by Edmund Burke
It appears very necessary to your Committee to observe upon the great leading principles which Mr. Hastings assumes, to justify the irregular taking of these vast sums of money, and all the irregular means he had employed to cover the greater part of it. These principles are the more necessary to be inquired into, because, if admitted, they will serve to justify every species of improper conduct. His words are, “that the sources from which these reliefs to the public service have come would never have yielded them to the Company publicly; and that the exigencies of their service (exigencies created by the exposition of their affairs, and faction in their divided councils) required those supplies.”
As to the first of these extraordinary positions, your Committee cannot conceive what motive could actuate any native of India dependent on the Company, in assisting them privately, and in refusing to assist them publicly. If the transaction was fair and honest, every native must have been desirous of making merit with the great governing power. If he gave his money as a free gift, he might value himself upon very honorable and very acceptable service; if he lent it on the Company’s bonds, it would still have been of service, and he might also receive eight per cent for his money. No native could, without some interested view, give to the Governor-General what he would refuse to the Company as a grant, or even as a loan. It is plain that the powers of government must, in some way or other, be understood by the natives to be at sale. The Governor-General says that he took the money with an original destination to the purposes to which he asserts he has since applied it. But this original destination was in his own mind only, — not declared, nor by him pretended to be declared, to the party who gave the presents, and who could perceive nothing in it but money paid to the supreme magistrate for his private emolument. All that the natives could possibly perceive in such a transaction must be highly dishonorable to the Company’s government; for they must conceive, when they gave money to Mr. Hastings, that they bought from Mr. Hastings either what was their own right or something that was not so, or that they redeemed themselves from some acts of rigor inflicted, threatened, or apprehended. If, in the first case, Mr. Hastings gave them the object for which they bargained, his act, however proper, was corrupt, — if he did not, it was both corrupt and fraudulent; if the money was extorted by force or threats, it was oppressive and tyrannical. The very nature of such transactions has a tendency to teach the natives to pay a corrupt court to the servants of the Company; and they must thereby be rendered less willing, or less able, or perhaps both, to fulfil their engagements to the state. Mr. Scott’s evidence asserts that they would rather give to Mr. Hastings than lend to the Company. It is very probable; but it is a demonstration of their opinion of his power and corruption, and of the weak and precarious state of the Company’s authority.
The second principle assumed by Mr. Hastings for his justification, namely, that factious opposition and a divided government might create exigencies requiring such supplies, is full as dangerous as the first; for, if, in the divisions which must arise in all councils, one member of government, when he thinks others factiously disposed, shall be entitled to take money privately from the subject for the purposes of his politics, and thereby to dispense with an act of Parliament, pretences for that end cannot be wanting. A dispute may always be raised in council in order to cover oppression and peculation elsewhere. But these principles of Mr. Hastings tend entirely to destroy the character and functions of a council, and to vest them in one of the dissentient members. The law has placed the sense of the whole in the majority; and it is not a thing to be suffered, that any of the members should privately raise money for the avowed purpose of defeating that sense, or for promoting designs that are contrary to it: a more alarming assumption of power in an individual member of any deliberative or executive body cannot be imagined. Mr. Hastings had no right, in order to clear himself of peculation, to criminate the majority with faction. No member of any body, outvoted on a question, has, or can have, a right to direct any part of his public conduct by that principle. The members of the Council had a common superior, to whom they might appeal in their mutual charges of faction: they did so frequently; and the imputation of faction has almost always been laid on Mr. Hastings himself.
But there were periods, very distinguished periods too, in the records of the Company, in which the clandestine taking of money could not be supported even by this pretence. Mr. Hastings has been charged with various acts of peculation, perpetrated at a time he could not excuse himself by the plea of any public purpose to be carried on, or of any faction in council by which it was traversed. It may be necessary here to recall to the recollection of the House, that, on the cry which prevailed of the ill practices of the Company’s servants in India, (which general cry in a great measure produced the Regulating Act of 1773,) the Court of Directors, in their instructions of the 29th of March, 1774, gave it as an injunction to the Council-General, that “they immediately cause the strictest inquiry to be made into all oppressions which may have been committed either against natives or Europeans, and into all abuses which may have prevailed in the collection of the revenues or any part of the civil government of the Presidency; and that you communicate to us all information which you may be able to obtain relative thereto, or any embezzlement or dissipation of the Company’s money.”
In this inquiry, by far the most important abuse which appeared on any of the above heads was that which was charged relative to the sale in gross by Mr. Hastings of nothing less than the whole authority of the country government in the disposal of the guardianship of the Nabob of Bengal.
The present Nabob, Mobarek ul Dowlah, was a minor when he succeeded to the title and office of Subahdar of the three provinces in 1770. Although in a state approaching to subjection, still his rank and character were important. Much was necessarily to depend upon a person who was to preserve the moderation of a sovereign not supported by intrinsic power, and yet to maintain the dignity necessary to carry on the representation of political government, as well as the substance of the whole criminal justice of a great country. A good education, conformably to the maxims of his religion and the manners of his people, was necessary to enable him to fill that delicate place with reputation either to the Mahometan government or to ours. He had still to manage a revenue not inconsiderable, which remained as the sole resource for the languishing dignity of persons any way distinguished in rank among Mussulmen, who were all attached and clung to him. These considerations rendered it necessary to put his person and affairs into proper hands. They ought to have been men who were able by the gravity of their rank and character to preserve his morals from the contagion of low and vicious company, — men who by their integrity and firmness might be enabled to resist in some degree the rapacity of Europeans, as well as to secure the remaining fragments of his property from the attempts of the natives themselves, who must lie under strong temptation of taking their share in the last pillage of a decaying house.
The Directors were fully impressed with the necessity of such an arrangement. Your Committee find, that, on the 26th of August, 1771, they gave instructions to the President and Council to appoint “a minister to transact the political affairs of the circar [government], — and to select for that purpose some person well qualified for the affairs of government to be the minister of the government, and guardian of the Nabob’s minority.”
The order was so distinct as not to admit of a mistake; it was (for its matter) provident and well considered; and the trust which devolved on Mr. Hastings was of such a nature as might well stimulate a man sensible to reputation to fulfil it in a manner agreeably to the directions he had received, and not only above just cause of exception, but out of the reach of suspicion and malice. In that situation it was natural to suppose he would cast his eyes upon men of the first repute and consideration among the Mussulmen of high rank.
Mr. Hastings, instead of directing his eyes to the durbar, employed his researches in the seraglio. In the inmost recesses of that
place he discovered a woman secluded from the intercourse and shut up from the eyes of men, whom he found to correspond with the orders he had received from the Directors, as a person well “qualified for the affairs of government, fit to be a minister of government and the guardian of the Nabob’s minority.” This woman he solemnly invests with these functions. He appoints Rajah Gourdas, whom some time after he himself qualified with a description of a young man of mean abilities, to be her duan, or steward of the household. The rest of the arrangement was correspondent to this disposition of the principal offices.
It seems not to have been lawful or warrantable in Mr. Hastings to set aside the arrangement positively prescribed by the Court of Directors, which evidently pointed to a man, not to any woman whatever. As a woman confined in the female apartment, the lady he appointed could not be competent to hold or qualified to exercise any active employment: she stood in need of guardians for herself, and had not the ability for the guardianship of a person circumstanced as the Subah was. General Clavering, Colonel Monson, and Mr. Francis declare in their minute, “that they believe there never was an instance in India of such a trust so disposed of.” Mr. Hastings has produced no precedent in answer to this objection.
It will be proper to state to the House the situation and circumstances of the women principally concerned, who were in the seraglio of Jaffier Ali Khân at his death. The first of these was called Munny Begum, a person originally born of poor and obscure parents, who delivered her over to the conductress of a company of dancing girls; in which profession being called to exhibit at a festival, the late Nabob took a liking to her, and, after some cohabitation, she obtained such influence over him that he took her for one of his wives and (she seems to have been the favorite) put her at the head of his harem; and having a son by her, this son succeeded to his authority and estate, — Munny Begum, the mother, being by his will a devisee of considerable sums of money, and other effects, on which he left a charge, which has since been applied to the service of the East India Company. The son of this lady dying, and a son by another wife succeeding, and dying also, the present Nabob, Mobarek ul Dowlah, son by a third wife, succeeded. This woman was then alive, and in the seraglio.
It was Munny Begum that Mr. Hastings chose, and not the natural mother of the Nabob. Whether, having chosen a woman in defiance of the Company’s orders, and in passing by the natural parent of the minor prince, he was influenced by respect for the disposition made by the deceased Nabob during his life, or by other motives, the House will determine upon a view of the facts which follow. It will be matter of inquiry, when the question is stated upon the appointment of a stepmother in exclusion of the parent, whether the usage of the East constantly authorizes the continuance of that same distribution of rank and power which was settled in the seraglio during the life of a deceased prince, and which was found so settled at his death, and afterwards, to the exclusion of the mother of the successor. In case of female guardianship, her claim seems to be a right of Nature, and which nothing but a very clear positive law will (if that can) authorize the departure from. The history of Munny Begum is stated on the records of the Council-General, and no attempt made by Mr. Hastings to controvert the truth of it.
That was charged by the majority of Council to have happened which might be expected inevitably to happen: the care of the Nabob’s education was grossly neglected, and his fortune as grossly mismanaged and embezzled. What connection this waste and embezzlement had with the subsequent events the House will judge.
On the 2d of May, 1775, Mr. James Grant, accountant to the Provincial Council of Moorshedabad, produced to the Governor-General and Council certain Persian papers which stated nine lacs of rupees (upwards of ninety thousand pounds sterling) received by Munny Begum, on her appointment to the management of the Nabob’s household, over and above the balance due at that time, and not accounted for by her. These Grant had received from Nuned Roy, who had been a writer in the Begum’s Treasury Office. Both Mr. Grant and Nuned Roy were called before the board, and examined respecting the authenticity of the papers. Among other circumstances tending to establish the credit of these papers, it appears that Mr. Grant offered to make oath that the chief eunuch of the Begum had come to him on purpose to prevail on him not to send the papers, and had declared that the accounts were not to be disputed.
On the 9th of May it was resolved by a majority of the board, against the opinion and solemn protest of the Governor-General, that a gentleman should be sent up to the city of Moorshedabad to demand of Munny Begum the accounts of the nizamut and household, from April, 1764, to the latest period to which they could be closed, and to divest the Begum of the office of guardian to the Nabob; and Mr. Charles Goring was appointed for this purpose.
The preceding facts are stated to the House, not as the foundation of an inquiry into the conduct of the Begum, but as they lead to and are therefore necessary to explain by what means a discovery was made of a sum of money given by her to Mr. Hastings.
Mr. Goring’s first letter from the city, dated 17th May, 1775, mentions, among other particulars, the young Nabob’s joy at being delivered out of the hands of Munny Begum, of the mean and indigent state of confinement in which he was kept by her, of the distress of his mother, and that he had told Mr. Goring that the “Begum’s eunuch had instructed the servants not to suffer him to learn anything by which he might make himself acquainted with business”: and he adds, “Indeed, I believe there is great truth in it, as his Excellency seems to be ignorant of almost everything a man of his rank ought to know, — not from a want of understanding, but of being properly educated.”
On the 21st of May, Mr. Goring transmitted to the Governor-General and Council an account of sums given by the Begum under her seal, delivered to Mr. Goring by the Nabob in her apartments. The account is as follows.
Memorandum of Disbursements to English Gentlemen, from the Nabob’s Sircar, in the Bengal Year 1179.
Seal of Munny Begum, Mother of the Nabob Nudjuf ul Dowlah, deceased.
To the Governor, Mr. Hastings, for an entertainment
1,50,000
To Mr. Middleton, on account of an agreement entered into by Baboo Begum
1,50,000
Rupees
3,00,000
When this paper was delivered, the Governor-General moved that Mr. Goring might be asked how he came by it, and on what account this partial selection was made by him; also, that the Begum should be desired to explain the sum laid to his charge, and that he should ask the Nabob or the Begum their reasons for delivering this separate account.
The substance of the Governor’s proposal was agreed to.
Mr. Goring’s answer to this requisition of the board is as follows.
“In compliance with your orders to explain the delivery of the paper containing an account of three lacs of rupees, I am to inform you, it took its rise from a message sent me by the Begum, requesting I would interest myself with the Nabob to have Akbar Ali Khân released to her for a few hours, having something of importance to communicate to me, on which she wished to consult him. Thinking the service might be benefited by it, I accordingly desired the Nabob would be pleased to deliver him to my charge, engaging to return him the same night, — which I did. I heard no more till next day, when the Begum requested to see his Excellency and myself, desiring Akbar Ali might attend.
“On our first meeting, she entered into a long detail of her administration, endeavoring to represent it in the fairest light; at last she came to the point, and told me, my urgent and repeated remonstrances to her to be informed how the balance arose of which I was to inquire induced her from memory to say what she had herself given, — then mentioning the sum of a lac and a half to the Governor to feast him whilst he stayed there, and a lac and a half to Mr. Middleton by the hands of Baboo Begum. As I looked on this no more than a matter of conversation, I arose to depart, but was detained by the Begum’s requesting the Nabob to come to her. A scene of weeping and complaint then be
gan, which made me still more impatient to be gone, and I repeatedly sent to his Excellency for that purpose: he at last came out and delivered me the paper I sent you, declaring it was given him by the Begum to be delivered me.”
Munny Begum also wrote a letter to General Clavering, in which she directly asserts the same. “Mr. Goring has pressed me on the subject of the balances; in answer to which I informed him, that all the particulars, being on record, would in the course of the inquiry appear from the papers. He accordingly received from the Nabob Mobarek ul Dowlah a list of three lacs of rupees given to the Governor and Mr. Middleton. I now send you inclosed a list of the dates when it was presented, and through whose means, which you will receive.”
The Governor-General then desired that the following questions might be proposed to the Begum by Mr. Martin, then Resident at the Durbar.
1st. Was any application made to you for the account which you have delivered, of three lacs of rupees said to have been paid to the Governor and Mr. Middleton, or did you deliver the account of your own free will, and unsolicited?