by Edmund Burke
Mr. Hastings says,— “I entirely acquit Mr. Goodlad of all the charges: he has disproved them. It was the duty of the accuser to prove them. Whatever crimes may be established against Rajah Debi Sing, it does not follow that Mr. Goodlad was responsible for them; and I so well know the character and abilities of Rajah Debi Sing, that I can easily conceive that it was in his power both to commit the enormities which are laid to his charge, and to conceal the grounds of them from Mr. Goodlad, who had no authority but that of receiving the accounts and rents of the district from Rajah Debi Sing, and occasionally to be the channel of communication between him and the Committee.”
We shall now see what things Mr. Hastings did, what course he was in, a little before his departure, — with what propriety and consistency of character he has behaved from the year of the commencement of his corrupt system, in 1773, to the end of it, when he closed it in 1785, when the bribes not only mounted the chariot, but boarded the barge, and, as I shall show, followed him down the Ganges, and even to the sea, and that he never quitted his system of iniquity, but that it survived his political life itself.
One of his last political acts was this.
Your Lordships will remember that Mr. Goodlad was sent up into the country, whose conduct was terrible indeed: for that he could not be in place and authority in that country, and be innocent, while such things were doing, I shall prove. But that is not now my consideration.
The Governor-General’s minute, just read, is this. “I entirely acquit Mr. Goodlad of all the charges: he has disproved them. It was the duty of the accuser to prove them” (the accuser, namely, the commissioner). “Whatever crimes may be established against Rajah Debi Sing, it does not follow that Mr. Goodlad was responsible for them; and I so well know the character,” &c., &c., &c.
Now your Lordships perceive he has acquitted Mr. Goodlad. He is clear. Be it that he is fairly and conscientiously acquitted. But what is Mr. Hastings’s account of Rajah Debi Sing? He is presented to him in 1781, by Gunga Govind Sing, as a person against whose character there could be no exception, and by him accepted in that light. Upon the occasion I have mentioned, Mr. Hastings’s opinion of him is this: “I so well know the character and abilities of Rajah Debi Sing, that I can easily conceive that it was in his power both to commit the enormities which are laid to his charge, and to conceal the grounds of them from Mr. Goodlad, who had no authority but that of receiving the accounts and rents of the district from Rajah Debi Sing, and occasionally to be the channel of communication between him and the Committee.”
Thus your Lordships see what Mr. Hastings’s opinion of Debi Sing was. We shall prove it at another time, by abundance of clear and demonstrative evidence, that, whether he was bad or no, (but we shall prove that bad he was indeed,) even he could hardly be so bad as he was in the opinion which Mr. Hastings entertained of him; who, notwithstanding, now disowns this mock Committee, instituted by himself, but, in reality, entirely managed by Gunga Govind Sing. This Debi Sing was accepted as an unexceptionable man; and yet Mr. Hastings knows both his power of doing mischief and his artifice in concealing it. If, then, Mr. Goodlad is to be acquitted, does it not show the evil of Mr. Hastings’s conduct in destroying those Provincial Councils which, as I have already stated, were obliged to book everything, to minute all the circumstances which came before them, together with all the consultations respecting them? He strikes at the whole system at once, and, instead of it, he leaves an Englishman, under pretence of controlling Gunga Govind Sing’s agent, appointed for the very purpose of giving him bribes, in a province where Mr. Hastings says that agent had the power of committing such enormities, and which nobody doubts his disposition to commit, — he leaves him, I say, in such a state of inefficiency, that these iniquities could be concealed (though every one true) from the person appointed there to inspect his conduct! What, then, could be his business there? Was it only to receive such sums of money as Debi Sing might put into his hands, and which might have been easily sent to Calcutta? Was he to be of use as a communication between Debi Sing and the Committee, and in no other way? Here, then, we have that English authority which Mr. Hastings left in the country, — here the native authority which he settled, and the establishment of native iniquity in a regular system under Gunga Govind Sing, — here the destruction of all English inspection. I hope I need say no more to prove to your Lordships that this system, taken nakedly as it thus stands, founded in mystery and obscurity, founded for the very express purpose of conveying bribes, as the best mode of collecting the revenue and supplying the Company’s exigencies through Gunga Govind Sing, would be iniquitous upon the face and the statement of it. But when your Lordships consider what horrid effects it produced, you will easily see what the mischief and abomination of Mr. Hastings’s destroying these Provincial Councils and protecting these persons must necessarily be. If you had not known in theory, you must have seen it in practice.
But when both practice and theory concur, there can be no doubt that a system of private bribery for a revenue, and of private agency for a constitutional government, must ruin the country where it prevails, must disgrace the country that uses it, and finally end in the destruction of the revenue. For what says Mr. Hastings? “I was to have received 40,000l. in bribes, and 30,000l. was actually applied to the use of the Company.” Now I hope I shall demonstrate, if not, it will be by some one abler than me demonstrated, in the course of this business, that there never was a bribe received by Mr. Hastings that was not instantly followed with a deficiency in the revenue, — this is clear, and what we undertake to prove, — and that Debi Sing himself was, at the time Mr. Hastings came away, between twenty and thirty thousand pounds debtor to the Company. So that, in truth, you always find a deficiency of revenue nearly equal, and in some instances I shall show double, to all the bribes Mr. Hastings received: from whence it will be evident that he never could nor did receive them under that absurd and strange idea of a resource to government.
I must re-state to your Lordships, because I wish you never to forget, that this Committee of Revenue was, in their own opinion, and from their own certain knowledge and mere motion, if motion can be attributed originally to instruments, mere tools; that they knew that they were tools in the hands of Gunga Govind Sing. There were two persons principal in it, — Mr. Shore, who was the acting President, and Mr. Anderson, who was President in rank, and President in emolument, but absent for a great part of the time upon a foreign embassy. It is the recorded opinion of the former, (for I must beg leave to read again a part of the paper which has already been read to your Lordships,) that “the Committee, with the best intentions, best abilities, and steadiest application, must, after all, be a tool in the hands of their dewan.”
Now do you believe, in the first place, that men will long have abilities, will long have good intentions, and will long, above all, have steady application, when they know they are but tools in the hands of another, — when they know they are tools for his own corrupt purposes?
In the next place, I must beg leave to state to you, that, on the constitution of this Committee, Mr. Hastings made them all take a solemn oath that they would never receive any present whatever. It was not enough to trust to a general covenant; it was not enough to trust to the penal act of 1773: he bound the Committee by a new oath, and forced them to declare that they would not receive any bribes. As soon as he had so secured them against receiving bribes, he was resolved to make them inefficient, — a good way to secure them against bribes, by taking from them the power of bribe-worthy service. This was a good counter-security to their oath. But Mr. Hastings put a dewan there, against whom there was no security; he let loose this dewan to frustrate their intentions, their application, their abilities, and oath: that is, there was a person at that board who was more than the board itself, who might riot in peculation and plunder from one end of the country to the other. He was there to receive bribes for Mr. Hastings; the Committee were to be pure with impotent hands; and then came a pers
on with ample power for Mr. Hastings himself. And lest this person should not have power enough in this Committee, he is made the general bribe-broker to Mr. Hastings. This secret under-current, as your Lordships will see, is to counteract everything, and, as fast as one part is rendered pure, totally to corrupt all the rest.
But, my Lords, this was not the private opinion of Mr. Shore only, a man of great abilities, and intimately acquainted with the revenue, who must know when he was in a situation to do good and when not. The other gentleman whom I have mentioned, Mr. Hastings’s confidant in everything but his bribes, and supposed to be in his closest secrets, is Mr. Anderson. I should remark to your Lordships, that Mr. Anderson is a man apparently of weak nerves, of modest and very guarded demeanor, as we have seen him in the House of Commons; it is in that way only I have the honor of knowing him. Mr. Anderson being asked whether he agreed in the opinion and admitted the truth of his friend Mr. Shore’s statement relative to the dewan of the Committee, his answer was this: “I do not think that I should have written it quite so strong, but I do in a great measure agree to it: that is, I think there is a great deal of truth in the observation; I think, in particular, that it would require great exertion in the Committee, and great abilities on the part of the President, to restrain effectually the conduct of the dewan; I think it would be difficult for the Committee to interpose a sufficient control to guard against all the abuses of the dewan.”
There is the real President of the Committee, — there the most active, efficient member of it. They are both of one opinion concerning their situation: and I think this opinion of Mr. Anderson is still more strong; for, as he thinks he should have written it with a little more guard, but should have agreed in substance, you must naturally think the strongest expression the truest representation of the circumstance.
There is another circumstance that must strike your Lordships relative to this institution. It is where the President says that the use of the President would be to exert his best abilities, his greatest application, his constant guard, — for what? — to prevent his dewan from being guilty of bribery and being guilty of oppressions. So here is an executive constitution in which the chief executive minister is to be in such a situation and of such a disposition that the chief employment of the presiding person in the Committee is to guard against him and to prevent his doing mischief. Here is a man appointed, of the greatest possible power, of the greatest possible wickedness, in a situation to exert that power and wickedness for the destruction of the country, and without doubt it would require the greatest ability and diligence in the person at the head of that Council to prevent it. Such a constitution, allowed and alleged by the persons themselves who composed it, was, I believe, never heard of in the world.
Now that I have done with this part of the system of bribery, your Lordships will permit me to follow Mr. Hastings to his last parting scene. He parted with his power, he parted with his situation, he parted with everything, but he never could part with Gunga Govind Sing. He was on his voyage, he had embarked, he was upon the Ganges, he had quitted his government; and his last dying sigh, his last parting voice, was “Gunga Govind Sing!” It ran upon the banks of the Ganges, as another plaintive voice ran upon the banks of another river (I forget whose); his last accents were, “Gunga, Gunga Govind Sing!” It demonstrates the power of friendship.
It is said by some idle, absurd moralists, that friendship is a thing that cannot subsist between bad men; but I will show your Lordships the direct contrary; and, after having shown you what Gunga Govind Sing was, I shall bring before you Mr. Hastings’s last act of friendship for him. Not that I have quite shown you everything, but pretty well, I think, respecting this man. There is a great deal concerning his character and conduct that is laid by, and I do believe, that, whatever time I should take up in expatiating upon these things, there would be “in the lowest deep still a lower deep”; for there is not a day of the inquiry that does not bring to light more and more of this evil against Mr. Hastings.
But before I open the papers relative to this act of Mr. Hastings’s friendship for Gunga Govind Sing, I must re-state some circumstances, that your Lordships may understand thoroughly the nature of it. Your Lordships may recollect, that, about the time of the succession of the minor Rajah of Dinagepore, who was then but five or six years of age, and when Mr. Hastings left Bengal eight or nine, Mr. Hastings had received from that country a bribe of about 40,000l. There is a fidelity even in bribery; there is a truth and observance even in corruption; there is a justice, that, if money is to be paid for protection, protection should be given. My Lords, Mr. Hastings received this bribe through Gunga Govind Sing; then, at least, through Gunga Govind Sing he ought to take care that that Rajah should not be robbed, — that he should not be robbed, if Gunga Govind Sing could help it, — that, above all, he should not be robbed by Gunga Govind Sing himself. But your Lordships will find that the last act of Mr. Hastings’s life was to be an accomplice in the most cruel and perfidious breach of faith, in the most iniquitous transaction, that I do believe ever was held out to the indignation of the world with regard to private persons. When he departed, on the 16th of February, 1785, when he was on board, in the mouth of the Ganges, and preparing to visit his native country, let us see what the last act of his life then was. Hear the last tender accents of the dying swan upon the Ganges.
“The regret which I cannot but feel in relinquishing the service of my honorable employers would be much embittered, were it accompanied by the reflection that I have neglected the merits of a man who deserves no less of them than of myself, Gunga Govind Sing, who from his earliest youth had been employed in the collection of the revenues, and was about eleven years ago selected for his superior talents to fill the office of dewan to the Calcutta Committee. He has from that time, with a short intermission, been the principal native agent in the collection of the Company’s revenues; and I can take upon myself to say that he has performed the duties of his office with fidelity, diligence, and ability. To myself he has given proofs of a constancy and attachment which neither the fears nor expectations excited by the prevalence of a different influence could shake, — and at a time, too, when these qualities were so dangerous, that, far from finding them amongst the generality of his countrymen, I did not invariably meet with them amongst my own. With such a sense of his merits, it is natural that I should feel a desire of rewarding him, — for justice, gratitude, generosity, and even policy, demand it; and I resort to the board for the means of performing so necessary a duty, in full confidence, that, as those which I shall point out are neither incompatible with the Company’s interest nor prejudicial to the rights of others, they will not be withheld from me. At the request, therefore, of Gunga Govind Sing, I deliver the accompanying durkhausts, or petitions, for grants of lands lying in different districts, the total jumma, or rent, of which amount to Rupees 2,38,061. 12. 1.”
Your Lordships recollect that Mr. Larkins was one of the bribe-agents of Mr. Hastings, — one, I mean, of a corporation, but not corporate in their acts. My Lords, Mr. Larkins has told you, he has told us, and he has told the Court of Directors, that Mr. Hastings parted in a quarrel with Gunga Govind Sing, because he had not faithfully kept his engagement with regard to his bribe, and that, instead of 40,000l. from Dinagepore, he had only paid him 30,000l. My Lords, that iniquitous men will defraud one another I can conceive; but you will perceive by Mr. Hastings’s behavior at parting, that he either had in fact received this money from Gunga Govind Sing, or in some way or other had abundant reason to be satisfied, — that he totally forgot his anger upon this occasion, and that at parting his last act was to ratify grants of lands (so described by Mr. Hastings) to Gunga Govind Sing. Your Lordships will recollect the tender and forgiving temper of Mr. Hastings. Whatever little bickerings there might have been between them about their small money concerns, the purifying waters of the Ganges had washed away all sins, enmities, and discontent. By some of those arts which Gunga Govind Sing knows
how to practise, (I mean conciliatory, honest arts,) he had fairly wiped away all resentment out of Mr. Hastings’s mind; and he, who so long remembered the affront offered him by Cheyt Sing, totally forgets Gunga Govind Sing’s fraud of 10,000l., and attempts to make others the instruments of giving him what he calls his reward.
Mr. Hastings states, among Gunga Govind’s merits, that he had, from the time of its institution, and with a very short intermission, served the office of dewan to the Calcutta Committee. That short intermission was when he was turned out of office upon proof of peculation and embezzlement of public money; but of this cause of the intermission in the political life and political merits of Gunga Govind Sing Mr. Hastings does not tell you.
Your Lordships shall now hear what opinion a member of the Provincial Council at Calcutta, in which he had also served, had of him.
“Who is Gunga Govind Sing?” The answer is, “He was, when I left Bengal, dewan to the Committee of Revenue. — What was his office and power during Mr. Hastings’s administration since 1780? — He was formerly dewan to the Provincial Council stationed at Calcutta, of which I was a member. His conduct then was licentious and unwarrantable, oppressive and extortionary. He was stationed under us to be an humble and submissive servant, and to be of use to us in the discharge of our duty. His conduct was everything the reverse. We endeavored to correct the mischiefs he was guilty of as much as possible. In one attempt to release fifteen persons illegally confined by him, we were dismissed our offices: a different pretence was held out for our dismission, but it was only a pretence. Since his appointment as dewan to the present Committee of Revenue, his line of conduct has only been a continuance of what I have described, but upon a larger scale. — What was the general opinion of the natives of the use he made of his power? He was looked up to by the natives as the second person in the government, if not the first. He was considered as the only channel for obtaining favor and employment from the Governor. There is hardly a native family of rank or credit within the three provinces whom he has not some time or other distressed and afflicted; scarce a zemindary that he has not dismembered and plundered. — Were you in a situation to know this to be true? — I certainly was. — What was the general opinion, and your own, concerning his wealth? — It is almost impossible to form a competent judgment, his means of acquiring it have been so extensive. I had an account shown to me, about July, 1785, stating his acquisitions at three hundred and twenty lacs of rupees, — that is, 3,200,000l.”