Mr. Burke's speech, in Westminster-Hall, on the 18th and 19th of February, 1788: with explanatory notes. ... With a preface, ...

Table of contents

- [titlepage]

- PREFACE.

Mr. BURKE's SPEECH, &c. &c.

DINAGEPORE, my Lords, is a country-pretty nearly as large as all Yorkshire together, and has a prince at the head called the Rajah, or Zemindar, of Dinagepore. I find that about July[*] 1780, the Rajah died, leaving a half brother and a son. A litigation instantly arose in the family; and this litigation was intirely to be referred, and it must finally be decided by the Governor General and Council, being the ultimate authority for all the revenue questions there, and they were to proceed on the opinion of the register in their decision. It came before Mr. Hastings, and I find he[*] decided the question in favour of Sudernand Sing, son of the Rajah, against his half brother. I find on that decision a rent settled, and a fine paid, so that all this transaction is fair and above board, and I find along with it many extraordinary acts, for I find that Mr. Hastings took a part in favour of the minister Hyderbeg, agreeable to the principles of others, and contrary to his own; and on his establishing the authority of the minister Hyderbeg, I find he gave the guardianship of this son to the brother of the Rajah, as he is called, the brother of the wife of the late Rajah deceased; and when the steward of the province was coming down to represent his case to Mr. Hastings, Mr. Hastings[†] not only sent him back, so far from hearing him fully, but he ordered him actually to be turned out of his office, to bring in another that could only increase the family dissension. I find he has taken a sum of £40,000 in 1780, for this account seems to begin in July 1780, or somewhere thereabouts; and to the same period in 1781 there was a regular payment; so that if it refers to the money paid to him from the Rajah, it is a sum of money corruptly taken by him. As judge he receives it for judgment: but whether the judgment be right or wrong, true or false, he corruptly receives the sum of £40,000 for that judgment[*]; he received it, you will observe, through Gunga Govind Sing, who was the broker of agreements: he was the person that was to receive it by monthly instalments, and to pay it to Mr. Hastings. Gunga Govind Sing's son had in his hand all the papers and documents, so that Mr. Hastings takes a bribe from an infant of five or six years old, through the hands of the register, whose opinion was to have the whole weight in settling the judgment. This was not a public tribute or fine; so that in fact, through the register of the country, the keeper of the records, he receives a bribe from a family in point of judgment in disinheriting the brother. I do not say whether it was proper or not, I know these questions of adoption are the most curious in the Gentoo law; this I know, he succeeded for a bribe, through a man who was in the office of record: this I contend, and I find very soon, other parties concerned.

My Lords, I found very soon after this that the man who gave it, and all the officers under him, were turned out of their employments by Gunga Govind Sing. My Lords, we find them all accused without any appearance or trace upon record, of the mismanagement of his affairs, and accordingly to prevent the relations of his adopted mother, to prevent those who might be supposed to have interest in the family, from abusing him in the trust of his affairs and management of his fortune, Gunga Govind Sing, for I hope you will not suffer me, if I had a mind, to name that tool of a thing called the Committee, of £62,000 a year: Gunga Govind Sing, I will do him justice to say, that if he had known that there was another man more accomplished in all iniquity than Gunga Govind Sing, Mr. Hastings would have given him the first place in his confidence, turns them all out of office: but then there was another next to him, a person called Deby Sing, he ranked under Gunga Govind Sing. This man, although he had in former transactions in Purnea for sook the very shape, rules, and names of virtue, yet Mr. Hastings is to acquit him of this—they were reconciled on this occasion. Deby Sing came into office, superseding all the others.—There is an English gentleman, one Mr. Goodlad, whom you will hear of presently; they appointed him, and the first act they do is cut off £1000 a month from the Rajah's allowance, because he is stated to be extravagant, and to have a great number of dependants to maintain: in short, there is such a flutter and bustle, there never was such a tender guardianship and superintendance as Deby Sing uses, always with the knowledge of Mr. Hastings, to this poor Rajah, who had just given £40,000 (if he did give £40,000) for his inheritance to Mr. Hastings; but probably because that money could not come out of the surplus of his affairs, Mr. Goodlad had taken £1000 a month from his establishments, which will go very handsomely to the payment of any private fine: but Mr. Hastings should at least have examined before they were turned out, whether it was proper or no. Now they are turned out, and when I come to enquire, I do not find that the new guardians have brought to account one shilling of the money they received; there is not a single shadow, no not one word, to be found in the accounts of Deby Sing and Mr. Goodlad. They first put Deby Sing in possession of the Rajah's family, and the management of it; and the very next step, in the course of one year, is to give him the farming of the whole receipt of these three provinces[*]. If the Peshcush was not received as a bribe for the nomination of the Rajah, it was received as a bribe for office. Which is the best or the worst, I shall not pretend to determine; or whether Mr. Hastings got it from Deby Sing for appointing him guardian, or for the judgment; but you find the Rajah in his possession, you find his house and education in his possession: this makes it necessary you should know, that after committing the family of the Rajah to him, he accepted the proposals Deby Sing made in the name of his son; "and" (say the Committee) "his abilities and indefatigable attention to business are so well known, that we trust the measure will meet with your approbation, &c.[§]" Here is an acknowledgment of his fidelity, and that he is a person to whom no objection can be made. This present to Mr. Hastings is by him recorded, and sent to the East India Company. Mr. Hastings has recorded (though he publicly authorised Deby Sing's nomination to this great body of power) that he knew Deby Sing to be a man against whom the most atrocious iniquities were charged, that were ever charged upon man. Now, though it is a large field, and though it is a thing that I feel reluctance in mentioning, exhausted as I am at present; yet such is the magnitude of the subject, such the hurtful consequences of superseding all persons, to give the country into the hands of Gunga Govind Sing and Deby Sing, that I will proceed. It is not a subject for me perhaps to go into, unless I can prove to you that Mr. Hastings knew the man, and that he has avowed his knowledge of him, though he accepts him as a man against whom no possible objection could be made.

It is necessary to state to you who was this Deby Sing, to whom these great trusts were appointed and profits given. Deby Sing was a person of the tribe of Banyans, that is to say, the trading and merchant class of India; and he was practised in all those little arts and frauds to get money, and was successful: He was employed by Mahomed Reza Cawn, while that great man had the management of all the affairs of state and revenue in his hands under the Company. Deby Sing paid his court to him with all the assiduity and subtilness which those who have no principle are very apt to use. When M. R. Cawn was brought down by Mr. Hastings and ordered on a strange charge to Calcutta[*], Deby Sing lent him considerable sums of money, for this great man was accused of great crimes, and acquitted, £250,000 in debt; that is to say, as soon as he was a great debtor he ceased to be a great criminal. Deby Sing obtained his interest, and one of the first great concerns intrusted to him was the province of Purnea: how did he shew himself there? he so well acquitted himself in that place, that the province was totally ruined and desolated. To give you an idea of this, the revenue, that in one year was £90,000, fell the next year to £60,000; and he so completely dried up all the source of the revenue, that it produced not equal to half of what it had been originally let at. Now when the farmers, who were Calcutta Banyans, looked at the province in which they hoped to make their fortunes, they suddenly fled from it, and gave £10,000 to be rid of the bargain. The corruptions and oppressions were too abominable to escape notice, and accordingly this man was removed from his employment in 1773, but not from his profits, which he kept[*]. Stigmatized, but still in power, he obtains the office of high Duan[*], or deputy steward of the great province, the capital of the country: in short, the whole power of Duan fell into his hands.

The council consisted of young men, not, like other young men, of pleasurable dispositions, but, like young men in India, willing to possess pleasure, and the means of acquiring a good fortune, by the effects of ruin. Deby Sing took compassion upon them, and endeavoured to lead them to the ways of property, and pleasure. There is a tax in that country much more productive than honourable—a tax on public prostitutes, which Deby Sing imposed, and with that ability for which he has been so much commended, he selected those who had the greatest personal merit: the ladies were called Pearl of Price, Ruby of Pure Blood, &c. &c. &c. &c. all those fine names that heightened the general harmony, and increased the vivid satisfactions of love, with all the allurements of avarice: and Deby Sing made frequent visits to the young gentlemen.—He carried this moving seraglio about with him wherever he went, and he supplied his guests liberally with the best wines of France, and exquisite entertainment; with the Indian perfumes, and every thing that tends to increase the luxuries of such a scene. This great magician amongst them, chaste in the middle of dissoluteness, sober in the midst of drunkenness, and active in the lap of drowsiness, brought these young men such papers to sign, as in a sober hour never could have been given; and accordingly he conveyed to himself such grants, as never could have been made otherwise[*]. This keeper of brothels is the man that was chosen by Mr. Hastings as a proper man to superintend the young Rajah, to lead him in the path of all piety and virtue. Deby Sing knew that pleasure would not do alone, and he supplied pleasure under that species of entertainments which he knew very well how to manage, but it would not have done if he had not done something also for their necessitites; and accordingly he got the sole and regular government: he got several provinces under various names, sometimes appearing in his own name, sometimes disappearing and shrouding himself under others, as successful or detected villany gave him countenance, or made him timid[*]. My Lords, in this new case every situation was a new bribe; he oppressed the people, and in one of them he publicly acted by proxy. As for the farm at Dinagepore, he was given it with great apparent consideration: he was given it at an advanced rent, but he was to take care it should not be levied with any new contribution, and he was sent by Mr. Hastings[†] to govern these three great countries of Dinagepore, Rungpore, and Edaracpore. He did not lose a moment. If you can forget his character, you may easily believe that Deby Sing had not a more correct memory. The first thing he did[*] was to seize on all the gentlemen of that country, throw them all in prison, keep them in irons, and oblige them to sign a paper for the increase of their rents[†].

The next step he took, was to lay on them a number of new taxes, which by his covenants he was not to have laid; those taxes amounted to as much as the increased rent of the landed gentry and freeholders of the country. Being thus in imprisonment, obliged to sign those bonds, and loaded with taxes, they became totally unable to pay, the next step was, to seize on and sequester the lands: those that pay no taxes are the demesne lands for themselves and their families, and those that pay rents, are those that wish to maintain an independance. These demesne lands were sold for one year's purchase, the price there is ten years[*]. Who were they sold to? You are ready to anticipate me: they were sold to Deby Sing himself, through one of his agents: they amounted in all, to the amount of £70,000 sterling a year[†], but according to the value of money in that country, they were worth very considerable sums; but were sequestered, and purchased so much under their proper rate, that the fee simple of an acre of land sold for about seven or eight shillings, and the miserable wretches received the payment for the lands out of the money that was collected from them. The money was put into a separate collection, and the moment it was paid, the rents were raised again, and the produce was reserved as a sacred deposit for himself, or some other person whom Mr. Hastings should appoint[*]. The next was the sale of the goods: they were obliged to carry them to market, and there is one circumstance that will especially call for your pity. Most of the persons who are principal landholders or Zemindars, happened at that time to be women. The sex there are in a state of imprisonment, but by their sanctity they are treated with all possible attention and respect. No hand of the law can touch them, but they have a custom of sending family bailiffs and family serjeants into their houses, and accordingly such persons came into their houses, and became masters of them; the men and women all fled; all the charity lands were sold at the same market. But this is not all; there were things yet dearer to them, the poor consolations of imagination at death, for all the substantial miseries of life. There were lands set apart for their funeral service; how dear they were to all the people of India I hope you will know on further enquiry. But this tyranny of Deby Sing, more consuming than fire, more greedy than the grave, seized these lands also; and sold, indeed, almost all the Zemindars possessions. Their houses were burnt, their carts were broken up. These things are to come in proof[*]. This was the manner in which all the principal gentry, all the secondary gentry, all the women, and all the minors, were disposed of. What was the situation of the poor men, of the yeomen? I say, their situation is ten thousand times worse, if possible, if there are degrees of degradation in utter ruin. They were driven like horned cattle into the common prison, and there they were obliged to sign, as the principal Zemindars had done before; they were obliged to sign recognitions to their utter ruin; they were let out only to their destruction. There were such an incredible variety of new taxes imposed every day, that they were obliged to sell almost all the corn of the country at once. It happening to be a year of fulness, and the markets overloaded, their crops did not sell for above one-fourth of the value, so that being overloaded with taxes, they came to the next resource; they were obliged to sell every where, and hurry to market all the cattle: those cattle that were worth 20 s. or 25 s. a-piece, five of them were known to sell for 10 s. The next thing that they were to part with was the ornaments of the women. They were obliged to be parted with. They do not decorate themselves according to our mode, but their decoration was a resource upon emergency, and if they have got any gold, it may serve for assistance. They were all forced to be brought to market along with the cattle; so that gold and silver sold for 20 per cent. under its value. But some will say, gold and silver sold under its value! certainly, where there is an overloaded market and wicked purchasers.

Permit me, my Lords, to set before you the state of the people that remain, the victims of this oppression. What you are going to hear is an answer from the author, Deby Sing; who being charged with this compulsory sale of the lands, says, "It is notorious that poverty generally prevails among the husbandmen, and the poor are seldom possessed of any substance except at the time they reap their harvest; and this is the case, that such numbers of them were swept away by famine, their effects were only a little earthen-ware, and their houses a handful of straw, the sale of which was not worth a few rupees—but it is still incredible that there should not be a want of purchasers."—My Lords, I produce this strange testimomy from the person himself who was concerned in racking these people, and I produce it to shew the state of the country. It is not bribes of £40,000 only. Those who give these bribes of £40,000 must receive four times that sum. The people, while they were harassed in this manner, sought that dreadful resource that misery is apt to fly to;—they fell into the hands of usurers. Usurers are a bad resource at any time; those usurers, to the hardness of that kind of description of people, added another that makes men ten times worse, that is, their own necessity. They had very little help against the oppression of power; they were obliged to pay, to answer the bribes and gifts given to Mr. Hastings, not 5, 10, 20, or 50 per cent.;—no such thing; 600 per cent. by the year; beggaring the people, therefore, was the only resource. Such is the consequence of bribery.—The poor unfortunate people, in this way stript of every thing, land and cattle, their ininstruments of husbandry next go to market; after that, the persons attending them dragged them from their own miserable hovels, and their last homes were burnt to the ground. It was not the exaction of revenue, it was a cruel robbery; and there remained to the unhappy people of that country but two things, their families and their friends. Men generally console themselves with a satisfaction, in proportion as they are deprived of other advantages, that they still find a resource at home; but the most tender of parents, the most affectionate and tender husbands, could not console themselves with their children or their wives. This was the case of the country in respect of their penury.

I am obliged to make use of some apology for the horrid scene I am now going to open. My Lords, you have already had enough, more than enough, of oppressions upon poverty, and oppressions upon property.—And, my Lords, permit me to make the apology to you, that Mr. Paterson made, a man that I wish, if ever my name should be mentioned to posterity, may go down along with his, if possible, though in a secondary degree[*]. His apology is this; it is mine: "that the punishments inflicted upon the Ryots of Rungpore and Dinagepore, were in many instances of such nature, that I would rather wish to draw a veil over them, than shock your feelings by a detail; but it is substantially necessary for the sake of justice and humanity, and the honour of Government, that they should be exposed, to be remembered in future."

My Lords, let this be my anticipating apology. It is indeed a most disgraceful scene to human nature that I am now going to mention. When the people were stript of every thing, it was in some cases suspected, and justly, that they had hid some part of their grain. Their bodies were then applied to the fiercest mode of torture, which was this: they began with them, by winding cords about their fingers; there they clung and were incorporated together; then they hammered wedges of wood and iron between their fingers, till they[*] crushed and maimed those honest and laborious hands which never were lifted to their mouths but with a scanty supply of provision; these were the hands so tortured, out of which you have purchased a substance which has furnished this country with the entertainment of china, a substance drawn from themselves and their children, of which you and all this auditory, and all this company, have made that very luxurious meal, without a farthing expence to Great Britain, for 25 years. What was the return? Cords, hammers, tortures, and maiming was the return. This is the situation in which those hands were bound, which act with resistless power when they are lifted up to heaven, powerful in prayer against the authors of such confusion. Let us at least deprecate, and secure• ourselves from the vengeance due to those who massacred them. Let us, for God's sake: it is a serious thought. They begun there, but if they begun there, there they did not stop. The heads of the villages, the leading yeomen of the country, respectable for their virtue, and age, were tied together, two and two: unoffending and thus helpless, they were then thrown over a bar, and beat with bamboo canes on the soles of their feet, 'till their nails started from their toes; and were afterwards so beaten with cudgels, that their blood ran both from their noses, eyes, and ears[*].

My Lords, they did not stop there; bamboos, wangees, rattans, canes, commonwhips, and scourges, were not sufficient. They found a tree in the country which bears strong and sharp thorns. Not satisfied with those other cruelties, they scourged them with that. Not satisfied with this, but searching every thing through the deepest parts of nature, where she seems to have forgot her usual benevolence, they found a poisonous plant, which is a deadly caustic, which inflames the bruised part, and often ends with death. This they applied to those wounds. My Lords, this we know, that there are men so made, that even the pains of the body fortify the sufferer to bear the pains of the mind. The mind strengthens as the body suffers, and rises with an elastic force against those that torture it. The mind gets the better of the body. Those people that are dealt with in this manner, people that can bear their own tortures, cannot bear those of their children and friends. The innocent children were brought and scourged before the face of their parents! cruelly scourged before their parents[*]! They bound the father and the son face to face, arm to arm, body to body, and in that state, they whipt them with every refinement of cruelty; so that every blow which escaped the father, should fall upon the son, and every blow which escaped the son, should fall upon the father; so that where they did not wound the sense, they should wound and tear the sensibilities of nature. This was not all. Virgins that were kept from the sight of sun, were dragged into the public court, which should be a refuge against all oppression; and there in the presence of the day, their delicacies were offended, and their virginity cruelly violated, by the basest and cruellest of mankind[*]. It did not end there. The wives of the men of the country only suffered less by this, they lost their honour in the bottom of the most cruel dungeons, where they were confined[†]. These are wrongs to the people, wrongs to their manners, wrongs to their bodies, and the feelings of mankind; they were dragged out naked, in that situation exposed to public view, and scourged before all the people.

My Lords, here is my authority[*], for otherwise you will not believe it credible. My Lords, what will you feel when I tell you that they put the nipples of the women into the clift notches of sharp bamboos, and tore them from their bodies[‡]. They applied burning torches, and cruel slow fire, to their bodies.

My Lords, I am ashamed to open it; these infernal fiends, in defiance of every thing divine and human, plunged torches into the source of life[†]. My Lords, this excites feelings, that modesty, which more distinguishes man than even his rational nature, bids us turn from the view of, and leave it to those infernal fiends to execute their cruel and diabolical tortures, where the modesty of nature and the anxieties of parents may not follow them. These are cruelties that arose from the giving power to such a man as Deby Sing, and his infernal villains.

My Lords, I had forgot, I have it here, the manner in which you may know the length, the breadth, and depth of these horrible cruelties. They took these unfortunate husbandmen whom they had imprisoned; they whipt them: I assure you, these details are not pleasant, but they are useful. These men were taken often out of prison, awoke from their sleep, and these tormentors watched for the moments when nature takes refuge from life in a state of insensibility: they were awoke to be whipped[*] again next morning, in winter time, when the country was quite destroyed by frost; which to them is more terrible than to us. They were plunged into cold water, then led out into the villages, to see if they could raise any thing from the hands of the villagers.

My Lords, the people of India are patience itself; their patience is too criminal; but they burst at once into a wild and universal uproar and unarmed rebellion, from one end to another. The two provinces[†] broke out into general rebellion. The people fell, as most commonly happens, on those less guilty, and murdered them; they destroyed the subordinate instruments of tyranny; then followed Mr. Goodlad, who had been a patient witness of all these things[*]. To say no more, he was a patient witness of the rebellion. He immediately sent for British officers, who ordered military execution; and you may easily believe how soon regular troops got the better of unarmed despair. They were conquered, vanquished, and slaughtered; and Mr. Goodlad ordered, that of these miserable people, two or three should undergo the process of the law, and be publicly hanged up; and hanged up they were.

But, my Lords, though the rebellion seemed to be crushed, the country was in that situation that Mr. Goodlad was obliged to write down to Calcutta, that there never had been so material and serious a rebellion in Bengal. This was in 1782, and it made a very great noise in Calcutta. But there is such a gulph between us and Calcutta, that I venture to say, not one of all the great and noble auditors present ever heard of it. On the contrary, it is a constant rule that, whenever any thing is quiet in Bengal, you are sure to hear of it. Here, the inside of Bengal Government was exposed to view. When they heard this, they thought it behoved them not to pass by such conduct, and which a poor easy man could not tell how to account for. They, therefore, cast about for a good-natured easy man, who should make that sort of report, which might lay faults on both sides; and, as a retrospect could only tend to renew greivances, that the criminal should be left in possession of his acquisitions, and the people of their possessions. They wished it might appear, that the material cause of the insurrection might be the determination of the Zemindars to pay no more rent. The Committee, however, thought it necessary to send a Commissioner to examine into the cause of the insurrection, and they cast about to find a man that was fit to be a good representer of affairs, that so the channel of all this ferocity and wickedness should be concealed. Accordingly, they found out a man of a tolerable free character, supposed to be a man of moderation, almost to excess; mild, quiet, totally unconnected with party, and of peaceable character[*]. They thought that just such a man as that, was exactly the man for their purpose; and they took it for granted, that from him they might expect an account in which faults should be left out on both sides, and buried in oblivion; and it should be remembered, that a retrospect could only tend to renew grievances. They chose well; but there never was a man so mistaken in the world. Mr. Paterson, undert his quiet, honest character, concealed a vigorous mind, deciding understanding, and a feeling heart. He is the son of a gentleman of venerable age, and extraordinary character, in this country, who long filled the seat of Chairman of the Committee of Supply in the House of Commons, but is now retired to an honourable rest in the neighbourhood; this son, as soon as he was appointed to the commission, dreaded the consequences; but to justify himself, he took out a letter that he had received from his father, which was the preservation of his character, and the destruction of his fortune; and this letter enjoined him to pursue such a perfect line of conduct, and to hazard every prosecution rather than to disgrace truth, that he went up into the country in a proper frame of mind to do his duty. I beg to read from his letter, how that gentleman found that country on his arrival, and how he accounts for the rebellion. "In my two reports, I have set forth the general manner that oppession has provoked the husbandmen to part with their stock and goods; I mean not to enumerate them now; every day my enquiries serve to confirm the facts; the wonder would have been if they had not revolted, seeing it was not a collection of the revenue, but a robbery with criminal punishment, and every instrument of disgrace; and this extended to every individual.—There is a period at which oppression will be resisted. Conceive the situation of the husbandman. Every thing they had in the world was dragged away; exposed to every exaggerated demand, and sold at so low a price as not to answer that demand; subjected to criminal punishment, with the loss of his women and cast."

You will allow the full effect of prejudice on this subject; the consequence of a loss of the cast to these persons I have stated to your Lordships before; the loss of the cast there amounts to more than a complete excommunication, outlawry, or attainder, in this country; the man or woman that has lost their cast are no longer the children of their parents, and they can survive only in the estimation of the lowest and basest of mankind. But there was an instrument of torture to them still worse: there is a kind of pillory, a disgrace in that country, particularly to the Bramins, which is, to be put on a bullock, with drums beating, and led through the town; this was so done[*], and the people supplicated that the man should not be so cruelly treated. I have now stated the causes of the rebellion, and the opinion of the man when he saw that country; which was not a matter of inquisition, it was a matter of public notoriety. There is an expression of one of the men that went into it, that he passed twelve miles without seeing a light, and without finding means of fire to dress his necessary food. All these hurtful calamities were the consequence of the government of Deby Sing; one would imagine that this drew upon him the severity of the Governor; that if ever there were any arbitrary power, it would be here exercised: we must not be too hasty in forming an opinion. The report of the Commissioner might be subjected to great mistakes[*]; Gunga Govind Sing, when it came before him, well played his part. On the first report, the committee were a little stunned; they did not know what to do with it, but at last, after that, came down a full report, with evidence in the full body of it[†]; as the Commissioner was a man of business, and of serious thinking, he made such a report, filled with such a body of evidence, as probably the records of that country cannot furnish. Reports of all persons who act in the government by its authority, in public functions, exercising public trust, are entitled to presumptive credit[*] for the truth of all they assert, and throw the responsibility and the burden of the proof on those that shake it; unless corruption, malice, or some evil disposition is found in the person who makes this report, it ought to pass in the opinion of those who ordered it as proof; but very different ideas prevail in this committee of Mr. Hastings. The first act of this executive body, neither having the right or the name of a judicial character, was to turn Mr. Paterson into a voluntary accuser: having made a charge, they call upon him to prove it; they put Deby Sing against Mr. Paterson; they take an objection, that the depositions are not all upon oath, they were never ordered to be upon oath, not one word is upon oath; they throw a doubt, a shadow, upon them all. In short, Deby Sing appears, as your Lordships imagine he will appear, a very difficulty, a very slur in the way of their commission, and they suppose that Mr. Paterson has been carried away by the warmth of his imagination; that he has assumed what is not to be proved: they allow that presumptive proofs are pretty strong against Deby Sing, and Mr. Hastings is of opinion, that there is nothing here charged against him, of which he is not guilty[*]. My Lords, I am sorry to break your attention, it is a subject that pains me very much; it is long, difficult, and arduous; but, with the blessing of God, if I can, I will go through it to-day. The next step they took was their putting him into the shape of an accuser, to make good a charge which he made out much to their satisfaction.

The next step they took was a charge[*]—

February 19th. IN CONTINUATION.

MY LORDS,

I AM convinced that my continuation of this cause has been attended with some difficulties to your Lordships, on account of my inability to proceed yesterday; but your Lordships' love of justice has removed every obstruction, and I therefore proceed with confidence to the business now before your Lordships. I think, to the best of my remembrance, the House adjourned at the period of time in which I was endeavouring to illustrate the mischiefs that happened from Mr. Hastings throwing off his responsibility, by delegating that power to a council, and in fact to Black Men, and the consequence of it, in preventing the detection and the punishment of the grossest abuses that ever were known to be committed in India, or in any other part of the world. I stated to you, that Mr. Commissioner Paterson was sent into that country; that he was sent, with all the authority of Government, with powers not only to hear, to report, but to redress the grievances which he should find; in short, there was nothing wanted to his power, but an honest Court to report to. He reported those things which I delivered to you, and did very imperfectly, very faintly, and shortly, according to my materials, state to you, that, instead of being furnished with that share of power which Mr. Hastings has endeavoured to use on other occasions against those who had incurred his private resentment, this man was put in all business of offence and defence, which the most litigious and prevaricating laws that ever were invented to screen peculation and power from the cries of an oppressed people could effect. Mr. Paterson, who as I stated, was deputed, with all the authority of Government, to a great province, was now considered as a voluntary accuser, and to make good the articles of his charge against Deby Sing; but I believe Deby Sing did not long remain in the humble sinking suppliant situation of a man under charges, or in a secondary and subordinate situation, as answering those charges. By degrees, as the protection increased, his boldness grew along with it; he no longer took the tone of an accused person, he reverses the situation imposed on Mr. Patterson; he beeomes Mr. Paterson's accuser; he began at first to say, he believed he was mistaken; took up things a little too warmly; he now steps forward, charges him with forgery, and desires to be heard in this nominal Committee. This business has now taken a third shape; first, Mr. Paterson is a Commissioner, to report; then he is to make good his charge; then he is accused and ordered to answer the charges; this is the third metamorphosis of Mr. Paterson's situation. In this situation, which is what I will venture to say never happened before in the annals of mankind, he was ordered to bring Deby Sing to prison, that infamous character, that abandoned mortal, loaded with crimes by the Committee themselves. Deby Sing was committed under guard, but he was soon taken from under that guard, and he sat assessor by the side of Mr. Paterson. In such a situation all human constancy would be shaken, and its manhood gone. To report the grievances of those that had been rich, but were now undone by oppressors, was invidious; the road of fortune was easy to Mr. Paterson. I believe you are convinced, that the Committee would not have received a different report, as a proof of bribery; they would rather have received it as tending to soften and conciliate this difficult matter, and to settle the order of Government as soon as possible; but this man, who withstood all temptations; whose honour, fidelity, principle, and good character, received the thanks, and withstood the thanks of those that accused him; this man was turned into the accused person in this Committee. In this situation, I must do him the justice to say, he never tottered one moment; he stood like a hero[*]; he was sent as a protector, when the people looked upon him as carrying with him the whole power of Government. He was forced to go back, to try whether among a miserable, ruined, undone, abject people, he was to find any who had courage enough to stand to their former accusations; such treatment no servant of Government ever received. The next step was to appoint another set of Commissioners, to try the question between him and Deby Sing[*], Who were those gentlemen men appointed on the commission? A set of juniors[*]. They were to enquire into the proceedings, and he was to appear like an accused person, but without authority to make out such a state of defence as he could. In that situation he represented and sent, I believe, one of the most pathetic memorials that ever was sent to a Council. He was a man of honour and principle, and well deserved, for his conduct, the honour of suffering all the persecutions in the cause of virtue[*]. He went back into that country without his commission. The junior servants that were sent to enquire into the iniquity, into the utter ruin of the country, spent a long time in matters of form; but they found they could not do without a representative, and Deby Sing was sent down to them. This man was under an accusation; he was considered as a prisoner, and according to the mild ways of that country, and especially where they chose to be mild, he was not imprisoned in the common goal at Calcutta; not in the prison of the Fort; not in the goal where Nundcomar was put, when he appeared in Calcutta; he was put under sepoys; he was permitted to go abroad; and Mr. Hastings, with an address which seldom failed him, and never wanting to a man possessing £700,000, managed to convert this guard into a retinue of honour.—They attended him with their side-arms only, and marked him out as a great magistrate, instead of attending upon him as a guard. When he was ordered to send a vaqueel, he refused; upon which the Commissioners, finding they could do without him, instead of saying, if you will not send, you are not to come yourself, allowed him to come. It was not necessary for him to be there, but he comes himself; and enters this place rather as a person arriving from victory, than as a man under the load of these charges. The complainants saw him a person high in authority in the country. All these marks of respect should have been turned into marks of infamy to this infernal villain, whose conduct, I have had the honour, or rather, I should say, I have been obliged, to mention to your Lordships.

Mr. Paterson, seeing the minds of the people broken, subdued, and prostrate under it, and that so far from the means of representing his duty between the criminal and magistrate, he had not that of defending his own innocence, represented to these Commissioners, the junior servants of the Company, that this appearance, and this immense retinue, tending to strike terror into the minds of the natives, had prevented him from executing justice. The Council[*] sat upon it, and they found it was true that it would have an evil tendency. On the other hand, they say, for they are very tender, he should appear under a guard; therefore, they take a middle way, and they ordered them to UNSKREW their bayonets, and to consider them as troops. The next step they took, was to release Mr. Paterson from all concern in these transactions. One would have thought that it was only right for Deby Sing to be excluded. No, there he sat as a sovereign four years. They enjoyed the office, and Deby Sing remained in honour, though in something like confinement[*].

Now, my Lords, to bring all this business home to Mr. Hastings. I stated to you, before that I considered Mr. Hastings as responsible for the acts of the people he employed; doubly responsible, if he knew them to be bad. I charge him with putting men of evil characters in situations, in which any evil might be committed. I charge him as Chief Governor with destroying the institutions of the country; which were, and ought to have been, the check upon this people. I charge him with putting a person called a Steward, or Dewan of the province, as a controul on the Farmers General of it; so that no controul should exist; and that he should be let loose to rapine and destruction; for the two offices were both vested in him. It may be asked—Did Mr. Hastings order these cruelties? I answer, No. But if be had kept firm to the duty that the Act of Parliament had appointed, all the revenue regulations must have been made by him. But, instead of that, he appointed Gunga Govind Sing, and placed him in the seat of government. Mr. Hastings is responsible for destroying his own legal capacity; next for destroying the legal capacity of the council; not one of whom could have any knowledge of the country[*]. When he had done that, and had destroyed all power in the country, he had every thing in his own hands; and for all things he is answerable. They could not possibly have concealed from the public eye such acts as these; the Provincial Councils had removed, but Mr. Hastings destroyed, every charge. Having destroyed every controul, above and below, and delivered the whole country into the hands of Gunga Govind Sing, for all his acts he is responsible. I have read to you, and I hope, and trust, it is fresh in your remembrance, that Deby Sing was presented to Mr. Hastings by Gunga Govind Sing, namely, by that set of servants, as they call themselves, who act as they themselves tell us, and most naturally, as the tools of Govind Sing: and he is further responsible, because he took the bribe of Dinagepore, the country that was ravaged in this manner[*]. We shall prove he took bribes of some body or other in power of £40,000, through the medium of that person whom he had appointed to exercise all the affairs of the Supreme Council above, and of all the subordinate Council below.—So that you see, he had appointed a Council of Tools, at the expence of £62,000 to do all the offices, for the purpose of establishing a bribe-factor general, a general receiver, and agent of bribes, through all the country, and he is answerable for the whole[*].

THE END.

Notes

*
He died in April 1780, and his adopted son was on the 20th of June 1780, ordered to succeed to the zemindary, by an unanimous vote of the board, Messrs. Hastings, Francis, and Wheler.
↵

*
That is, the whole Board.
↵

†
The whole Board.
↵

*
This assertion could not be true, because this money began to be received on the 11th of August 1779, eight months before the death of the old Rajah, and, as appears by the managers' evidence, was principally paid in the year 1779.
↵

*
Mr. Burke makes an important mistake here.—Deby Sing took the farm of Dinagepore in May 1781. In September 1781, Mr. Shore entered a minute on the Committee Proceedings, stating the enormous expences of the Zemindar of Dinagepore, an infant of six years of age, and recommending a reduction of those expences. In consequence of this minute, Deby Sing and Mr. Goodlad had the superintendence of the family. Mr. Hastings had been three months absent from Calcutta at this time, and did not return until February 1782.
↵

§
This is a quotation from a letter written by Mr. Shore to the Governor General and Council in the month of November 1781, in which he relates the measures taken by the Committee of Revenue for letting the lands of Bengal. It appears by that letter, that the Zemindar of Dinagepore being a minor, the Committee had farmed the province to Deby Sing, upon this principle only, that he had offered what they thought the best terms for the Company, and being a man whom Mr. Shore had well known from his intimacy with Mr. Ducarell, and by Deby Sing's having been employed under Mr. Shore himself for many years at Moorshedabad, he gives him that fair character, which he conceived him to merit. It was in 1772 that Deby Sing was accused of mal-practices during the famine of 1770, and in 1773 he was acquitted, chiefly on the testimony of Mr. Ducarell.
↵

*
It is a singular fact, that as often as people in power in England have had a wish to carry a point against the East India Company, they have had recourse to the foulest calumnies. Mr. Burke here does justice to Mahomed Reza Cawn; but in 1773, when Lord North and his friends made Mr. Hastings the single exception to the universal abuse bestowed upon the servants of the Company, Colonel Dow wrote a book, in which there is the following passage reflecting upon Mahomed Reza Cawn: "Year after year brought new tyrants, or confirmed the old in the practice of their former oppression. The tenants being at length ruined, the farmers were unable to make good their contract with government. Their cruelties to those in prison recoiled at length on themselves. Many of them were bound to stakes, and whipped: but their poverty ceased to be feigned. Their complaints were heard in every square of Moorshedabad, and not a few of them expired in agonies under the lash." In 1783, at the distance of ten years, when another attack was made upon the Company, a similar unjustifiable calumny was repeated by Mr. Burke. Mahomed Reza Cawn, no longer in power under the British government, had recovered his character, but our administration in India was as bad as ever. "Were we to be driven out of India this day (said Mr. Burke in 1783), nothing would remain to tell that it had been possessed during the inglorious period of our dominion, by any thing better than the Ourang Outang, or the Tiger."
↵

*
This alludes to a transaction which happened immediately after Mr. Hastings came to Bengal in 1772. Deby Sing had managed the province of Purnea when it was superintended by Mr. Ducarell. A complaint was preferred against him to Mr. Hastings, in 1772, who ordered him under a guard to Moorshedabad. After a full enquiry, the complaint was proved to be ill-founded, and Mr. Ducarell (of whom Mr. Fox spoke in such high terms of praise) was the principal evidence to prove his innocence, and his merit.—Mr. Burke knows this just as well as the editor does.
↵

*
Deby Sing was appointed Duan to the provincial council of Moorshedabad, and Mr. Shore Persian translator to that council, in November 1773; the former continued in this office until the abolition of the provincial council in February 1781. Mr. Burke so confounds dates and places, that it is necessary to explain what he leaves so obscure.
↵

*
We can take upon us to affirm that the whole of this account is a fable. This provincial council consisted of some of the ablest servants ever employed in the revenue line in Bengal. On its first formation, the second member of the government was the chief, Mr. Baber the second, Mr. Maxwell third, Mr. Hosea fourth, and Mr. Hogarth fifth; some of those were succeeded by Mr. Cowper, now a member of the supreme council, Mr. David Anderson, whose merits are generally known, Mr. Moore, Mr. Foley, and others: but not one of that loose and detestable character described by Mr. Burke.
↵

*
Not one trace of such transactions in the province of Moorshedabad, as Mr. Burke relates, is to be found.
↵

†
This is a very unfounded statement—Deby Sing got the farm of Dinagepore from the Committee of Revenue, in May 1781, after much consideration, upon no other ground than this, that his terms were, upon comparison with other proposals, the most advantageous to Government, and the same for the other two provinces.—The acts of the Committee were confirmed by the Governor General and Council.
↵

*
This charge on the public investigation was dispoved.—Mr. Burke states this, and all that follow, as if they had been facts proved by evidence.
↵

†
This also was disproved.
↵

*
It was proved that the lands sold, which were very inconsiderable in their value, were sold at a fair price. Deby Sing was compelled to restore them, and to lose the purchase money, because he had acted without the permission of Government in making the purchases.
↵

†
We should imagine there must be a mistake here, as the lands sold, did not amount to seventy thousand rupees a year, and the Governor General and Council compelled Deby Sing to restore them all. The price of lands in Bengal is two, and not ten years purchase. The whole rent of Rungpore was not more than £120,000 a year.
↵

*
There was no accusation of this sort made.
↵

*
This was impossible, until the matter should be first charged in the House of Commons; that House, whose Delegate Mr. Burke was, never heard a word of this story.
↵

*

It will naturally be supposed that this story of Mr. Burke's made a considerable noise in Calcutta. Mr. Paterson, who is a man of honour and character, was by no means inclined to sacrifice truth, in return for Mr. Burke's eulogium; but wrote, the following Letter to Mr. Chapman, a Member of the Board of Revenue, inclosing in it a statement of facts, which proved that Mr. Hastings was absent from Calcutta during the course of the inquiry into the conduct of Deby Sing, though he was the first to order its commencement, and to turn Deby Sing out of all his employments, pending the inquiry:

"DEAR CHAPMAN,

"IT was with sincere concern that I saw my Reports on the Rungpore insurrection, produced as a charge against Mr. Hastings. How little he had to do in this business, you will see from the inclosed statement of facts. You will find, that, as far as rested with him, his conduct was such as you would expect from a man of his humanity. I have no party interest to serve, but it must give you satisfaction to see a vindication of Mr. Hastings, from one who has no other motive for the step, than that of justice.

Yours, &c. J. PATERSON.
CALCUTTA, Sep. 26, 1789. Charles Chapman, Esq.

This Letter, and the statement inclosed in it, are amongst the Records at the India House.

↵

*
The cruelties mentioned in this part of Mr. Burke's speech were charged to have been committed in a small district, called Dhee Jumla, dependent upon Dinagepore. No complaints were made from any other part of Dinagepore. The first accusation turned out to be false, after a solemn enquiry upon oath.
↵

*
This charge was also proved to be false, after the fullest investigation.
↵

*
After a very full enquiry, this charge was found to be false.
↵

*
Not a syllable of this charge was true.
↵

†
This charge, and the next also, proved totally false.
↵

*
The authority thus quoted by Mr. Burke, was a translation of a complaint delivered to Mr. Paterson, and by him transmitted just as he received it, to the Board of Revenue. There was an art practised by Mr. Burke in this instance, of which we hope no other man in England is capable. How could the Lords or the auditors have supposed that all Mr. Burke's authority was an allegation not enquired into.
↵

‡
The horror which this accusation excited in Bengal, induced the Commissioners to make the most strict enquiry into the truth of it, and it appeared that it was utterly unfounded.
↵

†
This charge excited equal horror; but on the fullest enquiry, it was proved to have been made without the smallest foundation.
↵

*
Of this charge no shadow of proof appears. Nor can I even find that such a charge was preferred to Mr. Paterson, or any other living.
↵

†
This is not a true statement. The fact is, that Dinagepore never broke out into rebellion. That province paid a revenue of £200,000 a year, and the balance of the first year of Deby Sing's lease was not 6, and the second not £8000.—The insurrection broke out in Rungpore only.
↵

*

This is a most cruel and unjustifiable attack upon a gentleman of irreproachable character, who fills an important office in Bengal. Mr. Goodlad was the Collecter of Rungpore when the rebellion broke out, but he never received a single complaint that he did not instantly redress.

Having finished our remarks upon Mr. Burke's statement of the cruelties, we earnestly call our readers attention to the following opinion of Sir John Shore, recorded by him, when judgment was pronounced upon Deby Sing in November 1788.

"I cannot conclude without an additional remark, that there never was a cause which appears to have been more thoroughly investigated, or more impartially conducted. Every member of the existing government at the time[*], it is notorious, had formed a decisive opinion against Deby Sing, in consequence of Mr. Paterson's reports; and the measures adopted were conformable to those sentiments, and calculated to shew that, if proved guilty, he had no mercy to expect. It was under this decided and avowed disapprobation of Government, that the Commissioners reluctantly undertook an investigation of this cause. Their proceedings, in my opinion, do equal credit to their integrity and to their understandings. Facts are not left to bare assertion for support. Every charge (and some not specifically pointed out to the Commissioners) is examined with scrupulous accuracy; and wherever evidence could be obtained, it has been sought for, and brought forward. The proceedings are not summary, but voluminous and minute; and if the conduct of any Zemindar or farmer in the country were to pass an investigation of the same nature, I may venture to assert, that he would not be deemed innocent."

"The transactions in Dhee Jumla[*], being wholly unconnected with the proceedings in Rungpore, I have followed the example of the Commissioners, in considering them separately. Their report is so full, clear, and decisive, that I shall content myself with referring to that in support of my opinion, which is, that Deby Sing, so far from being culpable in any instance alleged against him, appears to have been moderate in his demands for rent, attentive to the complaints preferred, and to have punished the persons proved to have oppressed the Ryots, on their complaints. I am happy also to remark, that many of the worst accusations preferred against him appear to have had no existence whatever."

(Signed) J. SHORE.

Though Sir John Shore acquits Deby Sing of having had any share in such acts of cruelty as were really committed in Dhee Jumla, while he states also that many of the worst accusations were utterly unfounded, yet the conduct of Deby Sing in Rungpore did not escape his censure; at the same time he thought it but justice to remark, that the actual guilt of Deby Sing bore no sort of proportion to the magnitude of the charges preferred against him.

↵

*
Messirs, Hastings, Wheler, Macpherson, and Stables.
↵

*
Where the atrocious cruelties stated by Mr. Burke were said to have been committed.
↵

*
If it were of consequence to expose Mr. Burke's blunders upon all occasions, the writer of this note would observe, that the real character of Mr. Paterson (except that he is a man of honour and integrity) is directly the reverse of Mr. Burke's description. He is a gentleman of uncommonly lively parts, a very neat poet, an excellent companion, and, with great good nature in private life, possesses an admirable turn for satire, as every man of letters in Bengal well knew. Mr. Paterson was appointed the Commissioner on the recommendation of Sir John Shore, the latter being the acting Chief of the Committee, and Mr. Paterson one of his assistants.
↵

*
This punishment was inflicted, and very properly, upon a man called Basdeo Doss, who had of his own authority inflicted such of the cruelties upon some of the inhabitants of Dhee Jumla, as they really suffered. When Sir John Shore gave his opinion in November 1788, upon this cause, he remarked, that Basdeo Doss deserved the most exemplary punishment for his conduct.
↵

*
This alludes to a minute of Sir John Shore, which he presented in the Committee of Revenue, in which he expresses his doubts of the truth of the facts, and observes, that if they were of such a nature as Mr. Paterson had stated, proofs might be procured without any difficulty.
↵

†
This is not the case—Mr. Paterson merely transmitted the complaints as he received them, and was not responsible either for their truth or falsehood.
↵

*
This is undoubtedly true; but it was not from any doubt of Mr. Paterson's veracity, that Sir John Shore required some proofs of the assertions made by the Natives, who delivered the complaints to Mr. Paterson.
↵

*
Here again is one of those misrepresentations of which, we hope, Mr. Burke only is capable. Mr. Hastings never pronounced any opinion on the case of Deby Sing, because the enquiry was not completed during his Government; but he was so much prejudiced against him, that he ordered him to be removed from all his appointments pending the enquiry; and he declared, just before he left Bengal, that such was his opinion of Deby Sing, that he thought he might be guilty of the enormities alleged against him, and that he might be able to conceal them from Mr. Goodlad. This strongly confirms what Sir John Shore said, "that every member of the Government had formed a decided opinion against Deby Sing, and that, if proved guilty, he had no mercy to expect."
↵

*
At this period Mr. Burke suddenly laid his hand upon his breast, and dropped down. His brother, his son, and other gentlemen came to his assistance. The Court broke up in the utmost confusion. Some ladies fainted, while others had sense and firmness to treat this oratorical trick as it deserved. An engraver has given us a view of the High Court in Westminster Hall during the heighth of this curious scene.
↵

*
The whole of this part of the account is so extremely wild, that no man, without explanation, can understand it. Sir John Shore complained, that Mr. Paterson's accounts were inaccurate or vague, and he censured him for disrespect to the Committee. Mr. Paterson replied; and after much altercation the Committee sent to the Supreme Council all their correspondence with Mr. Paterson, and every document and every information which they had received from him, relative to the insurrection, and to the conduct of Deby Sing. The Supreme Council (Mr. Hastings being at Lucknow), viz. Mr. Wheler, Sir John Macpherson, and Mr. Stables, met four days successively, morning and evening, and having read Mr. Paterson's reports, and the documents, they unanimously resolved, that three sworn Commissioners should be appointed to go through this cause, and that Deby Sing should be confined, and his property attached, until judgment was pronounced by the Governor General and Council. The whole of this proceeding is strictly just, fair, and honourable; but were it otherwise, Mr. Hastings was absent, and ignorant of every part of it. Sir John Shore observes, in 1788, that every member of the Bengal Government, in 1783-4, had formed a decided opinion against Deby Sing, and that if found guilty, he had no mercy to expect.
↵

*

Here Mr. Burke closes his account of the complaints which were made from Rungpore. We will therefore, in a very few words, give a fair state of the transactions relative to that province.

In the year 1781, Sir John Shore and the Committee of Revenue conceived that the Government ought to receive about seventy thousand rupees a year from that province, beyond the rent of the preceding year: and at that advanced rent Deby Sing agreed to take it, entering into obligations not to impose any additional taxes upon the Ryots. This engagement was for two years. The first year's rent was paid without a balance, or a complaint. When six months of the second year were expired, an insurrection broke out in the province, and Mr. Paterson was sent by Sir John Shore and the Committee to enquire and report the cause of it. He transmitted to the Committee several papers, in which certain Zemindars and Ryots stated the several facts which Mr. Burke has mentioned. To determine upon the truth of these complaints, the Supreme Council appointed three sworn Commissioners, and, after the fullest and the most minute investigations, by far the greater number were found to have no sort of foundation. In some instances, Deby Sing, following the example of the Zemindars, had collected the revenues with a rigour and severity very unusual under the British Government in India, and he was compelled to make complete satisfaction for every act of injustice he had committed; but, when the points in which he was culpable are compared with the accusations stated by Mr. Burke, the man must appear to be perfectly innocent. The unjustifiable deception of Mr. Burke was, in stating all the facts, as if they had been proved and established by evidence.

↵

*
The three gentlemen appointed were three years senior to Mr. Paterson in the service; and, as Sir John Shore well observed, reluctantly undertook the office imposed upon them, and which it was not in their power to refuse.
↵

*
Mr. Paterson applied to the Supreme Council for permission to go to Rungpore. This permission the Council, viz. Messrs. Wheler, Macpherson, and Stables, granted; Mr. Hastings being absent, and as utterly unconnected with the business as Mr. Burke himself.
↵

*
That is, Mr. Wheler, Sir John Macpherson, and Mr. Stables, in the absence of Mr. Hastings.
↵

*
This concluding part of Mr. Burke's speech is unfortunately but too true; the special Commission of Enquiry was appointed in March 1784. Mr. Hastings, who was then absent, and did not return to Calcutta until November, and left India the first of February following, expressed his surprise that the report had not been made; and moved, that the Commissioners should be peremptorily ordered to make their report in two months. The enquiry was so minute, that it was not until February 1787 that they entirely closed all their proceedings; and it was not until the 26th of November 1788, that judgment was pronounced, which Lord Cornwallis justly laments as a great evil.
↵

*

There is something so very foreign from the actual fact in this statement, that we shall offer a few remarks upon it. It has happened that Sir John Shore arrived in England in time to depose in Westminster-Hall, that the appointment of the Committee of Revenues did not tend to deprive the Supreme Council of all knowledge of a revenue; and that it did not tend to throw power into the hands of Mr. Hastings. The public official accounts prove, that considerable advantages resulted to the public, by an actual increase of the revenues, at a time, as Mr. Hastings observed to the Directors, in May 1781, "when the preservation of the Company's interest in every part of India depended upon realizing the resources of Bengal." Without troubling our readers with confused and perplexed accounts of remissions, settlements, or balances, we shall content ourselves by taking from the records in Westminster-Hall the actual amount of the net money paid into the Company's treasury from the landed revenues, the three years preceding, and the three years subsequent to that plan of Mr. Hastings', which is supposed, contrary to truth, and the universal knowledge of mankind, to have involved Bengal in such a scene of distress as no other country ever experienced:

Preceding the new System.

Subsequent to it.

Sicca Rupees.

1778-9,

1,93,15,618

1781-2,

1,95,78,993

1779-80,

1,90,83,547

1782-3,

1,94,75,316

1780-81,

1,80,08,723

1783-4,

1,86,43,107

5,64,07,888

5,77,97,316

So that this country, so ruined and undone, by the change produced a net addition of 13, 89, 328 Sicca rupees, or £150,000 sterling; and the improved, and improving, state of Bengal, from that time to this, must convince any rational being, that there is no foundation for the many simple stories we have heard of the distressed state of Bengal; for if Mr. Hastings had violently kept up the revenue for three years by improper or oppressive exactions, those revenues must have fallen off in succeeding years; whereas, in fact, the country has continued progressively improving to the present time.

↵

*
We have already stated that Rungpore, and not Dinagepore, was the province in which the insurrection broke out.
↵

*

Mr. Burke, in his most singular composition, assumes it as a fact, that Mr. Hastings had delivered over the whole kingdom of Bengal to Gunga Govind Sing, in whose hands the Committee of Revenue were tools; and, therefore, for all his acts Mr. Hastings is responsible.

But in this letter to the Court of Directors, remonstrating against the appointment of Sir John Shore to the government of Bengal, he affirms, that he finds Mr. Shore to have been materially concerned as a principal actor and party in the mal-administration of the Revenue Board; and that against him much criminal matter is, at this moment, at issue before the highest Tribunal in the nation.

Without attempting to reconcile to common sense such absurdities and contradictions, it will be sufficient to observe, that no one act of oppression alleged to have been committed by Mr. Hastings, or by Sir John Shore, or by Gunga Govind Sing, has been proved; and, let the calculation be made in any possible way, it will be found, that in the three years following the establishment of the Committee of Revenue, the revenues actually netted considerably more than the revenues netted in the three last years of the Provincial Council.

That Mr. Burke most grossly abused the power delegated to him by the last Parliament, is unquestionably true. He confessed it, when he said, that he ought not to be expected, like Shylock, to cut just the pound of flesh, and no more. To shew the mans utter inconsistency upon all subjects, we insert the following passage from his "Appeal:"

"What can sound with such horrid discordance in the moral ear, as this position, that a Delegate, with limited powers, may break his engagement to his constituents, assume an authority never committed to him to alter things at his pleasure; and then, if he can persuade a large number of men, to flatter him in the power he has usurped, that he is absolved in his own conscience, and ought to stand acquitted in the eyes of mankind. On this scheme, the maker of the experiment must begin with a determined perjury. That point is certain. He must take his chance for the expiatory addresses. This is to make the success of villainy the standard of innocence."

It is true, Mr. Burke was not a sworn delegate; but no man of honour needs an oath, to keep him to the strict line of his duty. He has well defined the functions of a delegate; let us examine how he exercised those functions himself.

He was appointed one of the delegates of the last House of Commons. His duty was defined; namely, to make good certain articles, which that House had voted. Though the fact be true, that the House had never read by far the greater number of those articles, yet Mr. Burke had an undoubted right to expatiate, as he pleased, on every allegation in those articles, however irregularly or unjustly they were voted. But in manifest contradiction to his own sense of the moral obligations imposed upon a delegate, he introduced the episode of Deby Sing; a subject on which his constituents had never heard a word, and of course they could give him no instructions upon it. Nor was this all; he told his story most unfairly.

He imposed upon his auditors, by stating the facts, as if the truth of them was beyond all question, and that, consequently, the only matter for consideration hereafter would be, whether Mr. Hastings and Sir John Shore could be made responsible for the facts. Yet Mr. Burke knew that the truth or falsehood of the facts was a subject of a very long and solemn enquiry, the result of which was, as it has since appeared, that the facts charged were false in their most material parts. Where the charges were not without foundation, it was proved that they had been very greatly exaggerated.

↵

Mr. BURKE's SPEECH, IN WESTMINSTER-HALL, On the 18th and 19th of February, 1788, WITH EXPLANATORY NOTES.

THIS SPEECH CONTAINS WHAT MR. BURKE, IN HIS LETTER TO THE CHAIRMAN OF THE EAST INDIA COMPANY, CALLS "THOSE STRONG FACTS WHICH THE MANAGERS FOR THE COMMONS HAVE OPENED AS OFFENCES, AND WHICH GO SERIOUSLY TO AFFECT MR. SHORE'S ADMINISTRATION, AS ACTING CHIEF OF THE REVENUE BOARD."

WITH A PREFACE, CONTAINING MR. BURKE'S LETTER TO THE CHAIRMAN, ON SIR JOHN SHORE'S APPOINTMENT TO THE GOVERNMENT OF BENGAL, AND REMARKS UPON THAT LETTER.

LONDON: PRINTED FOR J. DEBRETT, OPPOSITE BURLINGTON-HOUSE, PICCADILLY. MDCCXCII.

PREFACE.

DURING the recess of Parliament, when Mr. Burke has no authority to interfere in his senatorial character, in the concerns of any public body in the kingdom; he has addressed a letter to the Chairman of the East India Company, to the following effect:

"That he has heard, and that the report is generally credited, that Mr. Shore is in nomination, or actually appointed, to the office of Governor General of Bengal.— That, having been appointed by the House of Commons, a Member of the Committee, to impeach one of their late Governors General, he thinks it his duty to inform the Chairman, that in the exercise of the functions imposed on that Committee by the House, they had found Mr. Shore to be materially concerned as a principal actor and party in certain of the offences charged upon Mr. Hastings; namely, in the mal-administration of the Revenue Board; of which, under Mr. Hastings, he was for some considerable time the acting Chief.

"That he thinks it incumbent upon him also to inform the Chairman, that some of the matters charged as misdemeanors, in which it appears that Mr. Shore was concerned, are actually in evidence before the Lords.

"That other facts of a very strong nature, which the Managers for the Commons have opened as offences, are upon the Company's records; copies of which are in the possession of the Managers, and, that they go seriously to affect Mr. Shore's administration, as acting Chief of the Revenue Board.

"That, the Committee of Managers cannot consistently with their duty, in making good the charge confided to them by the House of Commons, avoid a proceeding on those matters, or taking such steps, both for supporting the evidence already before the Peers, as well as putting the other, and not less important matters, into such a course of proceeding, as the ends of justice and the public policy may require. That the Managers have not in any instance deviated from their duty.

"That, in this situation, it is for the Court of Directors to consider the consequences, which possibly may follow, from sending out in offices of the highest rank, and of the highest possible power, persons whose conduct appearing on their own records, is, at the first view of it, very reprehensible; and against whom such criminal matter, on such grounds, in a manner so solemn, and by men acting under such an authority as that of the House of Commons, is partly at issue, and the rest opened and offered before the highest Tribunal in the nation."

Mr. Burke, in the first paragraph of his letter appears to be ignorant of what every man knew, who looked into a newspaper, a month ago.

On the 18th of September the intended appointment of Sir John Shore was announced. On the 25th he was unanimously appointed. On the 2d of October his Majesty was pleased to create him a Baronet of Great Britain; so that he came under that description of persons, whom, to use Mr. Burke's words, "The King delighteth to honour" and we should have imagined, that so loyal a subject as Mr. Burke, would have delighted to know the King's pleasure. On the 3d of October Sir John Shore kissed hands on his creation, and on his appointment; and dined on that day with the Court of Directors, and the King's Ministers. On the 11th of October he was at the Queen's Drawing-Room. On the 12th he left London. On the 14th, the day Mr. Burke's letter is dated, he was at Bath, and quitted it, to proceed to to Falmouth, on the 17th.

But, Mr. Burke is so much in the woods, that he heard not one single word of these several circumstances, though he does say, that the account is generally credited, of his being in nomination, or actually appointed.

If he believed the last repeat, he very well knew, that, whether the first idea of Sir John Shore's appointment originated in Leadenhall-street, in Mr. Dundas's apartments, at Somerset House, or at Mr. Pitt's seat at Holwood; it could only be made with the full, complete, and entire approbation of the King and his Ministers. The public must look to Mr. Pitt and Mr. Dundas for the propriety of Sir John Shore's appointment. Mr. Burke's letter is therefore a direct attack upon those ministers; whom he has ventured to threaten with the future vengeance of Parliament, for preferring a man whose conduct he, and he alone, has represented as, at the first view of it, very reprehensible.

We are confident that so strong an instance of presumption, in an individual, is not to be met with. Mr. Burke has no right at this moment to use the name or authority of the House of Commons, for any purpose whatever; still less, for that of intimidation. Either his letter was intended to stop Sir John Shore's appointment, to annul it, if it had taken place—or it was an unmeaning rhapsody. But, Mr. Burke does not know that the House will re-appoint him a Manager. It is even possible, that the House may say, "We will not be the tools and instruments of corrupt, revengeful, or factious men, of any party or description. Above £60,000 has, by this time, been expended in a disgraceful persecution of an indivual. We voted to continue the impeachment of Mr. Hastings, not from any knowledge we had of the charges preferred against him, for we never looked into a single allegation; but, because we thought a dissolution did not of necessity abate an impeachment; and, because we had so much confidence in the sense and justice of the last House, as to believe that they did not place an implicit credit in the assertions of any man; but that they had sober and rational grounds for believing that Mr. Burke spoke truth, when he told them, that Sir John Shore was a creature of Mr. Hastings; that, kingdoms which Mr. Hastings found flourishing, he left desolate; that a whole people happy at his accession, he made miserable for thirteen years; and that the public revenues which were productive on his arrival, declined rapidly under his adminstration. But, to our astonishment, the King's Ministers have promoted to the high office of Governor of Bengal, the very man whom Mr. Burke has called the creature of Mr. Hastings; and whom Mr. Burke so strongly censured in Westminster-Hall. We find that this gentleman, so selected, has solemnly deposed before the Peers, that Bengal had greatly improved in population and agriculture during the government of Mr. Hastings; that under him property was better protected, and the natives happier, than under their own Sovereigns, and that of Mr. Hastings the Natives had a very favourable opinion. Have the King's Ministers selected a man for so high an office, who is capable of laying perjury on his soul to serve Mr. Hastings? and if not, if Sir John Shore is to be believed upon his oath, we disgrace ourselves, and our Constituents, by suffering such execrable falsehoods to continue to stain the journals of the last Parliament. Nor is this all: the King's India Minister has annually presented accounts of the state of Bengal to this House. We have ourselves seen by those accounts the progressive improvement of the revenues of Bengal during his government, and since his departure; and they prove, supposing the accounts to be correct, that Sir John Shore has sworn the truth. Whatever motives the King's India Ministers may have for acting so inconsistently, we ought to be actuated by a love of justice alone. As Representatives of the people, it would be disgraceful to us, to vote away their money annually, and to oppress, in a manner unexampled in any age or nation, a meritorious individual, because infamy must rest somewhere, if any part of this prosecution has been wantonly, maliciously, or carelessly undertaken. But the infamy will fall upon our heads, if after such clear and decisive proofs, that Bengal was not in the situation described by Mr. Burke, we still permit him to say, in the name of the Commons of Great Britain, that the country has been desolated, its inhabitants plundered and destroyed, and its revenues diminished by Mr. Hastings."

We think it much more natural for the House to declare these manly sentiments, because they are the sentiments universally prevalent amongst their constituents, than to find them ready to second Mr. Burke's attack of Sir John Shore, or to vote alternately with Mr. Dundas, that white is black, and black is white.

But can Mr. Burke in this instance depend upon Mr. Pitt? and was it an article in that curious treaty[*], which so completely neutralized and dulcified Mr. Burke, that for two years he has ceased to abuse Mr. Pitt in the gross terms which he formerly applied to him: was it, we ask, an article of the treaty, that the national purse, the national honour, the honour of the King, and even of Mr. Pitt himself, should be ceded for ever to Mr. Burke? Though Mr. Pitt may have listened with calm tranquillity, or with secret satisfaction to Mr. Burke, while he spent his rage upon his old connections, or upon Mr. Hastings, yet he will hardly be pleased with so very direct an attack upon himself.

It was a duty imposed by the law upon Mr. Pitt and Mr. Dundas, to examine with the closest attention every transaction of Sir John Shore's public life, before they acquiesced in his appointment. We are confident that in this instance they performed their duty; and we believe that they, and not the Directors, were induced to solicit Sir John Shore to accept the office, because he appeared to them to have acted with the strictest integrity and honour, and for the national interests, in all those transactions, which, Mr. Burke presumes to say, appeared, on the first view, very reprehensible.

We are indeed well aware that Mr. Burke has brought Mr. Pitt and Mr. Dundas into an unfortunate dilemma. Sir John Shore's appointment does throw some little disgrace upon that impeachment for which those Ministers voted; but, in justice to all parties, we will state how far they were concerned.

The whole of that immense mass of matter, which was called "Revenues," was opened by Mr. Francis, in a Committee of the whole House, on the 19th of April 1787. The charge, in substance, was, that between 1772, and 1785, Mr. Hastings had violated private property, had oppressed most grievously persons of all ages, ranks, and descriptions, had annihilated the nobility and country gentlemen of a great empire, and had materially injured the public revenues, by his various and oppressive modes of collecting them.

Mr. Pitt most eloquently and strenuously opposed every allegation in the charge. He declared that Mr. Francis's description of Bengal was utterly unfounded, that country being in a most flourishing and prosperous state, and that his statement of a declining revenue was disproved, by the evidence of figures.

Mr. Fox, with much vehemence, supported Mr. Francis, and expressed his concern that Mr. Pitt, who had lately been in the habit of agreeing with them, should differ upon this, the most important of all their charges [*]. He was supported warmly by Mr. Burke.

Upon the division, Mr. Pitt, Mr. Grenville, Mr. Dundas, and Lord Mulgrave, the four India Ministers, with their Secretary, Mr. Rouse, the Speaker of the House of Commons, and the Law Officers of the Crown, were in a minority. Fifty-five voted with Mr. Pitt, seventy-one with Mr. Francis, who consequently carried his question by a majority of fifteen.

To those who do not know what was the routine of business, in the last Parliament, it may be necessary to explain how such a circumstance occurred.

It was the custom of the Treasury to send notes to their friends, to request attendance, when the Minister was anxious to succeed in a question, and the Opposition had some active partizan who took the same means to collect their forces. Mr. Francis being a man of some consequence, on their side, the party were summoned, and they came in a body to his support.

Whether Mr. Pitt from delicacy did not issue his Treasury notes, as it was a judicial question, or whether he was determined that his influence should never be exercised for Mr. Hastings, though he took ample pains, on many occasions, to exercise it against him, the fact is, that from a thin attendance of Mr. Pitt's friends, he was left in a minority.

But there were other stages in the course of this article when Mr. Pitt might have thrown it out, had he pleased; for it was not presented to the House in its present form, until the 10th of May, and the Tuesday following was appointed for taking it into consideration. At this time, Mr. Dundas had opened his first India Budget, and, to a man of reason, it was perfectly clear, that unless Mr. Dundas imposed false accounts upon the House, the Revenue Article was a gross libel on the Government of Bengal.

A Member, who believed Mr. Dundas told truth, and that the article was filled with false assertions, took the liberty to speak to Mr. Pitt on the 10th of May, upon this subject, and also to Mr. Rouse. He reminded Mr. Pitt, that he had voted against the Revenue article in toto. He pointed out how glaringly it falsified all Mr. Dundas's assertions, and all his accounts, and he asked Mr. Pitt if he did not intend to oppose it on the Tuesday, and to endeavour to throw it out altogether. Mr. Pitt told that Member, in reply, that he should give no further opposition to the article, but he did not condescend to explain his reasons for being silent; so that, in point of fact, Mr. Pitt actually voted in direct contradiction to sentiments forcibly and eloquently delivered by himself: any opposition by an unconnected Member to an article which Mr. Pitt and Mr. Fox supported would have been idle in the extreme.

But if Mr. Pitt had given notice, that he would oppose the revenue article on its third reading, and if then he had pointed out how materially it cut up all that Mr. Dundas had said, we are confident that the article would have been totally rejected. We remember to have seen Mr. Pitt a little ruffled on being left in a minority, on a question relative to the African Carrying Trade; he told the House that he would oppose the clause which had been carried against him, on the Report; and then, an irresistible phalanx crowded down, which insured his success.

As the matter now stands, we allow that the last Parliament agreed with Mr. Francis, that Bengal was irretrievably ruined, and with Mr. Dundas, that it was the most flourishing country in India.

But this House is not at all responsible for the absurdity or the injustice of the last; what has this House ever heard about Bengal, except from Mr. Dundas? and his communications have been most flattering, indeed, to Mr. Hastings; and to Sir John Shore, who acted under him.

Of the revenue article voted by the last Parliament, this House knows nothing, for the best of all possible reasons; because it would not condescend to inquire.

This House voted two Resolutions[*]. The first, that the Impeachment of Mr. Hastings was depending; or, in other words, that an impeachment existing at a dissolution, was not abated by that dissolution.

The second Resolution was, that this House would proceed no further in the Impeachment beyond those articles on which the Managers had already closed their evidence, excepting only to Contracts, Pensions, and Allowances; and those were finished in six days, in Westminster Hall.

Beyond this, the present House has not gone. The articles voted by the last House may have been very well, or very ill founded; very true, or very false.—They might have been considered with great care and attention, or by far the greater number may not to this moment have been read by the Members who voted for them—This House neither knew, nor cared, about them—They lent the authority of their name to all that the Managers had done in the last Parliament, of which they could know nothing, and they tied up Mr. Burke from proceeding beyond certain specified points in future.

We conclude it was an article of the treaty with Mr. Pitt, which the latter insisted upon, that Mr. Burke should not go on eternally, because he lamented in the House[*], that he was compelled to yield to the criminal impatience of the times, and to give up all the remaining articles, the Contracts excepted.

Mr. Burke, therefore, cannot stir one step without the authority of the House—No consequences hostile to the Directors, or to the King's Ministers, can follow from Sir John Shore's appointment; unless he can persuade the House to rescind their last resolution. The House may undoubtedly prefer new articles, even while Mr. Hastings is upon his defence—The House may prolong the trial as long as it lives, and its successors may also continue it until a hundred more of the Judges make a journey to the other world—There is nothing substantially unjust, that the House may not do according to the strict forms of Parliamentary Impeachments; but Mr. Burke has no right to presume that the House will suffer him to move an inch beyond a Reply, upon the matter now at issue. If there is common sense in his letter, he must move to impeach Mr. Pitt and Mr. Dundas, for reducing to contempt the impeachment of Mr. Hastings, by nominating to the office of Governor General, a man who has been a principal actor and party in the mal-administration of the revenues; but we confidently affirm, that he has not a shadow of foundation, on which to rest a charge against the King's Ministers, or the Court of Directors. The King's Ministers never would allow that the revenues had been ill administered.

Mr. Burke writes to the Chairman, "The Managers for the Commons have opened facts of a very strong nature, which go seriously to affect Mr. Shore's administration, and they offered evidence upon them to the Lords."

It is true, that Mr. Burke did open such facts, as he calls them; but, in the first place, he acted without authority in opening them—and secondly, the facts, or by far the greater number of them, were not true—and thirdly, Sir John Shore cannot be responsible for such facts as were true, in any possible point of view. He certainly did reflect very seriously upon the character and conduct of Sir John Shore; but in so doing he exceeded his powers, and it was neither more nor less, than the groundless calumny of an unauthorized individual.

To prevent, therefore, all further misrepresentations, we now publish those facts of a very strong nature, which Mr. Burke opened, and we print them from minutes taken at the time by a short-hand writer. There may still be some errors, owing to the rapidity of Mr. Burke's utterance, but they cannot materially affect his argument: those who have read Mr. Dodsley's abstract in his Register, will find how clearly both accounts agree in all essential points.

If Mr. Burke's doctrine were to prevail, what would be Mr. Pitt's situation!! A Manager, on an India Impeachment, has but to select all the meritorious servants of the public, and if he can, like Mr. Burke, call names with the fluency of a Marat, or a Parisian Poissarde, he may apply the epithet Creature to one man, Secret Agent to a second, Bribe Broker to a third, Murderer to a fourth, Corrupt Instrument to a fifth, Captain General of Iniquity to a sixth, Villain to a seventh, and so on, until he forces Mr. Pitt to have recourse to the Ranks of Opposition for a Governor General.

Many years ago Mr. Burke played the same game, though he then acted by authority.—As soon as the Rockingham Administration were in power, he drew out a Parliamentary Report[*], in which he most violently attacked the Directors for appointing Sir John Macpherson, and Mr. Stables, to the Supreme Council, and the Hon. Mr. Stuart, and Mr. Sulivan, to a succession, upon vacancies.

He imputed to Sir John Macpherson, a design to support the Nabob of Arcot, by bribing the King's Ministers, and Parliament itself. Mr. Stables was an improper person, because he had not been in the Civil Service; Mr. Stuart was an accused man; and Mr. Sulivan was the son of the Chairman.

As Mr. Burke, however, has once more thought proper to allude "to the offences opened by the Managers," that is, by himself, the story shall be told in intelligible language[*].

The day after he had concluded his account of those offences, the late Lord Chancellor (for the trial, after surviving almost a hundred of its Judges, has now outlived the President of the Court) stated in the House of Lords, "that the new matter introduced by Mr. Burke in his opening speech, was of such a nature that, compared with it, the articles, important as they were, sunk to utter insignificance; and that Mr. Burke would be a calumniator, if he did not put it into such a form as might enable Mr. Hastings to refute it; if he could not refute it, then no punishment in the power of their Lordships to inflict, could be adequate to his offences."

The Duke of Richmond took the same line; and added the epithet "base," to that of calumniator.

Of these speeches Mr. Burke took no notice. In the next year, 1789, Mr. Burke, in one of his rants, called Mr. Hastings "a Murderer;" Mr. Hastings complained to the House of Commons next day of this scandalous outrage; he complained also, of the introduction of the story of Deby Sing in the preceding year, and he prayed the House to frame both accusations into articles, if they thought there were grounds to do so; if not, to redress the injury which he had sustained.

The House censured Mr. Burke for the first offence against decency and justice; but they rejected the second complaint, not because it was unfounded, but because Mr. Hastings had not complained of the injury, as soon as he received it.

Mr. Burke affirmed, upon this occasion, that he was determined to go into this story of Deby Sing.—The year passed over, and he did nothing.

In the next year[*], 1790, evidence was offered upon it, as he tells the Chairman; but, however, in such a manner, we will venture to say, as no lawyer could have advised; for instead of going to the House of Commons, and there stating the grounds for implicating Mr. Hastings in any transactions of Deby Sing, as a foundation for an additional article; either Mr. Burke, or Mr. Anstruther, called for an opinion delivered by Mr. Hastings in January 1785, in which he says, "that he so well knows the character and abilities of Rajah Deby Sing, as easily to conceive it was in his power to commit the enormities laid to his charge, and to conceal the ground of them from the English Resident, Mr. Goodlad."

Upon this opinion, the Managers said, "they would next proceed to shew what those enormities were, which might be concealed from the English gentlemen residing there, and which might be committed without their knowing any thing of the matter."

This miserable attempt was instantly opposed by the Counsel of Mr. Hastings, who at the same time pressed Mr. Burke to go to the Commons, and if he could persuade them to accuse Mr. Hastings, they would most eagerly, and gladly meet the accusation; but they would neither allow Mr. Burke to make charges of his own authority, nor permit him to adduce evidence upon charges so made.

The opinion of the Lords was called for, and they instantly determined, "That it is not competent for the Managers for the Commons to give evidence of the enormities actually committed by Deby Sing, the same not being charged in the Impeachment [†]."

A rational man would have supposed, that after such a decision, Mr. Burke would have done one of two things—either that which his character and his honour required: namely, to bring the subject fully before the last House of Commons, or to have been silent for ever. He did not adopt the first and best measure; nay, as it respects Mr. Hastings, he has totally dropped it; but as soon as his Majesty had honoured Sir John Shore by his favour, and when the King's Ministers had selected him, "for an office of the highest trust, and the highest possible power," then Mr. Burke revived this story of Deby Sing, in his letter to the Chairman, in order to make an impression against Sir John Shore. To rescue his character, therefore, from the calumnies of Mr. Burke—to rescue the character of the British nation in India, from the reproach which Mr. Burke has so unjustly cast upon it; we have printed his speech, and we have added explanatory notes, in order to prove that no one English gentleman can be responsible for the conduct of Deby Sing.

It has been rumoured in the vicinity of St. James's, that Mr. Burke has complained of Sir John Shore's appointment to Mr. Dundas in very strong terms. To this worthy gentleman, his complaints are not improperly addressed. In return for Mr. Burke's important services to Ministers, he might have expected a continuance of that cordial support which Mr. Dundas has hitherto given him, in carrying on the impeachment.

Mr. Burke may have addressed Mr. Dundas with great propriety, in the following terms: To support you in office, I have given up character, principle, and consistency. No very long period has elapsed since I affirmed, in the face of the House of Commons, and of my country, "That all the acts and monuments in the records of peculation, the consolidated corruption of ages, the patterns of exemplary plunder in the heroic times of Roman iniquity, never equalled the gigantic corruption of a single act," conceived and executed by you and Mr. Pitt. I solemnly pledged myself to be "a steady, earnest, and faithful assistant to any one who should bring forward any plan that might tend to a subversion of that most corrupt and oppressive system for the government of India[*]," which you and Mr. Pitt have established under the sanction of Parliament; but so completely was I "neutralized and dulcified" by your support of the impeachment, that I have now forgot all my former speeches, though I printed them publicly, and though Mr. Dodsley has very lately sent a fresh edition of them into the world.

The system which I censured so loudly, is still continued in all its parts; but I have long since ceased to sound the trumpet of alarm; and you may violate Treaties, you may disgrace the honour of Great Britain; in short, you might have done any thing, provided you had given me all the money, and all the time, and all the influence I wanted to carry on the impeachment. But it was not enough that I ceased to be your determined and persevering opponent; I have lately rendered you most essential services. I have lost no opportunity of exposing the weakness of that party, to whose interests my best days were devoted. I have used every means in my power to scatter them to atoms. I have so far succeeded, that the people now believe there is hardly one honest public man in this nation. I have supported your Proclamation. I have excited the fears of the Aristocratic Whigs, and I have made the Houses of Wentworth, Cavendish, and Bentinck, your own.

In return for these important services, you have disgraced me in the opinion of every man of honour in the nation. You ought to have remembered the high tone which I affected, when I originally moved the Impeachment of Mr. Hastings. I did not venture at once to accuse him of spending half a million improvidently, in thirteen years, while he added millions to the public resources—with all the extravagance of the American war before their eyes; with the pensions, sinecure places, and Peerages, so lavishly bestowed by Ministers of late years, open to their view; the Country Gentlemen would have scouted every idea of a criminal prosecution upon so contemptible charge; I, therefore, played a deeper, and a more artful part—I began by telling them, that provinces, once most flourishing, Mr. Hastings had desolated—that countries, once eminently peopled, were now inhabited only by beasts of prey—that institutions, sacred in the opinions of nations, he had publicly violated—that commerce he had destroyed, and that the revenues by his mismanagement had greatly declined. The Country Gentlemen believed me, and they voted with me. My work from this time was easy, in the House; but out of doors, your annual budget, in which you so pointedly contradicted all my statements, hurt my reputation considerably; and as if that were not enough, you have now taken a step which has ruined me, and will materially injure you. Had you no recollection of the evidence which the new Baronet gave in Westminster Hall? The man, whom you have made Governor General, has sworn, that from 1770 to 1789, including every year of Mr. Hasting's administration, Bengal had progressively improved in agriculture and population, that the natives were happier, and their property better protected, in that period, than under their own sovereigns, and that of Mr. Hastings they entertained a very favourable opinion. How can I affirm hereafter, that Mr. Hastings was a tyrant, an oppressor, a murderer, a captain-general of iniquity, or that India, on his departure from it, felt relieved from a weight under which she had long groaned? It will be said to me, if the solemn testimony of a man, whom your gracious sovereign delighteth to honour, and whom his confidential servants have appointed Governor General of India, is to be believed, you, Mr. Burke, have been imposing upon, and deceiving us. What answer can I make? unless I am ready to pronounce that next to that act which I so violently censured a few years ago, this appointment of Sir John Shore is "the most gigantic instance of corruption" ever committed in the world!

But though you and Mr. Pitt had no consideration for me, you might have been alarmed for yourselves. Though it be true, that you differed most widely from me as to the state of Bengal, and when I declared it to be ruined irretrievably, you pronounced it to be most flourishing and prosperous, yet it is equally true, that you ultimately voted with me, and you have paid the Solicitors bill, for very heavy charges incurred by my orders, in an attempt to prove legally what you have publickly declared to be utterly unfounded in truth.

You ought to have recollected, that since this most unhappy business in France, the people of England have had the insolence to think, and to speak what they think, with much more freedom than formerly. There is no longer a blind reverence paid to great names, or to great authorities—Remember my words in Parliament, prophetic they were, and the prediction is almost accomplished. I said, that in this impeachment of Mr. Hastings, "Infamy must necessarily rest somewhere." It will not be from me alone, that the public will ask, how it happens that sixty thousand pounds of their money has been expended? that the first principle of Magna Charta has been violated by the extension of a criminal trial to a period unknown in former times, and which no man could have suspected would have happened at any time? They will say, that you have proved your disbelief of the foundation of this impeachment, by preferring a man who has destroyed that foundation by his evidence; or they will take up the argument in my letter to the Chairman, and totally condemn the appointment, so that in either case, you cannot escape the censure of the public—and was this a time to turn politics into farce? The mysteries of Government should be concealed from the too prying eyes of the swinish multitude. I have in my time been guilty of great indiscretions, but I have repented, and have made every reparation in my power. The time was, when I affirmed, and took care to let the whole world know, "that Kings[*] were naturally lovers of low company." The time was when I censured the University of Oxford, for its unconstitutional address to the Throne[†]. The time was when I complimented the republican Thomas Paine, as the great and successful champion of American independence[‡]. The time was when I gloried in my correspondence with good Dr. Francklin[§], though the law pronounced him a rebel, and declared such correspondence to be illegal. The time was when the King's friends were disgusted by certain intemperate words, which fell from me, during his indisposition, but I am now the avowed champion of monarchy, of the church, and of aristocracy throughout the world. Indeed, my dear friend, you have acted inconsiderately to give no harsher term to your conduct. This was not a time to expose me, or to risque your own situation. What conclusion can sober and thinking men come to? They will say, that Mr. Hastings having been made, as you well know, the ladder by which Mr. Pitt and yourself climbed to power, you took the first opportunity to shew ministerial gratitude for favours conferred. They will say that my old friends having lost their situations, by attacking that man, felt a resentment which is venial at least, and that they have acted under the influence of that resentment. Of myself, they will say, that my enquiries have been so very deep, that I must have known the true state of India to be, as you have described it, in the House of Commons. In short, when they consider, that no one person whom we have represented as having been injured by Mr. Hastings, has been redressed by you or Mr. Pitt—that no one resource which Mr. Hastings procured, has been abandoned by government—that no one system which he framed, has been altered essentially by you—that the man[*] whom I described as having entered into a corrupt collusion with another person, whom I painted as the most execrable of villains[†], has been selected by you, for the government of Bengal—that this man, so selected, was for many years the principal Manager of the Revenues under Mr. Hastings, and has borne testimony to the prosperous condition of Bengal, the happiness of its inhabitants, and their regard for Mr. Hastings: When they consider, that the credit of the two great parties of England, and of the last Parliament, is implicated in the decision of the impeachment, and that with all the influence, and all the money, employed in more than five years, we have not been able to procure one solitary individual to prefer a complaint against Mr. Hastings from India; but, on the contrary, have received the most damning proofs of the respect and veneration in which the natives of India hold this persecuted man; what will be the conclusion? what can be the conclusion which the people will draw? It must be this; that we have been actuated by private motives, in thus persisting in error, and ought to be responsible to our country, for so unprecedented a protraction of a criminal trial.

Mr. Burke might well express these sentiments to Mr. Dundas. He has favoured his late Fellow-Managers with a copy of his letter to the Chairman, and it would be to their edification if he would also give them the contents of his letter to Mr. Dundas.

THE END.

Notes

*
We state this fact of the treaty, on the authority of a pamphlet which is in every body's hands. We have no doubt of the truth of it, because Mr. Burke declared in the House, that Mr. Pitt had neutralized and dulcified him by his conduct on the impeachment of Mr. Hastings.
↵

*
Mr. Fox undoubtedly was right, that this was the most important of all the articles. It was so stated by Mr. Burke originally, who declared, that if Mr. Hastings had improved the face of a country, had made a numerous people happy, had extended commerce, and encreased population, and the Public income; he never would have conceived the idea of entering into a minute scrutiny of the conduct of such a man. If this were not mere verbiage, what can Mr. Burke say, after having heard the evidence of Sir John Shore?
↵

*
The first on the 19th of December 1790, the second on the 14th of February 1791.
↵

*
The 14th of February 1791.
↵

*
In 1782.
↵

*
The Managers knew nothing of this story until Mr. Burke told it in Westminster Hall, and he himself only got the hint of it, from Mr. Francis, two days before the trial commenced.
↵

*
On the 18th of May.
↵

†
Printed evidence, page 1251,
↵

*
The passages marked by inverted commas, are taken from the speeches printed by Mr. Burke himself.
↵

*
Mr. Burke's speech on the Reform, February 1780.
↵

†
In May 1776, on the American war.
↵

‡
Mr. Burke's letter to the Sheriffs of Bristol, in 1777.
↵

§
Mr. Burke's speech in December 1781.
↵

*
Sir John Shore.
↵

†
Deby Sing.
↵

Information about this book

Title statement

Mr. Burke's speech, in Westminster-Hall, on the 18th and 19th of February, 1788: with explanatory notes. ... With a preface, ...

Burke, Edmund, 1729-1797.

Publication

Distributor

University of Oxford Text Archive
Oxford University Computing Services
13 Banbury Road
Oxford
OX2 6NN
ota@oucs.ox.ac.uk

ID [ota]

http://ota.ox.ac.uk/id/3529

ID [isbn10]

1106005287

ID [isbn13]

9781106005281

ID [TCP]

K016912.000

ID [BIBNO]

CW3304792273

ID [ECLL]

0554500200

Availability

Distributed by the University of Oxford under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License

Source

— Mr. Burke's speech, in Westminster-Hall, on the 18th and 19th of February, 1788: with explanatory notes. ... With a preface, ..., Burke, Edmund, 1729-1797.. [4],xlii,59,[1]p. ; 8⁰. London :: printed for J. Debrett,. 1792.. [With a half-title.] [Reproduction of original from the Huntington Library.] [Todd, 61] [English Short Title Catalog, ESTCN35246.] [Electronic data. Farmington Hills, Mich. : Thomson Gale, 2003. Page image (PNG). Digitized image of the microfilm version produced in Woodbridge, CT by Research Publications, 1982-2002 (later known as Primary Source Microfilm, an imprint of the Gale Group).]

Creation

Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2p5.xsl, TEI @ Oxford.

Editorial practices

This electronic text file was keyed from page images and partially proofread for accuracy. Character capture and encoding have been done following the guidelines of the ECCO Text Creation Partnership, which correspond roughly to the recommendations found in Level 4 of the TEI in Libraries Guidelines. Digital page images are linked to the text file.