162 NINTH REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE
(then consisting of General Clavering, Colonel Monson, and Mr.
(then consisting of General Clavering, Colonel Monson, and Mr.
Edmund Burke
?
148 NINTH REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE
ered over, like cattle, in succession, to different masters, who, under pretence of buying up the balances
due to their preceding employers, find means of keeping them in perpetual slavery. For evils of this nature there can be no perfect remedy as long as the monopoly continues. They are in the nature of the
thing, and cannot be cured, or effectually counteracted, even by a just and vigilant administration on the
spot. Many objections occur to the farming of any
branch of the public revenue in Bengal, particularly against farming the salt lands. But the dilemma
to which government by this system is constantly reduced, of authorizing great injustice or suffering great
loss, is alone sufficient to condemn it. Either government is expected to support the farmer or contractor in all his pretensions by an exertion of power, which tends of necessity to the ruin of the parties
subjected to the farmer's contract, and to the suppression of free trade, - or, if such assistance be refused him, he complains that he is not supported, that private persons interfere with his contract, that the
manufacturers desert their labor, and that proportionate deductions must be allowed him.
After the result of their examination into the general nature and effect of this monopoly, it remains
only for your Committee to inquire whether there
was any valid foundation for that declaration of Mr.
Hastings which we conclude must have principally
recommended the monopoly of salt to the favor of the
Court of Directors, viz. , " that the profit, which was
before reaped by English gentlemen, and by banians,
was now acquired by the Company. " On the contrary, it was proved and acknowledged before the Governor-General and Council, when they inquired into
? ? ? ? ON THE AFFAIRS OF INDIA. 149
this matter, in March, 1775, that the Chiefs and
Councils of those districts in which there were salt
mahls reserved particular salt farms for their own use,
and divided the profits, in certain stated proportions,
among themselves and their assistants. But, unless
a detail of these transactions, and of the persons concerned in them, should be called for by the House, it
is our wish to avoid entering into it. On one example only your Committee think it just and proper to
insist, stating first to the House on what principles
they have made this selection.
In pursuing their inquiries, your Committee have
endeavored chiefly to keep in view the conduct of
persons in the highest station, particularly of those
in whom the legislature, as well as the Company, have
placed a special confidence, -- judging that the conduct of such persons is not only most important in
itself, but most likely to influence the subordinate
ranks of the service. Your Committee have also examined the proceedings of the Court of Directors on
all those instances of the behavior of their servants
that seemed to deserve, and did sometimes attract,
their immediate attention. They constantly find that
the negligence of the Court of Directors has kept pace
with, and must naturally have quickened, the growth
of the practices which they have condemned. Breach
of duty abroad will always go hand in hand with neglect of it at home. In general, the Court of Directors, though sufficiently severe in censuring offences, and sometimes in punishing those whom they have
regarded as offenders of a lower rank, appear to have
suffered the most conspicuous and therefore the most
dangerous examples of disobedience and misconduct
in the first department of their service to pass with a
? ? ? ? 150 NINTH REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE
feeble and ineffectual condemnation. In those cases
which they have deemed too apparent and too strong
to be disregarded even with safety to themselves, and
against which their heaviest displeasure has been declared, it appears to your Committee that their interference, such as it was, had a mischievous rather than a useful tendency. A total neglect of duty in this
respect, however culpable, is not to be compared,
either in its nature or in its consequences, with the
destructive principles on which they have acted. It
has been their practice, if not system, to inquire, to
censure, and not to punish. As long as the misconduct of persons in power in Bengal was encouraged
by nothing but the hopes of concealment, it may be
presumed that they felt some restraint upon their actions, and that they stood in some awe of the power
placed over them; whereas it is to be apprehended
that the late conduct of the Court of Directors tells
them, in effect, that they have nothing to fear from
the certainty of a discovery.
On the same principle on which your Committee
have generally limited their researches to the persons
placed by Parliament or raised or put in nomination
by the Court of Directors to the highest station in
Bengal, it was also their original wish to limit those
inquiries to the period at which Parliament interposed
its authority between the Company and their servants,
and gave a new constitution to the Presidency of Fort
William. If the Company's servants had taken a
new date from that period, and if from thenceforward their conduct had corresponded with the views
of the legislature, it is probable that a review of the
transactions of remoter periods would not have been
deemed necessary, and that the remembrance of them
? ? ? ? ON THE AFFAIRS OF INDIA. 151
would have been gradually effaced and finally buried
in oblivion. But the reports which your Committee
have already made have shown the House that from
the year 1772, when those proceedings commenced
in Parliament onil which the act of the following year
was founded, abuses of every kind have prevailed and
multiplied in Bengal to a degree unknown in former
times, and are perfectly sufficient to account for the
present distress of the Company's affairs both at home
and abroad. The affair which your Committee now
lays before the House occupies too large a space in
the Company's records, and is of too much importance in every point of view, to be passed over.
Your Committee find that in March, 1775, a petition was presented to the Governor-General and
Council by a person called Coja Kaworke, an Armenian merchant, resident at Dacca, (of which division Mr. Richard Barwell had lately been. Chief,) setting forth in substance, that in November, 1772,
the petitioner had farmed a certain salt district,
called Savagepoor, and had entered into a contract with the- Committee of Circuit for providing
and delivering to the India Company the salt produced in that district; that in 1773 he farmed another, called Selimabad, on similar conditions. He alleges, that in February, 1774, when Mr. Barwell
arrived at Dacca, he charged the petitioner with
1,25,500 rupees, (equal to 13,0001. ,) as a contribution, and, in order to levy it, did the same year
deduct 20,799 rupees from the amount of the advance money which was ordered to be paid to the
petitioner, on account of the India Company, for
the provision of salt in the two farms, and, after
doing so, compelled the petitioner to execute and
? ? ? ? 152 NINTH REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE
give him four different bonds for 77,627 rupees, in
the name of one Porran Paul, for the remainder of
such contribution, or unjust profit.
Such were the allegations of the petition relative to
the unjust exaction. The harsh means of compelling
the payment make another and very material part;
for the petitioner asserts, that, in order to recover
the amount of these bonds, guards were placed over
him, and that Mr. Barwell by ill usage and oppressions recovered from him at different times 48,656
Arcot rupees, besides 283 rupees extorted by the
guard, --that, after this payment, two of the bonds,
containing 36,313 rupees, were restored to him, and
he was again committed to the charge of four peons,
or guards, to pay the amount of the remaining two
bonds. The petition further charges, that the said
gentleman and his people had also extorted from the
petitioner other sums of money, which, taken together, amounted to 25,000 rupees.
But the heaviest grievance alleged by him is, that,
after the sums of money had been extorted on1 account of the farms, the faith usual in such transactions is allowed not to have been kept; but, after the petitioner had been obliged to buy or compound for
the farms, that they were taken from him, -- " that
the said Richard Barwell, Esquire, about his departure from Dacca, in October, 1774, for self-interest
wrested from the petitioner the aforesaid two mahlls,
(or districts,) and farmed them to another persoi,
notwithstanding he had extorted from the petitioner
a considerable sum of money on account of those purgunnahs. "
To this petition your Committee find two accounts
annexed, in which the sums said to be paid to or
? ? ? ? ON THE AFFAIRS OF INDIA. 153
taken by Mr. Barwell, and the respective dates of
the several payments, are specified; and they find
that the account of particulars agrees with and
makes up the gross sum charged in the petition.
Mr. Barwell's immediate answer to the preceding
charge is contained in two letters to the board, dated
23rd and 24th of March, 1775. The answer is remarkable. He asserts, that " the whole of Kaworke's
relation is a gross misrepresentation of facts; -- that
the simple fact was, that in January, 1774, the salt
malts of Savagepoor and Selimabad became his, and
were re-let by him to this man, in the names of Bussunt Roy and Kissen Deb, on condition that he should
account with him [Mr. Barwell] for profits to a certain sum, and that he [Air. Barwell] engaged for
Savagepoor in the persuasion of its being a very
profitable farm"; and he concludes with saying,
" If I am mistaken in my reasoning, and the wish
to add to my fortune has warped my judgment, in a
transaction that may appear to the board in a light
different to what I view it in, it is past, -I cannot
recall it, -- and I rather choose to admit an error
than deny a fact. " In his second letter he says,
" To the Honorable Court of Directors I will submit
all my rights in the salt contracts I engaged in; and
if in their opinion those rights vest in the Company,
I will account to them for the last shilling I have received from such contracts, my intentions being upright; and as I never did wish to profit myself to the prejudice of my employers, by their judgment I will
be implicitly directed. "
The majority of the board desired that Kaworke's
petition should be transmitted to England by the ship
then under dispatch; and it was accordingly sent
? ? ? ? 154 NINTH REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE
with Mr. Barwell's replies. Mr. Barwell moved that
a committee should be appointed to take into consideration what he had to offer onil the subject of Kaworke's petition; and a committee was accordingly appointed, consisting of all the members of the Council except the Governor-General.
The committee opened their proceedings with reading a second petition from Kaworke, containing corrected accounts of cash said to be forcibly taken, and of the extraordinary and unwarrantable profits taken
or received from him by Richard Barwell, Esquire;
all which are inserted at large in the Appendix. By
these accounts Mr. Barwell is charged with a balance
or debt of 22,421 rupees to Kaworke. The principal difference between him and *Mr. Barwell arises
from a different mode of stating the accounts acknowledged to exist between them. In the account
current signed by Mr. Barwell, he gives Kaworke
credit for the receipt of 98,426 -rupees, and charges.
him with a balance of 27,073 rupees.
The facts stated or admitted by Mr. Barwell are
as follow: that the salt farms of Selimabad and
Savagepoor were his, and re-let by him to the two
Armenian merchants, Michael and Kaworke, on condition of their paying him 1,25,000 rupees, exclusive of their engagements to the Company; that the engagement was written in the name of Bussunt Roy
and Kissen Deb Sing; and Mr Barwell says, that the
reason of its being "'in these people's names was
because it was not thought consistent with the public
regulations that the names of any Europeans should
appear. "
It is remarkable that this policy was carried to
still greater length. Means were used to remove such
? ? ? ? ON THE AFFAIRS OF INDIA. 155
an obnoxious proceeding, as far as possible, from the
public eye; and they were such as will strongly impress the House with the facility of abuse and the
extreme difficulty of detection in everything which
relates to the Indian administration. For these substituted persons were again represented by the further substitution of another name, viz. , Rada churn -Dey, whom Mr. Barwell asserts to be a real persoil living at Dacca, and who stood for the factory of
Dacca; whereas the Armenian affirms that there was
no such person as Rada Churn, and that it was a
fictitious name.
Mr. Barwell, in his justification, proceeds to affirm, that Coja Kaworke never had the management
of the salt mahls, "' but on condition of accounting to
the former Chief, and to Mr. Barwell, for a specified
advantage arising from them, --that Mr. Barwell determined, without he could reconcile the interests of the
public with his own private emoluments, that he would
not engage in this concern, - and, that, when he took
an interest in it, it was for specified benefit in money,
and every condition in the public engagement to be
answered. "
Your Committee have stated the preceding facts
in the same terms in which they are stated by Mr.
Barwell. The House is to. judge how far they
amount to a defence against the charges contained
in Kaworke's petition, or to an admission of the
truth of the principal part of it. Mr. Barwell does
not allow that compulsion was used to extort the
money which he received from the petitioner, or
that the latter was dispossessed of the farms in consequence of an offer made to Mr. Barwell by another
person (Ramsunder Paulet) to pay him a lac of ru
? ? ? ? 156 NINTH REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE
pees more for them. The truth of these charges
has not been ascertained. They were declared by
Mr. Barwell to be false, but no attempt was made
by him to invalidate or confute them, though it concerned his reputation, and it was his duty, in the
station wherein he was placed, that charges of such
a nature should have been disproved, - at least, the
accuser should have been pushed to the proof of
them. Nothing of this kind appears to have been
done, or even attempted.
The transaction itself, as it stands, is clearly collusive; the form in which it is conducted is clandestine and mysterious in an extraordinary degree; and the acknowledged object of it a great illicit profit,
to be gained by an agent and trustee of the Company at the expense of his employers, and of which
he confesses he has received a considerable part.
The committee of the Governor-General and Council appear to have closed their proceedings with several resolutions, which, with the answers given by Mr. Barwell as a defence, are inserted in the Appendix. The whole are referred thither together, on
account of the ample extent of the answer. These
papers will be found to throw considerable light not
only on the points in question, but on the general
administration of the Company's revenues in Bengal.
On some passages in Mr. Barwell's defence, or account of his conduct, your Committee offer the following remarks to the judgment of the House.
In his letter of the 23rd March, 1775, he says, that
he engaged for Savagepoor in the persuasion of its
being a very profitable farm. In this place your Committee think it proper to state the 17th article of the
regulations of the Committee of Circuit, formed in
? ? ? ? ON THE AFFAIRS OF INDIA. 157
May, 1772, by the President and Council, of which
Mr. Barwell was a member, together with their own
observations thereupon.
17th. " That no peshcar, banian, or other servant.
of whatever denomination, of the collector, or relation or dependant of any such servant, be allowed
to farm lands, nor directly or indirectly to hold a
concern in any farm, nor to be security for any
farmer; that the collector be strictly enjoined to prevent such practices; and that, if it shall be discovered that any one, under a false name, or any kind of collusion, hath found means to evade this order,
he shall be subject to an heavy fine, proportionate
to the amount of the farm, and the farm shall be relet, or made khas: and if it shall appear that the
collector shall have countenanced, approved, or connived at a breach of this regulation, he shall stand
ipso facto dismissed from his collectorship. Neither
shall any European, directly or indirectly, be permitted to rent lands in any part of the country. "
Remark by the Board.
17th. "If the collector, or any persons who partake of his authority, are permitted to be the farmers
of the country, no other persons will dare to be their
competitors: of course they will obtain the farms on
their own terms. It is not fit that the servants of the
Company should be dealers with their masters. The
collectors are checks on the farmers. If they themselves turn farmers, what checks can be found for
them? What security will the Company have for
their property, or where are the ryots to look for
relief against oppressions? "
? ? ? ? 158 NINTH REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE
The reasons assigned for the preceding regulation
seem to your Committee to be perfectly just; but
they can by no means be reconciled to those which
induced Mr. Barwell to engage in the salt farms of
Selimabad and Savagepoor. In the first place, his
doing so is at length a direct and avowed, though
at first a covert, violation of the public regulation, to
which he was himself a party as a member of the
government, as well as an act of disobedience to tile
Company's positive orders on this subject. In their
General Letter of the 17th May, 1766, the Court of
Directors say, "We positively order, that no covenanted servant, or Englishman residing under our
protection, shall be suffered to hold any land for his
own account, directly or indirectly, in his own name
or that of others, or to be concerned in any farms or
revenues whatsoever. "
Secondly, if, instead of letting the Company's lands
or farms to indifferent persons, their agent or trustee be at liberty to hold them himself, he will always
(on principles stated and adhered to in the defence)
have a sufficient reason for farming them on his own
account, since he can at all times make them as
profitable as he pleases; or if he leases them to a
third person, yet reserves an intermediate profit for
himself, that profit may be as great as he thinks fit,
and must be necessarily made at the Company's expense. If at the same time he be collector of the revenues, it will be his interest to recommend remissions in favor of the nominal farmer, and he will have it
in his power to sink the amount of his collections.
These principles, and the correspondent practices,
leave the India Company without any security that
all the leases of the lands of Bengal may not have
? ? ? ? ON THE AFFAIRS OF INDIA. 159
been disposed of, under that administration which
made the five years' settlement in 1772, in the same
manner and for the same purpose.
To enable the House to judge how far this apprehension may be founded, it will be proper to state,
that Mr. Nicholas Grueber, who preceded Mr. Barwell in the Chiefship of Dacca, in a letter dated 29th
of April, 1775, declares that he paid to the Committee of Circuit twelve thousand rupees as their profit
on a single salt farm, -which sum, he says, " I paid
the Committee at their request, before their departure from Dacca, and reimbursed myself out of the
advances directed to be issued for the provision of the
salt. " Thus one illicit and mischievous transaction
always leads to another; and the irregular farming
of revenue brings on the misapplication of the commnercial advances.
Mr. Barwell professes himself to be sensible " that
a wish to add to his fortune may possibly have warped
his judgment, and that he rather chooses to admit an
error than deny a fact. " But your Committee are of
opinion that the extraordinary caution and the intricate contrivances with which his share in this transaction is wrapped up form a sufficient proof that he was not altogether misled in his judgment; and though
there might be some merit in acknowledging an error
before it was discovered, there could be very little
in a confession produced by previous detection.
The reasons assigned by Mr. Barwell, in defence of
the clandestine part of this transaction, seem to your
Committee to be insufficient in themselves, and not
very fit to be urged by a man in his station. In one
place he says, that " it was not thought consistent with
the public regulations that the names of any Europeans
? ? ? ? 160 NINTH REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE
should appear. " In another he says, " I am aware of
the objection that has been made to the English taking farms under the names of natives, as prohibited by the Company's orders; and I must deviate a little upon this. It has been generally understood that the scope and tendency of the Honorable Company's
prohibition of farms to Europeans was meant only to
exclude such as could not possibly, in their own persons, come under the jurisdiction of the Duanne courts of Adawlet, because, upon any failure of engagements, upon any complaint of unjust oppression, or other cause of discontent whatever, it was supposed an European might screen himself from the process of the country judicature. But it was' never
supposed that an European of credit and responsibility
was absolutely incapable from holding certain tenures under the sanction and authority of the country laws, or from becoming security for such native farmers, contractors, &c. , &c. , as he might protect and employ. "
Your Committee have opposed this construction of
Mr. Barwell's to the positive order which the conduct it is meant to color has violated. "Europeans
of credit and responsibility," that is, Europeans armed
with wealth and power, and exercising offices of authority and trust, instead of being excepted from the spirit of the restriction, must be supposed the persons
who are chiefly meant to be comprehended in it; for
abstract the idea of an European from the ideas of
power and influence, and the restriction is no longer
rational.
Your Committee are therefore of opinion that the
nature of the evil which was meant to be prevented
by the above orders and regulations was not altered,
? ? ? ? ON THE AFFAIRS OF INDIA. 161
or the evil itself diminished, by the collusive methods
made use of to evade them, - and that, if the regulations were proper, (as they unquestionably were,) they ought to have been punctually complied with,
particularly by the members of the government, who
formed the plan, and who, as trustees of the Company,
were especially answerable for their being duly carried into execution. Your Committee have no reason to believe that it could ever have been generally understood " that the Company's prohibition of farms to Europeans was meant only to exclude such as could
not possibly, in their own persons, come under the
jurisdiction of the Duanne courts ": no such restric --
tion is so much as hinted at. And if it had been so.
understood, Mr. Barwell was one of the persons who,
from their rank, station, and influence, must have
been the principal objects of the prohibition. Since
the establishment of the Company's influence in Bengal, no Europeans, of any rank whatever, have been subject to the process of the country judicature; and
whether they act avowedly for themselves, and take
farms in their own name, or substitute native Indians to act for them, the difference is not material.
The same influence that screened an European from
the jurisdiction of the country courts would have
equally protected his native agent and representative.
For many years past the Company's servants have
presided in those courts, and in comparison with their
authority the native authority is nothing.
The earliest instructions that appear to have been
given by the Court of Directors in consequence of
these transactions in Bengal are dated the 5th of February, 1777. In their letter of that date they applaud the proceedings of the board, meaning the majority,
VOL. VIII. 11
? ? ? ?
162 NINTH REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE
(then consisting of General Clavering, Colonel Monson, and Mr. 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.
ered over, like cattle, in succession, to different masters, who, under pretence of buying up the balances
due to their preceding employers, find means of keeping them in perpetual slavery. For evils of this nature there can be no perfect remedy as long as the monopoly continues. They are in the nature of the
thing, and cannot be cured, or effectually counteracted, even by a just and vigilant administration on the
spot. Many objections occur to the farming of any
branch of the public revenue in Bengal, particularly against farming the salt lands. But the dilemma
to which government by this system is constantly reduced, of authorizing great injustice or suffering great
loss, is alone sufficient to condemn it. Either government is expected to support the farmer or contractor in all his pretensions by an exertion of power, which tends of necessity to the ruin of the parties
subjected to the farmer's contract, and to the suppression of free trade, - or, if such assistance be refused him, he complains that he is not supported, that private persons interfere with his contract, that the
manufacturers desert their labor, and that proportionate deductions must be allowed him.
After the result of their examination into the general nature and effect of this monopoly, it remains
only for your Committee to inquire whether there
was any valid foundation for that declaration of Mr.
Hastings which we conclude must have principally
recommended the monopoly of salt to the favor of the
Court of Directors, viz. , " that the profit, which was
before reaped by English gentlemen, and by banians,
was now acquired by the Company. " On the contrary, it was proved and acknowledged before the Governor-General and Council, when they inquired into
? ? ? ? ON THE AFFAIRS OF INDIA. 149
this matter, in March, 1775, that the Chiefs and
Councils of those districts in which there were salt
mahls reserved particular salt farms for their own use,
and divided the profits, in certain stated proportions,
among themselves and their assistants. But, unless
a detail of these transactions, and of the persons concerned in them, should be called for by the House, it
is our wish to avoid entering into it. On one example only your Committee think it just and proper to
insist, stating first to the House on what principles
they have made this selection.
In pursuing their inquiries, your Committee have
endeavored chiefly to keep in view the conduct of
persons in the highest station, particularly of those
in whom the legislature, as well as the Company, have
placed a special confidence, -- judging that the conduct of such persons is not only most important in
itself, but most likely to influence the subordinate
ranks of the service. Your Committee have also examined the proceedings of the Court of Directors on
all those instances of the behavior of their servants
that seemed to deserve, and did sometimes attract,
their immediate attention. They constantly find that
the negligence of the Court of Directors has kept pace
with, and must naturally have quickened, the growth
of the practices which they have condemned. Breach
of duty abroad will always go hand in hand with neglect of it at home. In general, the Court of Directors, though sufficiently severe in censuring offences, and sometimes in punishing those whom they have
regarded as offenders of a lower rank, appear to have
suffered the most conspicuous and therefore the most
dangerous examples of disobedience and misconduct
in the first department of their service to pass with a
? ? ? ? 150 NINTH REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE
feeble and ineffectual condemnation. In those cases
which they have deemed too apparent and too strong
to be disregarded even with safety to themselves, and
against which their heaviest displeasure has been declared, it appears to your Committee that their interference, such as it was, had a mischievous rather than a useful tendency. A total neglect of duty in this
respect, however culpable, is not to be compared,
either in its nature or in its consequences, with the
destructive principles on which they have acted. It
has been their practice, if not system, to inquire, to
censure, and not to punish. As long as the misconduct of persons in power in Bengal was encouraged
by nothing but the hopes of concealment, it may be
presumed that they felt some restraint upon their actions, and that they stood in some awe of the power
placed over them; whereas it is to be apprehended
that the late conduct of the Court of Directors tells
them, in effect, that they have nothing to fear from
the certainty of a discovery.
On the same principle on which your Committee
have generally limited their researches to the persons
placed by Parliament or raised or put in nomination
by the Court of Directors to the highest station in
Bengal, it was also their original wish to limit those
inquiries to the period at which Parliament interposed
its authority between the Company and their servants,
and gave a new constitution to the Presidency of Fort
William. If the Company's servants had taken a
new date from that period, and if from thenceforward their conduct had corresponded with the views
of the legislature, it is probable that a review of the
transactions of remoter periods would not have been
deemed necessary, and that the remembrance of them
? ? ? ? ON THE AFFAIRS OF INDIA. 151
would have been gradually effaced and finally buried
in oblivion. But the reports which your Committee
have already made have shown the House that from
the year 1772, when those proceedings commenced
in Parliament onil which the act of the following year
was founded, abuses of every kind have prevailed and
multiplied in Bengal to a degree unknown in former
times, and are perfectly sufficient to account for the
present distress of the Company's affairs both at home
and abroad. The affair which your Committee now
lays before the House occupies too large a space in
the Company's records, and is of too much importance in every point of view, to be passed over.
Your Committee find that in March, 1775, a petition was presented to the Governor-General and
Council by a person called Coja Kaworke, an Armenian merchant, resident at Dacca, (of which division Mr. Richard Barwell had lately been. Chief,) setting forth in substance, that in November, 1772,
the petitioner had farmed a certain salt district,
called Savagepoor, and had entered into a contract with the- Committee of Circuit for providing
and delivering to the India Company the salt produced in that district; that in 1773 he farmed another, called Selimabad, on similar conditions. He alleges, that in February, 1774, when Mr. Barwell
arrived at Dacca, he charged the petitioner with
1,25,500 rupees, (equal to 13,0001. ,) as a contribution, and, in order to levy it, did the same year
deduct 20,799 rupees from the amount of the advance money which was ordered to be paid to the
petitioner, on account of the India Company, for
the provision of salt in the two farms, and, after
doing so, compelled the petitioner to execute and
? ? ? ? 152 NINTH REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE
give him four different bonds for 77,627 rupees, in
the name of one Porran Paul, for the remainder of
such contribution, or unjust profit.
Such were the allegations of the petition relative to
the unjust exaction. The harsh means of compelling
the payment make another and very material part;
for the petitioner asserts, that, in order to recover
the amount of these bonds, guards were placed over
him, and that Mr. Barwell by ill usage and oppressions recovered from him at different times 48,656
Arcot rupees, besides 283 rupees extorted by the
guard, --that, after this payment, two of the bonds,
containing 36,313 rupees, were restored to him, and
he was again committed to the charge of four peons,
or guards, to pay the amount of the remaining two
bonds. The petition further charges, that the said
gentleman and his people had also extorted from the
petitioner other sums of money, which, taken together, amounted to 25,000 rupees.
But the heaviest grievance alleged by him is, that,
after the sums of money had been extorted on1 account of the farms, the faith usual in such transactions is allowed not to have been kept; but, after the petitioner had been obliged to buy or compound for
the farms, that they were taken from him, -- " that
the said Richard Barwell, Esquire, about his departure from Dacca, in October, 1774, for self-interest
wrested from the petitioner the aforesaid two mahlls,
(or districts,) and farmed them to another persoi,
notwithstanding he had extorted from the petitioner
a considerable sum of money on account of those purgunnahs. "
To this petition your Committee find two accounts
annexed, in which the sums said to be paid to or
? ? ? ? ON THE AFFAIRS OF INDIA. 153
taken by Mr. Barwell, and the respective dates of
the several payments, are specified; and they find
that the account of particulars agrees with and
makes up the gross sum charged in the petition.
Mr. Barwell's immediate answer to the preceding
charge is contained in two letters to the board, dated
23rd and 24th of March, 1775. The answer is remarkable. He asserts, that " the whole of Kaworke's
relation is a gross misrepresentation of facts; -- that
the simple fact was, that in January, 1774, the salt
malts of Savagepoor and Selimabad became his, and
were re-let by him to this man, in the names of Bussunt Roy and Kissen Deb, on condition that he should
account with him [Mr. Barwell] for profits to a certain sum, and that he [Air. Barwell] engaged for
Savagepoor in the persuasion of its being a very
profitable farm"; and he concludes with saying,
" If I am mistaken in my reasoning, and the wish
to add to my fortune has warped my judgment, in a
transaction that may appear to the board in a light
different to what I view it in, it is past, -I cannot
recall it, -- and I rather choose to admit an error
than deny a fact. " In his second letter he says,
" To the Honorable Court of Directors I will submit
all my rights in the salt contracts I engaged in; and
if in their opinion those rights vest in the Company,
I will account to them for the last shilling I have received from such contracts, my intentions being upright; and as I never did wish to profit myself to the prejudice of my employers, by their judgment I will
be implicitly directed. "
The majority of the board desired that Kaworke's
petition should be transmitted to England by the ship
then under dispatch; and it was accordingly sent
? ? ? ? 154 NINTH REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE
with Mr. Barwell's replies. Mr. Barwell moved that
a committee should be appointed to take into consideration what he had to offer onil the subject of Kaworke's petition; and a committee was accordingly appointed, consisting of all the members of the Council except the Governor-General.
The committee opened their proceedings with reading a second petition from Kaworke, containing corrected accounts of cash said to be forcibly taken, and of the extraordinary and unwarrantable profits taken
or received from him by Richard Barwell, Esquire;
all which are inserted at large in the Appendix. By
these accounts Mr. Barwell is charged with a balance
or debt of 22,421 rupees to Kaworke. The principal difference between him and *Mr. Barwell arises
from a different mode of stating the accounts acknowledged to exist between them. In the account
current signed by Mr. Barwell, he gives Kaworke
credit for the receipt of 98,426 -rupees, and charges.
him with a balance of 27,073 rupees.
The facts stated or admitted by Mr. Barwell are
as follow: that the salt farms of Selimabad and
Savagepoor were his, and re-let by him to the two
Armenian merchants, Michael and Kaworke, on condition of their paying him 1,25,000 rupees, exclusive of their engagements to the Company; that the engagement was written in the name of Bussunt Roy
and Kissen Deb Sing; and Mr Barwell says, that the
reason of its being "'in these people's names was
because it was not thought consistent with the public
regulations that the names of any Europeans should
appear. "
It is remarkable that this policy was carried to
still greater length. Means were used to remove such
? ? ? ? ON THE AFFAIRS OF INDIA. 155
an obnoxious proceeding, as far as possible, from the
public eye; and they were such as will strongly impress the House with the facility of abuse and the
extreme difficulty of detection in everything which
relates to the Indian administration. For these substituted persons were again represented by the further substitution of another name, viz. , Rada churn -Dey, whom Mr. Barwell asserts to be a real persoil living at Dacca, and who stood for the factory of
Dacca; whereas the Armenian affirms that there was
no such person as Rada Churn, and that it was a
fictitious name.
Mr. Barwell, in his justification, proceeds to affirm, that Coja Kaworke never had the management
of the salt mahls, "' but on condition of accounting to
the former Chief, and to Mr. Barwell, for a specified
advantage arising from them, --that Mr. Barwell determined, without he could reconcile the interests of the
public with his own private emoluments, that he would
not engage in this concern, - and, that, when he took
an interest in it, it was for specified benefit in money,
and every condition in the public engagement to be
answered. "
Your Committee have stated the preceding facts
in the same terms in which they are stated by Mr.
Barwell. The House is to. judge how far they
amount to a defence against the charges contained
in Kaworke's petition, or to an admission of the
truth of the principal part of it. Mr. Barwell does
not allow that compulsion was used to extort the
money which he received from the petitioner, or
that the latter was dispossessed of the farms in consequence of an offer made to Mr. Barwell by another
person (Ramsunder Paulet) to pay him a lac of ru
? ? ? ? 156 NINTH REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE
pees more for them. The truth of these charges
has not been ascertained. They were declared by
Mr. Barwell to be false, but no attempt was made
by him to invalidate or confute them, though it concerned his reputation, and it was his duty, in the
station wherein he was placed, that charges of such
a nature should have been disproved, - at least, the
accuser should have been pushed to the proof of
them. Nothing of this kind appears to have been
done, or even attempted.
The transaction itself, as it stands, is clearly collusive; the form in which it is conducted is clandestine and mysterious in an extraordinary degree; and the acknowledged object of it a great illicit profit,
to be gained by an agent and trustee of the Company at the expense of his employers, and of which
he confesses he has received a considerable part.
The committee of the Governor-General and Council appear to have closed their proceedings with several resolutions, which, with the answers given by Mr. Barwell as a defence, are inserted in the Appendix. The whole are referred thither together, on
account of the ample extent of the answer. These
papers will be found to throw considerable light not
only on the points in question, but on the general
administration of the Company's revenues in Bengal.
On some passages in Mr. Barwell's defence, or account of his conduct, your Committee offer the following remarks to the judgment of the House.
In his letter of the 23rd March, 1775, he says, that
he engaged for Savagepoor in the persuasion of its
being a very profitable farm. In this place your Committee think it proper to state the 17th article of the
regulations of the Committee of Circuit, formed in
? ? ? ? ON THE AFFAIRS OF INDIA. 157
May, 1772, by the President and Council, of which
Mr. Barwell was a member, together with their own
observations thereupon.
17th. " That no peshcar, banian, or other servant.
of whatever denomination, of the collector, or relation or dependant of any such servant, be allowed
to farm lands, nor directly or indirectly to hold a
concern in any farm, nor to be security for any
farmer; that the collector be strictly enjoined to prevent such practices; and that, if it shall be discovered that any one, under a false name, or any kind of collusion, hath found means to evade this order,
he shall be subject to an heavy fine, proportionate
to the amount of the farm, and the farm shall be relet, or made khas: and if it shall appear that the
collector shall have countenanced, approved, or connived at a breach of this regulation, he shall stand
ipso facto dismissed from his collectorship. Neither
shall any European, directly or indirectly, be permitted to rent lands in any part of the country. "
Remark by the Board.
17th. "If the collector, or any persons who partake of his authority, are permitted to be the farmers
of the country, no other persons will dare to be their
competitors: of course they will obtain the farms on
their own terms. It is not fit that the servants of the
Company should be dealers with their masters. The
collectors are checks on the farmers. If they themselves turn farmers, what checks can be found for
them? What security will the Company have for
their property, or where are the ryots to look for
relief against oppressions? "
? ? ? ? 158 NINTH REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE
The reasons assigned for the preceding regulation
seem to your Committee to be perfectly just; but
they can by no means be reconciled to those which
induced Mr. Barwell to engage in the salt farms of
Selimabad and Savagepoor. In the first place, his
doing so is at length a direct and avowed, though
at first a covert, violation of the public regulation, to
which he was himself a party as a member of the
government, as well as an act of disobedience to tile
Company's positive orders on this subject. In their
General Letter of the 17th May, 1766, the Court of
Directors say, "We positively order, that no covenanted servant, or Englishman residing under our
protection, shall be suffered to hold any land for his
own account, directly or indirectly, in his own name
or that of others, or to be concerned in any farms or
revenues whatsoever. "
Secondly, if, instead of letting the Company's lands
or farms to indifferent persons, their agent or trustee be at liberty to hold them himself, he will always
(on principles stated and adhered to in the defence)
have a sufficient reason for farming them on his own
account, since he can at all times make them as
profitable as he pleases; or if he leases them to a
third person, yet reserves an intermediate profit for
himself, that profit may be as great as he thinks fit,
and must be necessarily made at the Company's expense. If at the same time he be collector of the revenues, it will be his interest to recommend remissions in favor of the nominal farmer, and he will have it
in his power to sink the amount of his collections.
These principles, and the correspondent practices,
leave the India Company without any security that
all the leases of the lands of Bengal may not have
? ? ? ? ON THE AFFAIRS OF INDIA. 159
been disposed of, under that administration which
made the five years' settlement in 1772, in the same
manner and for the same purpose.
To enable the House to judge how far this apprehension may be founded, it will be proper to state,
that Mr. Nicholas Grueber, who preceded Mr. Barwell in the Chiefship of Dacca, in a letter dated 29th
of April, 1775, declares that he paid to the Committee of Circuit twelve thousand rupees as their profit
on a single salt farm, -which sum, he says, " I paid
the Committee at their request, before their departure from Dacca, and reimbursed myself out of the
advances directed to be issued for the provision of the
salt. " Thus one illicit and mischievous transaction
always leads to another; and the irregular farming
of revenue brings on the misapplication of the commnercial advances.
Mr. Barwell professes himself to be sensible " that
a wish to add to his fortune may possibly have warped
his judgment, and that he rather chooses to admit an
error than deny a fact. " But your Committee are of
opinion that the extraordinary caution and the intricate contrivances with which his share in this transaction is wrapped up form a sufficient proof that he was not altogether misled in his judgment; and though
there might be some merit in acknowledging an error
before it was discovered, there could be very little
in a confession produced by previous detection.
The reasons assigned by Mr. Barwell, in defence of
the clandestine part of this transaction, seem to your
Committee to be insufficient in themselves, and not
very fit to be urged by a man in his station. In one
place he says, that " it was not thought consistent with
the public regulations that the names of any Europeans
? ? ? ? 160 NINTH REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE
should appear. " In another he says, " I am aware of
the objection that has been made to the English taking farms under the names of natives, as prohibited by the Company's orders; and I must deviate a little upon this. It has been generally understood that the scope and tendency of the Honorable Company's
prohibition of farms to Europeans was meant only to
exclude such as could not possibly, in their own persons, come under the jurisdiction of the Duanne courts of Adawlet, because, upon any failure of engagements, upon any complaint of unjust oppression, or other cause of discontent whatever, it was supposed an European might screen himself from the process of the country judicature. But it was' never
supposed that an European of credit and responsibility
was absolutely incapable from holding certain tenures under the sanction and authority of the country laws, or from becoming security for such native farmers, contractors, &c. , &c. , as he might protect and employ. "
Your Committee have opposed this construction of
Mr. Barwell's to the positive order which the conduct it is meant to color has violated. "Europeans
of credit and responsibility," that is, Europeans armed
with wealth and power, and exercising offices of authority and trust, instead of being excepted from the spirit of the restriction, must be supposed the persons
who are chiefly meant to be comprehended in it; for
abstract the idea of an European from the ideas of
power and influence, and the restriction is no longer
rational.
Your Committee are therefore of opinion that the
nature of the evil which was meant to be prevented
by the above orders and regulations was not altered,
? ? ? ? ON THE AFFAIRS OF INDIA. 161
or the evil itself diminished, by the collusive methods
made use of to evade them, - and that, if the regulations were proper, (as they unquestionably were,) they ought to have been punctually complied with,
particularly by the members of the government, who
formed the plan, and who, as trustees of the Company,
were especially answerable for their being duly carried into execution. Your Committee have no reason to believe that it could ever have been generally understood " that the Company's prohibition of farms to Europeans was meant only to exclude such as could
not possibly, in their own persons, come under the
jurisdiction of the Duanne courts ": no such restric --
tion is so much as hinted at. And if it had been so.
understood, Mr. Barwell was one of the persons who,
from their rank, station, and influence, must have
been the principal objects of the prohibition. Since
the establishment of the Company's influence in Bengal, no Europeans, of any rank whatever, have been subject to the process of the country judicature; and
whether they act avowedly for themselves, and take
farms in their own name, or substitute native Indians to act for them, the difference is not material.
The same influence that screened an European from
the jurisdiction of the country courts would have
equally protected his native agent and representative.
For many years past the Company's servants have
presided in those courts, and in comparison with their
authority the native authority is nothing.
The earliest instructions that appear to have been
given by the Court of Directors in consequence of
these transactions in Bengal are dated the 5th of February, 1777. In their letter of that date they applaud the proceedings of the board, meaning the majority,
VOL. VIII. 11
? ? ? ?
162 NINTH REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE
(then consisting of General Clavering, Colonel Monson, and Mr. 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.
