by Edmund Burke
That, in the year 1772, the King Shah Allum, who had hitherto resided at Allahabad, trusting to engagements which he had entered into with the Mahrattas, quitted that place, and removed to Delhi; but, having soon quarrelled with those people, and afterwards being taken prisoner, had been treated by them with very great disrespect and cruelty. That, among other instances of their abuse of their immediate power over him, the Governor and Council of Bengal, in their letter of the 16th of August, 1773, inform the Court of Directors that he had been compelled, while a prisoner in their hands, to grant sunnuds for the surrender of Corah and Allahabad to them; and it appears from sundry other minutes of their own that the said Governor and Council did at all times consider the surrender above mentioned as extorted from the King, and unquestionably an act of violence, which could not alienate or impair his right to those provinces, and that, when they took possession thereof, it was at the request of the King’s Naib, or viceroy, who put them under the Council’s protection. That on this footing they were accepted by the said Warren Hastings and his Council, and for some time considered by them as a deposit committed to their care by a prince to whom the possession thereof was particularly guarantied by the East India Company. In their letter of the 1st of March, 1773, they (the said Warren Hastings and his Council) say, “In no shape can this compulsatory cession by the King release us from the obligation we are under to defend the provinces which we have so particularly guarantied to him.” But it appears that they soon adopted other ideas and assumed other principles concerning this object. In the instructions, dated the 23d of June, 1773, which the Council of Fort William gave to the said Warren Hastings, previous to his interview with the Nabob Sujah ul Dowlah at Benares, they say, that, “while the King continued at Delhi, whither he proceeded in opposition to their most strenuous remonstrances, they should certainly consider the engagements between him and the Company as dissolved by his alienation from them and their interest; that the possession of so remote a country could never be expected to yield any profit to the Company, and the defence of it must require a perpetual aid of their forces”: yet in the same instructions they declare their opinion, that, “if the King should make overtures to renew his former connection, his right to reclaim the districts of Corah and Allahabad could not with propriety be disputed,” and they authorize the said Warren Hastings to restore them to him on condition that he should renounce his claim to the annual tribute of twenty-six lac of rupees, herein before mentioned, and to the arrears which might be due, thereby acknowledging the justice of a claim which they determined not to comply with but in return for the surrender of another equally valid; — that, nevertheless, in the treaty concluded by the said Warren Hastings with Sujah ul Dowlah on the 7th of September, 1773, it is asserted, that his Majesty, (meaning the King Shah Allum,) “having abandoned the districts of Corah and Allahabad, and given a sunnud for Corah and Currah to the Mahrattas, had thereby forfeited his right to the said districts,” although it was well known to the said Warren Hastings, and had been so stated by him to the Court of Directors, that this surrender on the part of the King had been extorted from him by violence, while he was a prisoner in the hands of the Mahrattas, and although it was equally well known to the said Warren Hastings that there was nothing in the original treaty of 1765 which could restrain the King from changing the place of his residence, consequently that his removal to Delhi could not occasion a forfeiture of his right to the provinces secured to him by that treaty.
That the said Warren Hastings, in the report which he made of his interview and negotiations with Sujah ul Dowlah, dated the 4th of October, 1773, declared, “that the administration would have been culpable in the highest degree in retaining possession of Corah and Allahabad for any other purpose than that of making an advantage by the disposal of them,” and therefore he had ceded them to the Vizier for fifty lac of rupees: a measure for which he had no authority whatever from the King Shah Allum, and in the execution of which no reserve whatever was made in favor of the rights of that prince, nor any care taken of his interests.
That the sale of these provinces to Sujah Dowlah involved the East India Company in a triple breach of justice; since by the same act they violated a treaty, they sold the property of another, and they alienated a deposit committed to their friendship and good faith, and as such accepted by them. That a measure of this nature is not to be defended on motives of policy and convenience, supposing such motives to have existed, without a total loss of public honor, and shaking all security in the faith of treaties; but that in reality the pretences urged by the said Warren Hastings for selling the King’s country to Sujah Dowlah were false and invalid. It could not strengthen our alliance with Sujah ul Dowlah; since, paying a price for a purchase, he received no favor and incurred no obligation. It did not free the Company from all the dangers attending either a remote property or a remote connection; since, the moment the country in question became part of Sujah Dowlah’s dominions, it was included in the Company’s former guaranty of those dominions, and in case of invasion the Company were obliged to send part of their army to defend it at the requisition of the said Sujah Dowlah; and if the remote situation of those provinces made the defence of them difficult and dangerous, much more was it a difficult and dangerous enterprise to engage the Company’s force in an attack and invasion of the Rohillas, whose country lay at a much greater distance from the Company’s frontier, — which, nevertheless, the said Warren Hastings agreed to and undertook at the very time when, under pretence of the difficulty of defending Corah and Allahabad, he sold those provinces to Sujah Dowlah. It did not relieve the Company from the expense of defending the country; since the revenues thereof far exceeded the subsidy to be paid by Sujah Dowlah, and these revenues justly belonged to the Company as long as the country continued under their protection, and would have answered the expense of defending it. Finally, that the sum of fifty lac of rupees, stipulated with the said Sujah Dowlah, was inadequate to the value of the country, the annual revenues of which were stated at twenty-five lac of rupees, which General Sir Robert Barker, then commander-in-chief of the Company’s forces, affirms was certain, and too generally known to admit of a doubt.
That the King Shah Allum received for some years the annual tribute of twenty-six lac of rupees above mentioned, and was entitled to continue to receive it by virtue of an engagement deliberately, and for an adequate consideration, entered into with him by the Company’s servants, and approved of and ratified by the Company themselves; — that this engagement was absolute and unconditional, and did neither express nor suppose any case in which the said King should forfeit or the Company should have a right to resume the tribute; — that, nevertheless, the said Warren Hastings and his Council, immediately after selling the King’s country to Sujah Dowlah, resolved to withhold, and actually withheld, the payment of the said tribute, of which the King Shah Allum has never since received any part; — that this resolution of the Council is not justified even by themselves on principles of right and justice, but by arguments of policy and convenience, by which the best founded claims of right and justice may at all times be set aside and defeated. “They judged it highly impolitic and unsafe to answer the drafts of the King, until they were satisfied of his amicable intentions, and those of his new allies.” But neither had they any reason to question the King’s amicable intentions, nor was he pledged to answer for those of the Mahrattas; his trusting to the good faith of that people, and relying on their assistance to reinstate him in the possession of his capital, might have been imprudent and impolitic, but these measures, however ruinous to himself, indicated no enmity to the English, nor were they productive of any effects injurious to the English interests. And it is plain that the said Warren Hastings and his Council were perfectly aware that their motives or pretences for withholding the tribute were too weak to justify their conduct, having principally insisted on the reduced state of their treasury, which, as they said, rendered it impracticable to comply with those pa
yments. The right of a creditor does not depend on the circumstances of the debtor: on the contrary, the plea of inability includes a virtual acknowledgment of the debt; since, if the creditor’s right were denied, the plea would be superfluous.
That the East India Company, having on their part violated the engagements and renounced the conditions on which they received and have hitherto held and enjoyed the duanné of Bengal, Bahar, and Orissa from the King Shah Allum, have thereby forfeited all right and title to the said duanné arising from the said grant, and that it is free and open to the said King to resume such grant, and to transfer it to any other prince or state; — that, notwithstanding any distress or weakness to which he may be actually reduced, his lawful authority, as sovereign of the Mogul Empire, is still acknowledged in India, and that his grant of the duanné would sufficiently authorize and materially assist any prince or state that might attempt to dispossess the East India Company thereof, since it would convey a right which could not be disputed, and to which nothing but force could be opposed. Nor can these opinions be more strongly expressed than they have been lately by the said Warren Hastings himself, who, in a minute recorded the 1st of December, 1784, has declared, that, “fallen as the House of Timur is, it is yet the relic of the most illustrious line of the Eastern world; that its sovereignty is universally acknowledged, though the substance of it no longer exists; and that the Company itself derives its constitutional dominion from its ostensible bounty.”
That the said Warren Hastings by this declaration has renounced and condemned the principle on which he avowedly acted towards the Mogul in the year 1773, when he denied that the sunnuds or grants of the Mogul, if they were in the hands of another nation, would avail them anything, — and when he declared “that the sword which gave us the dominion of Bengal must be the instrument of its preservation, and that, if it should ever cease to be ours, the next proprietor would derive his right and possession from the same natural charter.” That the said Warren Hastings, to answer any immediate purpose, adopts any principle of policy, however false or dangerous, without any regard to former declarations made, or to principles avowed on other occasions by himself; and particularly, that in his conduct to Shah Allum he first maintained that the grants of that prince were of no avail, — that we held the dominion of Bengal by the sword, which he has falsely declared the source of right, and the natural charter of dominion, — whereas at a later period he has declared that the sovereignty of the family of Shah Allum is universally acknowledged, and that the Company itself derives its constitutional dominion from their ostensible bounty.
III. — BENARES.
PART I. RIGHTS AND TITLES OF THE RAJAH OF BENARES.
I. That the territory of Benares is a fruitful, and has been, not long since, an orderly, well-cultivated, and improved province, of great extent; and its capital city, as Warren Hastings, Esquire, has informed the Court of Directors, in his letter of the 21st of November, 1781, “is highly revered by the natives of the Hindoo persuasion, so that many who have acquired independent fortunes retire to close their days in a place so eminently distinguished for its sanctity”; and he further acquaints the Directors, “that it may rather be considered as the seat of the Hindoo religion than as the capital of a province. But as its inhabitants are not composed of Hindoos only, the former wealth which flowed into it from the offerings of pilgrims, as well as from the transactions of exchange, for which its central situation is adapted, has attracted numbers of Mahomedans, who still continue to reside in it with their families.” And these circumstances of the city of Benares, which not only attracted the attention of all the different descriptions of men who inhabit Hindostan, but interested them warmly in whatever it might suffer, did in a peculiar manner require that the Governor-General and Council of Calcutta should conduct themselves with regard to its rulers and inhabitants, when it became dependent on the Company, on the most distinguished principles of good faith, equity, moderation, and mildness.
II. That the Rajah Bulwant Sing, late prince or Zemindar of the province aforesaid, was a great lord of the Mogul Empire, dependent on the same, through the Vizier of the Empire, the late Sujah ul Dowlah, Nabob of Oude; and the said Bulwant Sing, in the commencement of the English power, did attach himself to the cause of the English Company; and the Court of Directors of the said Company did acknowledge, in their letter of the 26th of May, 1768, that “Bulwant Sing’s joining us at the time he did was of signal service, and the stipulation in his favor was what he was justly entitled to”; and they did commend “the care that had been taken [by the then Presidency] of those that had shown their attachment to them [the Company] during the war”; and they did finally express their hope and expectation in the words following: “The moderation and attention paid to those who have espoused our interests in this war will restore our reputation in Hindostan, and that the Indian powers will be convinced NO breach of treaty will ever have our sanction.”
III. That the Rajah Bulwant Sing died on the 23d of August, 1770, and his son, Cheyt Sing, succeeding to his rights and pretensions, the Presidency of Calcutta (John Cartier, Esquire, being then President) did instruct Captain Gabriel Harper to procure a confirmation of the succession to his son Cheyt Sing, “as it was of the utmost political import to the Company’s affairs; and that the young man ought not to consider the price to be paid to satisfy the Vizier’s jealousy and avarice.” And they did further declare as follows: “The strong and inviolable attachment which subsisted betwixt the Company and the father makes us most readily interpose our good offices for the son.” And the young Rajah aforesaid having agreed, under the mediation of Captain Harper, to pay near two hundred thousand pounds as a gift to the said Vizier, and to increase his tribute by near thirty thousand pounds annually, a deed of confirmation was passed by the said Vizier to the said Rajah and his heirs, by which he became a purchaser, for valuable considerations, of his right and inheritance in the zemindary aforesaid. In consequence of this grant, so by him purchased, the Rajah was solemnly invested with the government in the city of Benares, “amidst the acclamations of a numerous people, and to the great satisfaction of all parties.” And the said Harper, in his letter of the 8th October, 1770, giving an account of the investiture aforesaid, did express himself in these words: “I will leave the young Rajah and others to acquaint you how I have conducted myself; only thus much let me say, that I have kept a strict eye not to diminish our national honor, disinterestedness, and justice, which I will conclude has had a greater effect in securing to the Company their vast possessions than even the force of arms, however formidable, could do.” The President of Calcutta testified his approbation of the said Harper’s conduct in the strongest terms, that is, in the following: “Your disinterestedness has been equally distinguishable as your abilities, and both do you the greatest honor.”
IV. That the agreement between the Rajah and Nabob aforesaid continued on both sides without any violation, under the sanction and guaranty of the East India Company, for three years, when Warren Hastings, Esquire, being then President, did propose a further confirmation of the said grant, and did, on the 12th of October, 1773, obtain a delegation for himself to be the person to negotiate the same: it being his opinion, as expressed in his report of October 4th, 1773, that the Rajah was not only entitled to the inheritance of his zemindary by the grants through Captain Harper, but that the preceding treaty of Allahabad, though literally expressing no more than a security personal to Bulwant Sing, did, notwithstanding, in the true sense and import thereof, extend to his posterity; “and that it had been differently understood” (that is, not literally) “by the Company, and by this administration; and the Vizier had before put it out of all dispute by the solemn act passed in the Rajah’s favor on his succession to the zemindary.”
V. That the Council, in their instructions to the said Governor Hastings, did empower him “to renew, in behalf of the Rajah Cheyt Sing, the stipulation which was formerly made with the Vizier in consideration of his ser
vices in 1764”; and the government was accordingly settled on the Rajah and his posterity, or to his heirs, on the same footing on which it was granted to his said father, excepting the addition aforesaid to the tribute, with an express provision “that no increase shall ever hereafter be demanded.” And the grant and stipulation aforesaid was further confirmed by the said Sujah ul Dowlah, under the Company’s guaranty, by the most solemn and awful form of oath known in the Mahomedan religion, inserted in the body of the deed or grant; and the said Warren Hastings, strongly impressed with the opinion of the propriety of protecting the Rajah, and of the injustice, malice, and avarice of the said Sujah Dowlah, and the known family enmity subsisting between him and the Rajah, did declare, in his report to the Council, as follows: “I am well convinced that the Rajah’s inheritance, and perhaps his life, are no longer safe than while he enjoys the Company’s protection, which is his due by the ties of justice and the obligations of public faith.”
VI. That some time after the new confirmation aforesaid, that is to say, in the year 1774, the Governor-General and Council, which had been formed and the members thereof appointed by act of Parliament, did obtain the assignment of the sovereignty paramount of the said government by treaty with the Nabob of Oude, by which, although the supreme dominion was changed, the terms and the conditions of the tenure of the Rajah of Benares remained; as the said Nabob of Oude could transfer to the East India Company no other or greater estate than he himself possessed in or over the said zemindary. But to obviate any misconstruction on the subject, the said Warren Hastings did propose to the board, that, whatever provision might in the said treaty be made for the interest of the Company, the same should be “without an encroachment on the just rights of the Rajah, or the engagements actually subsisting with him.”