder of London). None of them gave a positive
opinion against the grounds of the prosecution. The
Attorney-General doubted on the prudence of the proceedings, and censured (as it well deserved) the ill
statement of the case. Three of them, Mr. Wedderburn, Mr. Dunning, and Mr. Adair, were clear in favor of the prosecution. No prosecution, however, was
? ? ? ? 180 NINTH REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE
had, and the Directors contented themselves with censuring and admonishing Mr. Hastings.
With regard to the Supreme Council, the members
who chose (for it was choice only) to attend to the
orders which were issued from the languishing authority of the Directors continued to receive unprofitable applauses and no support. Their correspondence was always filled with complaints, the justice of which was always admitted by the Court of Directors;
but this admission of the existence of the evil showed
only the impotence of those who were to administer
the remedy. The authority of the Court of Directors,
resisted with success in so capital an instance as that
of the resignation, was not likely to be respected in
any other. What influence it really had on the conduct of the Company's servants may be collected from
the facts that followed it.
The disobedience of Mr. Hastings has of late not
only become uniform and systematical in practice,
but has been in principle, also, supported by him, and
by Mr. Barwell, late a member of the Supreme Council in Bengal, and now a member of this House.
In the Consultation of the 20th of July, 1778, Mr.
Barwell gives it as his solemn and deliberate opinion,
that, "while Mr. Hastings is in the government, the
respect and dignity of his station should be supported.
In these sentiments, I must decline an acquiescence
in any order which has a tendency to bring the government into disrepute. As the Company have the
means and power of forming their own administration
in India, they may at pleasure place whom they please
at the head; but in my opinion they are not authorized to treat a person in that post with indignity. "
By treating them with indignity (in the particular
? ? ? ? ON THE AFFAIRS OF INDIA. 181
cases wherein they have declined obedience to orders)
they must mean those orders which imply a censure
on any part of their conduct, a reversal of any of their
proceedings, or, as Mr. Barwell expresses himself in
words very significant, in any orders that have a tendency to bring their government into disrepute. The
amplitude of this latter description, reserving to them
the judgment of any orders which have so much as
that tendency, puts them in possession of a complete
independence, an independence including a despotic
authority over the subordinates and the country. The
very means taken by the Directors for enforcing their
authority becomes, on this principle, a cause of further disobedience. It is observable, that their principles of disobedience do not refer to any local consideration, overlooked by the Directors, which might supersede their orders, or to any change of circumstances, which might render another course advisable,
or even perhaps necessary, -- but it relates solely to
their own interior feelings in matters relative to themselves, and their opinion of their own dignity and reputation. It is plain that they have wholly forgotten
who they are, and what the nature of their office is.
Mr. Hastings and Mr. Barwell are servants of the
Company, and as such, by the duty inherent in that
relation, as well as by their special covenants, were
obliged to yield obedience to the orders of their masters. They have, as far as they were able, cancelled
all the bonds of this relation, and all the sanctions of
these covenants.
But in thus throwing off the authority of the Court
of Directors, Mr. Hastings and Mr. Barwell have
thrown off the authority of the whole legislative power of Great Britain; for, by the Regulating Act of the
? ? ? ? 182 NINTH REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE
thirteenth of his Majesty, they are expressly " directed and required to pay due obedience to all such orders as they shall receive from the Court of Directors of the said United Company. " Such is the declaration of the law. But Mr. Barwell declares that he
declines obedience to any orders which he shall inter.
pret to be indignities on a Governor-General. To the
clear injunctions of the legislature Mr. Hastings and
Mr. Barwell have thought proper to oppose their pretended reputation and dignity; as if the chief honor
of public ministers in every situation was not to yield
a cheerful obedience to the laws of their country.
Your Committee, to render evident to this House the
general nature and tendency of this pretended dignity, and to illustrate the real principles upon which
they appear to have acted, think it necessary to make
observations on three or four of the cases, already reported, of marked disobedience to particular and special orders, on one of which the above extraordinary doctrine was maintained.
These are the cases of Mr. Fowke, Mr. Bristow, and
Mahomed Reza Khan. In a few weeks after the death
of Colonel Monson, Mr. Hastings having obtained a
majority in Council by his casting vote, Mr. Fowke
and Mr. Bristow were called from their respective offices of Residents at Benares and Oude, places which
have become the scenes of other extraordinary operations under the conduct of Mr. Hastings in person.
For the recall of Mr. Bristow no reason was assigned.
The reason assigned for the proceeding with regard
to Mr. Fowke was, that " the purposes for which he
was appointed were then fully accomplished. "
An accotunt of the removal of Mr. Fowke was communicated to the Court of Directors in a letter of the
? ? ? ? ON THE AFFAIRS OF INDIA. 183
22d of December, 1776. On this notification the
Court had nothing to conclude, but that Mr. Hastings, from a rigid pursufit of economy in the management of the Company's affairs, had recalled a useless
officer. But, without alleging any variation whatsoever in the circumstances, in less than twenty days
after the order for the recall of Mr. Fowke, and
the very day after the dispatch containing all accoullnt
of the transaction, Mr. Hastings recommended Mr.
Grahamn to this very office, the end of which, he
declared to the Directors but the day before, had
been fully accomplished; and not thinking this sufficient, he appointed Mr. D. Barwell as his assistant,
at a salary of about four hundred pounds a year.
Against this extraordinary act General Clavering and
Mr. Francis entered a protest.
So early as the 6th of the following January the
appointment of these gentlemen was communicated
in a letter to the Court of Directors, without ainy
sort of color, apology, or explanation. That court
found a servant removed from his station without
complaint, contrary to the tenor of one of their standing injunctions. They allow, however, and with reason, that, " if it were possible to suppose that a saving, &c. , had been his motive, they would have approved his proceeding. But that when immediately afterwards two persons, with two salaries, had been
appointed to execute the office which had been filled
with reputation by Mr. Fowke alone, and that Mr.
Graham enjoys all the emoluments annexed to the
office of Mr. Fowke," - they properly conclude that
Mr. Fowke was removed without just cause, to make
way for Mr. Graham, and strictly enjoin that the former be reinstated in his office of Resident as Post
? ? ? ? 184 NINTH REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE
master of Benares. In the same letter they assert
their rights in a tone of becoming firmness, and declare, that " on no account we can permit our orders
to be disobeyed or our authority disregarded. "
It was now to be seen which of the parties was to
give way. The orders were clear and precise, and
enforced by a strong declaration of the resolution of
the Court to make itself obeyed. Mr. Hastings fairly joined issue upon this point with his masters,
and, having disobeyed the general instructions of the
Company, determined to pay no obedience to their
special order.
On the 21st July, 1778, he moved, and succeeded
in his proposition, that the execution of these orders should be suspended. The reason he assigned
for this suspension lets in great light upon the true
character of all these proceedings: " That his consent to the recall of Mr. Graham would be adequate
to his own resignation of the service, as it would inflict such a wound on his authority and influence that
he could not maintain it. "
If that had been his opinion, he ought to have resigned, and not disobeyed: because it was not necessary that he should hold his office; but it was necessary, that, whilst he held it, he should obey his superiors, and submit to the law. Much more truly
was his conduct a virtual resignation of his lawful
office, and at the same time an usurpation of a sitlation which did not belong to him, to hold a subordinate office, and to refuse to act according to its dltties. Had his authority been self-originated, it would have been wounded by his submission; but in this
case the true nature of his authority was affirmed,
not injured, by his obedience, because it was a power
? ? ? ? ON THE AFFAIRS OF INDIA. 185
derived from others, and, by its essence, to be executed according to their directions.
In this determined disobedience he was supported
by Mr.
