Chapter IV: , VII (118)

"The battle of Plassey was fought on June 23, 1757, an
anniversary afterwards remembered when the Mutiny of 1857 was
at its height. History has agreed to adopt this date as the
beginning of the British Empire in the East. But the immediate
results of the victory were comparatively small, and several
years passed in hard fighting before even the Bengalis would
admit the superiority of the British arms.
{1718}
For the moment, however, all opposition was at an end. Clive,
again following in the steps of Dupleix, placed Mir Jafar upon
the Viceregal throne at Murshidabad, being careful to obtain a
patent of investiture from the Mughal court. Enormous sums
were exacted from Mir Jafar as the price of his elevation. …
At the same time, the Nawab made a grant to the Company of the
zamindari or landholder's rights over an extensive tract of
country round Calcutta, now known as the District of the
Twenty-four Parganas. The area of this tract was 882 square
miles. In 1757 the Company obtained only the zamindari
rights—i. e., the rights to collect the cultivator's rents,
with the revenue jurisdiction attached [see below: A. D.
1785-1793]. The superior lordship, or right to receive the
land tax, remained with the Nawab. But in 1759, this also was
granted by the Delhi Emperor, the nominal Suzerain of the
Nawab, in favour of Clive, who thus became the landlord of his
own masters, the Company. … Lord Clive's claims to the
property as feudal Suzerain over the Company were contested in
1764; and on the 23d June, 1765, when he returned to Bengal, a
new deed was issued, confirming the unconditional jagir to
Lord Clive for ten years, with reversion afterwards to the
Company in perpetuity. … In 1758, Clive was appointed by the
Court of Directors the first Governor of all the Company's
settlements in Bengal. Two powers threatened hostilities. On
the west, the Shahzada or Imperial prince, known afterwards as
the Emperor Shah Alam, with a mixed army of Afghans and
Marhattas, and supported by the Nawab Wazir of Oudh, was
advancing his own claims to the Province of Bengal. In the
south, the influence of the French under Lally and Bussy was
overshadowing the British at Madras. The name of Clive
exercised a decisive effect in both directions. Mir Jafar was
anxious to buy off the Shahzada, who had already invested
Patna. But Clive marched in person to the rescue, with an army
of only 450 Europeans and 2,500 sepoys, and the Mughal army
dispersed without striking a blow. In the same year, Clive
despatched a force southwards under Colonel Forde, which
recaptured Masulipatam from the French, and permanently
established British influence throughout the Northern Circars,
and at the court of Haidarabad. He next attacked the Dutch,
the only other European nation who might yet prove a rival to
the English. He defeated them both by land and water; and
their settlement at Chinsurah existed thenceforth only on
sufferance. From 1760 to 1765, Clive was in England. He had
left no system of government in Bengal, but merely the
tradition that unlimited sums of money might be extracted from
the natives by the terror of the English name. In 1761, it was
found expedient and profitable to dethrone Mir Jafar, the
English Nawab of Murshidabad, and to substitute his
son-in-law, Mir Kasim, in his place. On this occasion, besides
private donations, the English received a grant of the three
Districts of Bardwan, Midnapur, and Chittagong, estimated to
yield a net revenue of half a million sterling. But Mir Kasim
soon began to show a will of his own, and to cherish dreams of
independence. … The Nawab alleged that his civil authority
was everywhere set at nought. The majority of the Council at
Calcutta would not listen to his complaints. The Governor, Mr.
Vansittart, and Warren Hastings, then a junior member of
Council, attempted to effect some compromise. But the
controversy had become too hot. The Nawab's officers fired
upon an English boat, and forthwith all Bengal rose in arms
[1763]. Two thousand of our sepoys were cut to pieces at
Patna; about 200 Englishmen, who there and in other various
parts of the Province fell into the hands of the Muhammadans,
were massacred. But as soon as regular warfare commenced, Mir
Kasim met with no more successes. His trained regiments were
defeated in two pitched battles by Major Adams, at Gheriah and
at Udha-nala; and he himself took refuge with the Nawab Wazir
of Oudh, who refused to deliver him up. This led to a
prolongation of the war. Shah Alam, who had now succeeded his
father as Emperor, and Shuja-ud-Daula, the Nawab Wazir of
Oudh, united their forces, and threatened Patna, which the
English had recovered. A more formidable danger appeared in
the English camp, in the form of the first sepoy mutiny. This
was quelled by Major (afterwards Sir Hector) Munro, who
ordered 24 of the ringleaders to be blown from guns, an old
Mughal punishment. In 1764, Major Munro won the decisive
battle of Baxar [or Buxar], which laid Oudh at the feet of the
conquerors, and brought the Mughal Emperor as a suppliant to
the English camp. Meanwhile, the Council at Calcutta had twice
found the opportunity they loved of selling the government of
Bengal to a new Nawab. But in 1765, Clive (now Baron Clive of
Plassey in the peerage of Ireland) arrived at Calcutta, as
Governor of Bengal for the second time. Two landmarks stand
out in his policy. First, he sought the substance, although
not the name, of territorial power, under the fiction of a
grant from the Mughal Emperor. Second, he desired to purify
the Company's service, by prohibiting illicit gains, and
guaranteeing a reasonable pay from honest sources. In neither
respect were his plans carried out by his immediate
successors. But the beginning of our Indian rule dates from
this second governorship of Clive, as our military supremacy
had dated from his victory at Plassey. Clive landed, advanced
rapidly up from Calcutta to Allahabad, and there settled in
person the fate of nearly half of India. Oudh was given back
to the Nawab Wazir, on condition of his paying half a million
sterling towards the expenses of the war. The Provinces of
Allahabad and Kora, forming the greater part of the Doab, were
handed over to Shah Alam himself, who in his turn granted to
the Company the diwani or fiscal administration of Bengal,
Behar, and Orissa, and also the territorial jurisdiction of
the Northern Circars. A puppet Nawab was still maintained at
Murshidabad, who received an annual allowance from us of
£600,000. Half that amount, or about £300,000, we paid to the
Emperor as tribute from Bengal. Thus was constituted the dual
system of government, by which the English received all the
revenues and undertook to maintain the army; while the
criminal jurisdiction, or nizamat, was vested in the Nawab. In
Indian phraseology, the Company was diwan and the Nawab was
nizam. The actual collection of the revenues still remained
for some years in the hands of native officials. … Lord
Clive quitted India for the third and last time in 1767.
{1719}
Between that date and the governorship of Warren Hastings, in
1772, little of importance occurred in Bengal beyond the
terrible famine of 1770, which is officially reported to have
swept away one-third of the inhabitants. The dual system of
government, established in 1765 by Clive, had proved a
failure. Warren Hastings, a tried servant of the Company,
distinguished alike for intelligence, for probity, and for
knowledge of oriental manners, was nominated Governor by the
Court of Directors, with express instructions to carry out a
predetermined series of reforms. In their own words, the Court
had resolved to 'stand forth as diwan, and to take upon
themselves, by the agency of their own servants, the entire
care and administration of the revenues.' In the execution of
this plan, Hastings removed the exchequer from Murshidabad to
Calcutta, and appointed European officers, under the now
familiar title of Collectors, to superintend the revenue
collections and preside in the courts. Clive had laid the
territorial foundations of the British Empire in Bengal.
Hastings may be said to have created a British administration
for that Empire."

_Sir W. W. Hunter,
India (article in Imperial Gazetteer of India)
volume 4, pages 389-394._

ALSO IN:
_W. M, Torrens,
Empire in Asia: How we came by it,
chapters 4-6._

_Sir C. Wilson,
Lord Clive,
chapters 7-9._

_G. B. Malleson,
Decisive Battles of India,
chapter 7._

INDIA: A. D. 1758-1761.
Overthrow of French domination in the Carnatic.
The decisive Battle of Wandiwash.

"In 1758 the fortunes of the French in India underwent an
entire change. In April a French fleet arrived at Pondicherry.
It brought a large force under the command of Count de Lally,
who had been appointed Governor-General of the French
possessions in India. … No sooner had he landed at
Pondicherry than he organised an expedition against Fort St.
David; but he found that no preparations had been made by the
French authorities. There was a want alike of coolies, draught
cattle, provisions, and ready money. But the energy of Lally
overcame all obstacles. … In June, 1758, Lally captured Fort
St. David. He then prepared to capture Madras as a preliminary
to an advance on Bengal. He recalled Bussy from the Dekhan to
help him with his Indian experiences; and he sent the Marquis
de Conflans to succeed Bussy in the command of the Northern
Circars. [A strip of territory on the Coromandel coast, which
had been ceded to the French in 1752 by Salabut Jung, Nizam of
the Dekhun, was so called; it stretched along 600 miles of
seaboard, from the Carnatic frontier northwards.] … The
departure of Bussy from the Northern Circars was disastrous to
the French. The Raja of Vizianagram revolted against the
French and sent to Calcutta for help. Clive despatched an
English force to the Northern Circars, under the command of
Colonel Forde; and in December, 1758, Colonel Forde defeated
the French under Conflans [at Condore, or Kondur, December 9],
and prepared to recover all the English factories on the coast
which had been captured by Bussy. Meanwhile Count de Lally was
actively engaged at Pondicherry in preparations for the siege
of Madras. He hoped to capture Madras, and complete the
destruction of the English in the Carnatic; and then to march
northward, capture Calcutta, and expel the English from
Bengal. … Lally reached Madras on the 12th of December,
1758, and at once took possession of Black Town. He then began
the siege of Fort St. George with a vigour and activity which
commanded the respect of his enemies. His difficulties were
enormous. … Even the gunpowder was nearly exhausted. At
last, on the 16th of February, 1759, an English fleet arrived
at Madras under Admiral Pocock, and Lally was compelled to
raise the siege. Such was the state of party feeling amongst
the French in India, that the retreat of Lally from Madras was
received at Pondicherry with every demonstration of joy. The
career of Lally in India lasted for two years longer, namely
from February, 1759, to February, 1761; it is a series of
hopeless struggles and wearying misfortunes. In the Dekhan,
Salabut Jung had been thrown into the utmost alarm by the
departure of Bussy and defeat of Conflans. He was exposed to
the intrigues and plots of his younger brother, Nizam Ali, and
he despaired of obtaining further help from the French.
Accordingly he opened up negotiations with Colonel Forde and
the English. Forde on his part recovered all the Captured
factories [taking Masulipatam by storm, April 7, 1759, after a
fortnight's siege], and drove the French out of the Northern
Circars. He could not however interfere in the domestic
affairs of the Dekhan, by helping Salabut Jung against Nizam
Ali. In 1761 Salabut Jung was dethroned and placed in
confinement; and Nizam Ali ascended the throne at Hyderabad as
ruler of the Dekhan. In the Carnatic the French were in
despair. In January, 1760, Lally was defeated by Colonel Coote
at Wandiwash, between Madras and Pondicherry. Lally opened up
negotiations with Hyder Ali, who was rising to power in
Mysore; but Hyder Ali as yet could do little or nothing. At
the end of 1760 Colonel Coote began the siege of Pondicherry.
Lally … was ill in health and worn out with vexation and
fatigue. The settlement was torn by dissensions. In January,
1761, the garrison was starved into a capitulation, and the
town and fortifications were levelled with the ground. A few
weeks afterwards the French were compelled to surrender the
strong hill-fortress of Jingi, and their military power in the
Carnatic was brought to a close." On the return of Count Lally
to France "he was sacrificed to save the reputation of the
French ministers. … He was tried by the parliament of Paris.
… In May, 1766, he was condemned not only to death, but to
immediate execution."

_J. T. Wheeler,
Short History of India,
part 3, chapter 2._

"The battle of Wandewash, … though the numbers on each side
were comparatively small, must yet be classed amongst the
decisive battles of the world, for it dealt a fatal and
decisive blow to French domination in India."

_G. B. Malleson,
History of the French in India,
chapter 12._

ALSO IN:
_G. B. Malleson,
Decisive Battles of India,
chapter 4._

INDIA: A. D. 1767-1769.
The first war with Hyder Ali.

"At this period, the main point of interest changes from the
Presidency of Bengal to the Presidency of Madras. There, the
English were becoming involved in another war. There, they had
now, for the first time, to encounter the most skilful and
daring of all the enemies against whom they ever fought in
India—Hyder Ali.
{1720}
He was of humble origin, the grandchild of a wandering 'fakir'
or Mahomedan monk. Most versatile in his talents, Hyder was no
less adventurous in his career; by turns a private man devoted
to sports of the chase, a captain of free-booters, a
partisan-chief, a rebel against the Rajah of Mysore, and
commander-in-chief of the Mysorean army. Of this last position
he availed himself to dethrone and supplant his master. …
Pursuing his ambitious schemes, Hyder Ali became, not merely
the successor of the Rajah, but the founder of the kingdom of
Mysore. From his palace at Seringapatam, as from a centre, a
new energy was infused through the whole of Southern India. By
various wars and by the dispossession of several smaller
princes, he extended his frontiers to the northward, nearly to
the river Kistna. His posts on the coast of Malabar, Mangalore
especially, gave him the means of founding a marine; and he
applied himself with assiduous skill to train and discipline
his troops according to the European models. The English at
Madras were roused by his ambition, without as yet fully
appreciating his genius. We find them at the beginning of 1767
engaged, with little care or forethought, in a confederacy
against him with the Nizam and the Mahrattas. Formidable as
that confederacy might seem, it was speedily dissipated by the
arts of Hyder. At the very outset, a well-timed subsidy bought
off the Mahrattas. The Nizam showed no better faith; he was
only more tardy in his treason. He took the field in concert
with a body of English commanded by Colonel Joseph Smith, but
soon began to show symptoms of defection, and at last drew off
his troops to join the army of Hyder. A battle ensued near
Trincomalee, in September, 1767. Colonel Smith had under him
no more than 1,500 Europeans and 9,000 Sepoys; while the
forces combined on the other side were estimated, probably
with much exaggeration, at 70,000 men. Nevertheless, Victory,
as usual, declared for the English cause. … Our victory at
Trincomalee produced as its speedy consequence a treaty of
peace with the Nizam. Hyder was left alone; but even thus
proved fully a match for the English both of Madras and of
Bombay. … He could not be prevented from laying waste the
southern plains of the Carnatic, as the territory of one of
the staunchest allies of England, Mahomed Ali, the Nabob of
Arcot. Through such ravages, the British troops often
underwent severe privations. … At length, in the spring of
1769, Hyder Ali became desirous of peace, and resolved to
extort it on favourable terms. First, by a dexterous feint he
drew off the British forces 140 miles to the southward of
Madras. Then suddenly, at the head of 5,000 horsemen, Hyder
himself appeared at St. Thomas's Mount, within ten miles of
that city. The terrified Members of the Council already, in
their mind's eye, saw their country-houses given up to plunder
and to flame, and were little inclined to dispute whatever
might be asked by an enemy so near at hand. Happily his terms
were not high. A treaty was signed, providing that a mutual
restoration of conquests should take place, and that the
contracting parties should agree to assist each other in all
defensive wars. In the career of Hyder Ali, this was by no
means the first, nor yet the last occasion, on which he showed
himself sincerely desirous of alliance with the English. He
did not conceal the fact, that, in order to maintain his power
and secure himself, he must lean either on them or on the
Mahrattas. … In this war with Hyder, the English had lost no
great amount of reputation, and of territory they had lost
none at all. But as regards their wealth and their resources,
they had suffered severely. Supplies, both of men and of
money, had been required from Bengal, to assist the government
at Madras; and both had been freely given. In consequence of
such a drain, there could not be made the usual investments in
goods, nor yet the usual remittances to England. Thus at the
very time when the proprietors of the East India Company had
begun to wish each other joy on the great reforms effected by
Lord Clive, and looked forward to a further increase of their
half-yearly Dividend, they were told to prepare for its
reduction. A panic ensued. Within a few days, in the spring of
1769, India Stock fell above sixty per cent."

_Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
History of England, 1713-1783,
chapter 67._

ALSO IN:
_Meer Hussein Ali Khan Kirmani,
History of Hydur Naik,
chapters 1-17._

_L. B. Bowring,
Haidar Ali and Tipu Sultan,
chapter 8._

INDIA: A. D. 1770-1773.
Climax of English misrule.
Break-down of the East India Company's government.
The Indian Act of Lord North.

"In 1770 Bengal was desolated by perhaps the most terrible of
the many terrible famines that have darkened its history, and
it was estimated that more than a third part of its
inhabitants perished. Yet in spite of all these calamities, in
spite of the rapidly accumulating evidence of the inadequacy
of the Indian revenues, the rapacity of the proprietors at
home prevailed, and dividends of 12 and 12½ per cent., as
permitted by the last Act, were declared. The result of all
this could hardly be doubtful. In July, 1772, the Directors
were obliged to confess that the sum required for the
necessary payments of the next three months was deficient to
the extent of no less than £1,293,000, and in August the
Chairman and Deputy Chairman waited on the Minister to inform
him that nothing short of a loan of at least one million from
the public could save the Company from ruin. The whole system
of Indian government had thus for a time broken down. The
division between the Directors and a large part of the
proprietors, and between the authorities of the Company in
England and those in India, the private and selfish interests
of its servants in India, and of its proprietors at home, the
continual oscillation between a policy of conquest and a
policy of trade, and the great want in the whole organisation
of any adequate power of command and of restraint, had fatally
weakened the great corporation. In England the conviction was
rapidly growing that the whole system of governing a great
country by a commercial company was radically and incurably
false. … The subject was discussed in Parliament, in 1772,
at great length, and with much acrimony. Several propositions
were put forward by the Directors, but rejected by the
Parliament; and Parliament, under the influence of Lord North,
and in spite of the strenuous and passionate opposition of
Burke, asserted in unequivocal terms its right to the
territorial revenues of the Company. A Select Committee,
consisting of thirty-one members, was appointed by Parliament
to make a full inquiry into the affairs of the Company. It was
not, however, till 1773 that decisive measures were taken.
{1721}
The Company was at this time absolutely helpless. Lord North
commanded an overwhelming majority in both Houses, and on
Indian questions he was supported by a portion of the
Opposition. The Company was on the brink of ruin, unable to
pay its tribute to the Government, unable to meet the bills
which were becoming due in Bengal. The publication, in 1773,
of the report of the Select Committee, revealed a scene of
maladministration, oppression, and fraud which aroused a
wide-spread indignation through England; and the Government
was able without difficulty, in spite of the provisions of the
charter, to exercise a complete controlling and regulating
power over the affairs of the Company. … By enormous
majorities two measures were passed through Parliament in
1773, which mark the commencement of a new epoch in the
history of the East India Company. By one Act, the ministers
met its financial embarrassments by a loan of £1,400,000 at an
interest of 4 per cent., and agreed to forego the claim of
£400,000 till this loan had been discharged. The Company was
restricted from declaring any dividend above 6 per cent. till
the new loan had been discharged, and above 7 per cent. till
its bond-debt was reduced to £1,500,000. It was obliged to
submit its accounts every half-year to the Lords of the
Treasury; it was restricted from accepting bills drawn by its
servants in India for above 300,000 a year, and it was obliged
to export to the British settlements within its limits British
goods of a specified value. By another Act, the whole
constitution of the Company was changed, and the great centre
of authority and power was transferred to the Crown. … All
the more important matters of jurisdiction in India were to be
submitted to a new court, consisting of a Chief Justice and
three puisne judges appointed by the Crown. A Governor-General
of Bengal, Behar, and Orissa, was to be appointed at a salary
of £25,000 a year, with four Councillors, at salaries of
£8,000 a year, and the other presidencies were made
subordinate to Bengal. The first Governor-General and
Councillors were to be nominated, not by the East India
Company, but by Parliament; they were to be named in the Act,
and to hold their offices for five years; after that period
the appointments reverted to the Directors, but were subject
to the approbation of the Crown. Everything in the Company's
correspondence with India relating to civil and military
affairs was to be laid before the Government. No person in the
service of the King or of the Company might receive presents,
and the Governor-General, the Councillors, and the judges were
excluded from all commercial profits and pursuits. By this
memorable Act the charter of the East India Company was
completely subverted, and the government of India passed
mainly into the hands of the ministers of the Crown. The chief
management of affairs was vested in persons in whose
appointment or removal the Company had no voice or share, who
might govern without its approbation or sanction, but who
nevertheless drew, by authority of an Act of Parliament, large
salaries from its exchequer. Such a measure could be justified
only by extreme necessity and by brilliant success, and it was
obviously open to the gravest objections from many sides. …
Warren Hastings was the first Governor-General: Barwell,
Clavering, Monson, and Philip Francis were the four
Councillors."

_W. E. H. Lecky,
History of England in the 18th Century,
chapter 13 (volume 3)._

ALSO IN:
_J. Mill,
History of British India,
book 4, chapter 9 (volume 3)._

INDIA: A. D. 1773-1785.
The First English Governor-General.
Administration of Warren Hastings.
Execution of Nuncomar.
The Rohilla War.
Annexation of Benares.
Treatment of the Begums of Oudh.

"The Governor-General was not at once the potential personage
he has since become. The necessity of ruling by a Dictator (a
dictator on the spot, though responsible to superiors at home)
had not yet become obvious; and the Governor-General had no
superiority in council, except the casting vote in case of an
equal division. Whether he could govern or not depended
chiefly on whether he had a party of two in the council. Two
out of the four, with his own casting vote, were enough; and
without it, he was not really governor. This is not the place
in which to follow the history of the first general council
and its factions, apart from the consequences to British
interests. It must suffice to say that at the outset, three
out of four of the council (and those the new officials from
England) were opposed to Hastings. It has been related that
the internal administration of Bengal under Clive's 'double
system' was managed by the Nabob's prime-minister. This
functionary had a salary of £100,000 a year, and enjoyed a
high dignity and immense power. One man who aspired to hold
the office in Clive's time was the great Hindoo, Nuncomar, …
eminent in English eyes for his wealth, and his abilities, and
much more in native estimation for his sanctity as a Brahmin,
and his almost unbounded social power. … The Maharajah
Nuncomar was a great scoundrel—there is no doubt of that;
and his intrigues, supported by forgeries, were so flagrant as
to prevent his appointment to the premiership under the Nabob.
Such vices were less odious in Bengal than almost anywhere
else; but they were inconvenient, as well as disgusting, to
the British; and this was the reason why Clive set aside
Nuncomar, and appointed his rival competitor, Mohammed Reza
Khan, though he was highly reluctant to place the highest
office in Bengal in the hands of a Mussulman. This Mussulman
administered affairs for seven years before Hastings became
Governor-General; and he also had the charge of the infant
Nabob, after Surajah Dowla died. We have seen how dissatisfied
the Directors were with the proceeds of their Bengal
dominions. Nuncomar planted his agents everywhere; and in
London especially; and these agents persuaded the Directors
that Mohammed Reza Khan was to blame for their difficulties
and their scanty revenues. Confident in this information, they
sent secret orders to Hastings to arrest the great Mussulman,
and everybody who belonged to him, and to hear what Nuncomar
had to say against him." The Governor-General obeyed the order
and made the arrests, "but the Mussulman minister was not
punished, and Nuncomar hated Hastings accordingly. He bided
his time, storing up materials of accusation with which to
overwhelm the Governor at the first turn of his fortunes. That
turn was when the majority of the Council were opposed to the
Governor-General, and rendered him helpless in his office; and
Nuncomar then presented himself, with offers of evidence to
prove all manner of treasons and corruptions against Hastings.
{1722}
Hastings was haughty; the councils were tempestuous. Hastings
prepared to resign, though he was aware that the opinion of
the English in Bengal was with him; and Nuncomar was the
greatest native in the country, visited by the Council, and
resorted to by all his countrymen who ventured to approach
him. Foiled in the Council, Hastings had recourse to the
Supreme Court [of which Sir Elijah Impey was the Chief
Justice]. He caused Nuncomar to be arrested on a charge
brought ostensibly by a native of having forged a bond six
years before. After a long trial for an offence which appeared
very slight to Bengalee natives in those days, the culprit was
found guilty by a jury of Englishmen, and condemned to death
by the judges."

_H. Martineau,
British Rule in India,
chapter 9._

"It may perhaps be said that no trial has been so often tried
over again by such diverse authorities, or in so many
different ways, as this celebrated proceeding. During the
course of a century it has been made the theme of historical,
political, and biographical discussions; all the points have
been argued and debated by great orators and great lawyers; it
has formed the avowed basis of a motion in Parliament to
impeach the Chief-Justice, and it must have weighed heavily,
though indirectly, with those who decided to impeach the
Governor-General. It gave rise to rumours of a dark and
nefarious conspiracy which, whether authentic or not, exactly
suited the humour and the rhetoric of some contemporary
English politicians. … Very recently Sir James Stephen,
after subjecting the whole case to exact scrutiny and the most
skilful analysis, after examining every document and every
fact bearing upon this matter with anxious attention, has
pronounced judgment declaring that Nuncomar's trial was
perfectly fair, that Hastings had nothing to do with the
prosecution, and that at the time there was no sort of
conspiracy or understanding between Hastings and Impey in
relation to it. Nothing can be more masterly or more effective
than the method employed by Sir James Stephen to explode and
demolish, by the force of a carefully-laid train of proofs,
the loose fabric of assertions, invectives, and ill-woven
demonstrations upon which the enemies of Hastings and Impey
based and pushed forward their attacks, and which have never
before been so vigorously battered in reply. … It may be
accepted, upon Sir James Stephen's authority, that no evidence
can be produced to justify conclusions adverse to the
innocence of Hastings upon a charge that has from its nature
affected the popular tradition regarding him far more deeply
than the accusations of high-handed oppressive political
transactions, which are little understood and leniently
condemned by the English at large. There is really nothing to
prove that he had anything to do with the prosecution, or that
he influenced the sentence. … Nevertheless when Sir James
Stephen undertakes to establish, by argument drawn from the
general motives of human action, the moral certainty that
Hastings was totally unconnected with the business, and that
the popular impression against him is utterly wrong, his
demonstration is necessarily less conclusive. … On the whole
there is no reason whatever to dissent from Pitt's view, who
treated the accusation of a conspiracy between Impey and
Hastings for the purpose of destroying Nuncomar, as destitute
of any shadow of solid proof. Whether Hastings, when Nuncomar
openly tried to ruin him by false and malignant accusations,
became aware and made use in self-defence of the fact that his
accuser had rendered himself liable to a prosecution for
forgery, is a different question, upon which also no evidence
exists or is likely to be forthcoming."

_Sir A. Lyall,
Warren Hastings,
chapter 3._

"James Mill says, 'No transaction perhaps of his whole
administration more deeply tainted the reputation of Hastings
than the tragedy of Nuncomar.' A similar remark was made by
William Wilberforce. The most prominent part too in Nuncomar's
story is played by Sir Elijah Impey. … Impey, in the present
day, is known to English people in general only by the
terrible attack made upon him by Lord Macaulay, in his essay
on Warren Hastings. It stigmatises him as one of the vilest of
mankind. 'No other such judge has dishonoured the English
ermine since Jefferies drank himself to death in the Tower.'
'Impey, sitting as a judge, put a man unjustly to death, in
order to serve a political purpose.' 'The time had come when
he was to be stripped of that robe which he had so foully
dishonoured.' These dreadful accusations I, upon the fullest
consideration of the whole subject, and, in particular, of
much evidence which Macaulay seems to me never to have seen,
believe to be wholly unjust. For Macaulay himself I have an
affectionate admiration. He was my own friend, and my
father's, and my grandfather's friend also, and there are few
injunctions which I am more disposed to observe than the one
which bids us not to forget such persons. I was, moreover, his
successor in office, and am better able than most persons to
appreciate the splendour of the services which he rendered to
India. These considerations make me anxious if I can to repair
a wrong done by him, not intentionally, for there never was a
kinder-hearted man, but because he adopted on insufficient
grounds the traditional hatred which the Whigs bore to Impey,
and also because his marvellous power of style blinded him to
the effect which his language produced. He did not know his
own strength, and was probably not aware that a few sentences
which came from him with little effort were enough to brand a
man's name with almost indelible infamy. … My own opinion is
that no man ever had, or could have, a fairer trial than
Nuncomar, and that Impey in particular behaved with absolute
fairness and as much indulgence as was compatible with his
duty. In his defence at the bar of the House of Commons, he
said, 'Conscious as I am how much it was my intention to
favour the prisoner in everything that was consistent with
justice; wishing as I did that the facts might turn out
favourable for an acquittal; it has appeared most wonderful to
me that the execution of my purpose has so far differed from
my intentions that any ingenuity could form an objection to my
personal conduct as bearing hard on the prisoner.' My own
earnest study of the trial has led me to the conviction that
every word of this is absolutely true and just. Indeed, the
first matter which directed my attention to the subject was
the glaring contrast between Impey's conduct as ascribed in
the State Trials and his character as described by Lord
Macaulay.
{1723}
There is not a word in his summing-up of which I should have
been ashamed had I said it myself, and all my study of the
case has not suggested to me a single observation in
Nuncomar's favour which is not noticed by Impey. As to the
verdict, I think that there was ample evidence to support it.
Whether it was in fact correct is a point on which it is
impossible for me to give an unqualified opinion, as it is of
course impossible now to judge decidedly of the credit due to
the witnesses, and as I do not understand some part of the
exhibits."

_J. F. Stephen,
The Story of Nuncomar,
pages 2-3, 186-187._

"Sir John Strachey, in his work on Hastings and the Rohilla
War, examines in detail one of the chief charges made against
the conduct of Warren Hastings while Governor-General. The
Rohilla charge was dropped by Burke and the managers, and was
therefore not one of the issues tried at the impeachment; but
it was, in spite of this fact, one of the main accusations
urged against the Governor-General in Macaulay's famous essay.
Macaulay, following James Mill, accuses Warren Hastings of
having hired out an English army to exterminate what Burke
called 'the bravest, the most honourable and generous nation
on earth.' According to Macaulay, the Vizier of Oudh coveted
the Rohilla country, but was not strong enough to take it for
himself. Accordingly, he paid down forty lakhs of rupees to
Hastings, on condition that the latter should help to strike
down and seize his prey. … Sir John Strachey … shows
beyond a shadow of doubt that the whole story is a delusion.
… 'The English army was not hired out by Hastings for the
destruction of the Rohillas; the Rohillas described by Burke
as belonging to the bravest, the most honourable and generous
nation on earth, were no nation at all, but a comparatively
small body of cruel and rapacious Afghan adventurers, who had
imposed their foreign rule on an unwilling Hindoo population;
and the story of their destruction is fictitious.' … The
north-west angle of the great strip of plain which follows the
course of the Ganges was possessed by a clan which fifty years
before had been a mere band of Afghan mercenaries, but which
was now beginning to settle down as a dominant governing
class, living among a vastly more numerous subject-population
of Hindoos. This country was Rohilkhand, the warrior-horde the
Rohillas. It must never be forgotten that the Rohillas were no
more the inhabitants of Rohilkhand than were the Normans fifty
years after the Conquest the inhabitants of England. … But
the fact that the corner of what geographically was our
barrier State was held by the Rohillas, made it necessary for
us to keep Rohilkhand as well as Oudh free from the Mahrattas.
Hence it became the key-note of Warren Hastings' policy to
help both the Rohillas and the Vizier [of Oudh] to maintain
their independence against the Mahrattas. In the year 1772,
however, the Mahrattas succeeded in crossing the Ganges, in
getting into Rohilkhand, and in threatening the Province of
Oudh. … Hastings encouraged the Vizier and the Rohilla
chiefs to make an alliance, under which the Rohillas were to
be reinstated in their country by aid of the Vizier, the
Vizier obtaining for such assistance forty lakhs,—that is, he
coupled the Rohillas and the Vizier, for defence purposes,
into one barrier-State. … If the Rohillas had observed this
treaty, all might have been well. Unhappily for them, they
could not resist the temptation to break faith." They joined
the Mahrattas against Oudh, and it was after this had occurred
twice that Hastings lent assistance to the Vizier in expelling
them from Rohilkhand. "Instead of exterminating the Rohillas,
he helped make a warrior-clan, but one generation removed from
a 'free company,' recross the Ganges and release from their grip
the land they had conquered."

_The Spectator,
April 2, 1892._

_Sir John Strachey,
Hastings and the Rohillas._

"The year 1781 opened for Hastings on a troubled sea of
dangers, difficulties, and distress. Haidar Ali was raging in
the Carnatic, Goddard and Camac were still fighting the
Marathas, and French fleets were cruising in the Bay of
Bengal. … It was no time for standing upon trifles. Money
must be raised somehow, if British India was to be saved.
Among other sources of supply, he turned to the Rajah of
Banaras [or Benares]. Chait Singh was the grandson of an
adventurer, who had ousted his own patron and protector from
the lordship of the district so named. In 1775, his fief had
been transferred by treaty from the Nawab of Oudh to the
Company. As a vassal of the Company he was bound to aid them
with men and money in times of special need. Five lakhs of
rupees—£50,000—and two thousand horse was the quota which
Hastings had demanded of him in 1780. In spite of the revenue
of half-a-million, of the great wealth stored up in his
private coffers, and of the splendid show which he always made
in public, the Rajah pleaded poverty, and put off compliance
with the demands of his liege lord. … Chait Singh had
repeatedly delayed the payment of his ordinary tribute; his
body-guard alone was larger than the force which Hastings
required of him; he was enrolling troops for some warlike
purpose, and Hastings' agents accused him of secret plottings
with the Oudh Begams at Faizabad. … The Rajah, in fact, like
a shrewd, self-seeking Hindu, was waiting upon circumstances,
which at that time boded ill for his English neighbours. The
Marathas, the French, or some other power might yet relieve
him from the yoke of a ruler who restrained his ambition, and
lectured him on the duty of preserving law and order among his
own subjects. … It has often been argued that, in his stern
dealings with the Rajah of Banaras, Hastings was impelled by
malice and a desire for revenge. But the subsequent verdict of
the House of Lords on this point, justifies itself to all who
have carefully followed the facts of his life. … As a matter
of policy, he determined to make an example of a contumacious
vassal, whose conduct in that hour of need added a new danger
to those which surrounded the English in India. A heavy fine
would teach the Rajah to obey orders, and help betimes to fill
his own treasury with the sinews of war. … Chait Singh had
already tried upon the Governor-General those arts which in
Eastern countries people of all classes employ against each
other without a blush. He had sent Hastings a peace-offering
of two lakhs—£20,000. Hastings took the money, but reserved
it for the Company's use. Presently he received an offer of
twenty lakhs for the public service. But Hastings was in no
mood for further compromise in evasion of his former demands.
{1724}
He would be satisfied with nothing less than half a million in
quittance of all dues. In July, 1781, he set out, with
Wheeler's concurrence, for the Rajah's capital. … Traveling,
as he preferred to do, with a small escort and as little
parade as possible, he arrived on the 16th August at the
populous and stately city. … On his way thither, at Baxar,
the recusant Rajah had come to meet him, with a large retinue,
in the hope of softening the heart of the great Lord Sahib. He
even laid his turban on Hastings' lap. … With the
haughtiness of an ancient Roman, Hastings declined his prayer
for a private interview. On the day after his arrival at
Banaras, the Governor-General forwarded to Chait Singh a paper
stating the grounds of complaint against him, and demanding an
explanation on each point. The Rajah's answer seemed to
Hastings' so offensive in style and unsatisfactory in
substance;' it was full, in fact, of such transparent, or, as
Lord Thurlow afterwards called them, 'impudent' falsehoods,
that the Governor-General issued orders for placing the Rajah
under arrest. Early the next morning, Chait Singh was quietly
arrested in his own palace. … Meanwhile his armed retainers
were flocking into the city from his strong castle of
Ramnagar, on the opposite bank. Mixing with the populace, they
provoked a tumult, in which the two companies of Sepoys
guarding the prisoner were cut to pieces. With unloaded
muskets and empty pouches—for the ammunition had been
forgotten—the poor men fell like sheep before their butchers.
Two more companies, in marching to their aid through the
narrow streets, were nearly annihilated. During the tumult
Chait Singh quietly slipped out of the palace, dropped by a
rope of turbans into a boat beneath, and crossed in safety to
Ramnagar. … If Chait Singh's followers had not shared
betimes their master's flight across the river, Hastings, with
his band of thirty Englishmen and fifty Sepoys, might have
paid very dearly for the sudden miscarriage of his plans. But
the rabble of Banaras had no leader, and troops from the
nearest garrisons were already marching to the rescue. …
Among the first who reached him was the gallant Popham,
bringing with him several hundred of his own Sepoys. … The
beginning of September found Popham strong enough to open a
campaign, which speedily avenged the slaughters at Banaras and
Ramnagar, and carried Hastings back into the full stream of
richly-earned success. … The capture of Bijigarh on the 10th
November, closed the brief but brilliant campaign. The booty,
amounting to £400,000, was at once divided among the captors;
and Hastings lost his only chance of replenishing his treasury
at the expense of Chait Singh. He consoled himself and
improved the Company's finances, by bestowing the rebel's
forfeit lordship on his nephew, and doubling the tribute
hitherto exacted. He was more successful in accomplishing
another object of his journey up the country."

_L. J. Trotter,
Warren Hastings,
chapter 6._

"It is certain … that Chait Singh's rebellion was largely
aided by the Begums or Princesses of Faizabad. On this point
the evidence contained in Mr. Forrest's volumes ['Selections
from Letters, Despatches and other State Papers in the Foreign
Department of the Government of India,' edited by G. W.
Forrest] leaves no shadow of reasonable doubt. In plain truth,
the Begums, through their Ministers, the eunuchs, had levied
war both against the Company and their own kinsmen and master,
the new Wazir of Oudh. Some years before, when the Francis
faction ruled in Calcutta, these ladies, the widow and the
mother of Shuja, had joined with the British Agent in robbing
the new Wazir, Asaf-ud-daula, of nearly all the rich treasure
which his father had stored up in Faizabad. Hastings solemnly
protested against a transaction which he was powerless to
prevent. The Begums kept their hold upon the treasure, and
their Jaghirs, or military fiefs, which ought by rights to
have lapsed to the new Wazir. Meanwhile Asaf-ud-daula had to
govern as he best could, with an empty treasury, and an army
mutinous for arrears of pay. At last, with the suppression of
the Benares revolt, it seemed to Hastings and the Wazir that
the time had come for resuming the Jaghirs, and making the
Begums disgorge their ill-gotten wealth. In accordance with
the Treaty of Chunar, both these objects were carried out by
the Wazir's orders, with just enough of compulsion to give
Hastings' enemies a handle for the slanders and
misrepresentations which lent so cruel a point to Sheridan's
dazzling oratory, and to one of the most scathing passages in
Macaulay's most popular essay. There are some points, no
doubt, in Hastings' character and career about which honest
men may still hold different opinions. But on all the
weightier issues here mentioned there ought to be no room for
further controversy. It is no longer possible to contend, for
instance, that Hastings agreed, for a handsome bribe, to help
in exterminating the innocent people of Rohilkhand; that he
prompted Impey to murder Nand-Kumar; that any desire for
plunder led him to fasten a quarrel upon Chait Singh; or that
he engaged with the Oudh Wazir in a plot to rob the Wazir's
own mother of vast property secured to her under a solemn
compact, 'formally guaranteed by the Government of Bengal.'"

_L. J. Trotter,
Warren Hastings and his Libellers
(Westminster Review, March, 1891)._

ALSO IN:
_W. M. Torrens,
Empire in Asia: How we came by it,
chapters 7-11._

_H. E. Busteed,
Echoes from Old Calcutta._

_G. W. Forrest,
The Administration of Warren Hastings._

_G. R. Gleig,
Memoirs of Warren Hastings,
volume 1, chapters 8-14, and volume 2._

INDIA: A. D. 1780-1783.
The second war with Hyder Ali (Second Mysore War).

"The brilliant successes obtained by the English over the
French in Hindostan at the beginning of the war had made all
direct competition between the two nations in that country
impossible, but it was still in the power of the French to
stimulate the hostility of the native princes, and the ablest
of all these, Hyder Ali, the great ruler of Mysore, was once
more in the field. Since his triumph over the English, in
1769, he had acquired much additional territory from the
Mahrattas. He had immensely strengthened his military forces,
both in numbers and discipline. … For some years he showed
no wish to quarrel with the English, but when a Mahratta chief
invaded his territory they refused to give him the assistance
they were bound by the express terms of the treaty of 1769 to
afford, they rejected or evaded more than one subsequent
proposal of alliance, and they pursued a native policy in some
instances hostile to his interest.
{1725}
As a great native sovereign, too, he had no wish to see the
balance of power established by the rivalry between the
British and French destroyed. … Mysore was swarming with
French adventurers. The condition of Europe made it scarcely
possible that England could send any fresh forces, and Hyder
Ali had acquired a strength which appeared irresistible.
Ominous rumours passed over the land towards the close of
1779, but they were little heeded, and no serious preparations
had been made, when in July, 1780, the storm suddenly burst.
At the head of an army of at least 90,000 men, including
30,000 horsemen, 100 cannon, many European officers and
soldiers, and crowds of desperate adventurers from all parts
of India, Hyder Ali descended upon the Carnatic and devastated
a vast tract of country round Madras. Many forts and towns
were invested, captured, or surrendered. The Nabob and some of
his principal officers acted with gross treachery or
cowardice, and in spite of the devastations native sympathies
were strongly with the invaders. … Madras was for a time in
imminent danger. A few forts commanded by British officers
held out valiantly, but the English had only two considerable
bodies of men, commanded respectively by Colonel Baillie and
by Sir Hector Munro, in the field. They endeavoured to effect
a junction, but Hyder succeeded in attacking separately the
small army of Colonel Baillie, consisting of rather more than
3,700 men, and it was totally defeated [September 10], 2,000
men being left on the field. Munro only saved himself from a
similar fate by a rapid retreat, abandoning his baggage, and
much of his ammunition. Arcot, which was the capital of the
Nabob, and which contained vast military stores, was besieged
for six weeks, and surrendered in the beginning of November.
Velore, Wandewash, Permacoil, and Chingliput, four of the
chief strongholds in the Carnatic, were invested. A French
fleet with French troops was daily expected, and it appeared
almost certain that the British power would be extinguished in
Madras, if not in the whole of Hindostan. It was saved by the
energy of the Governor-General, Warren Hastings, who, by
extraordinary efforts, collected a large body of Sepoys and a
few Europeans in Bengal, and sent them with great rapidity to
Madras, under the command of Sir Eyre Coote, who had proved
himself twenty years before scarcely second in military genius
to Clive himself. I do not propose to relate in detail the
long and tangled story of the war that followed. … It is
sufficient to say that Coote soon found himself at the head of
about 7,200 men, of whom 1,400 were Europeans; that he
succeeded in relieving Wandewash, and obliging Hyder Ali to
abandon for the present the siege of Velore; that the French
fleet, which arrived off the coast in January, 1781, was found
to contain no troops, and that on July 1, 1781, Coote, with an
army of about 8,000 men, totally defeated forces at least
eight times as numerous, commanded by Hyder himself, in the
great battle of Porto Novo. … The war raged over the
Carnatic, over Tanjore, in the Dutch settlements to the south
of Tanjore, on the opposite Malabar coast, and on the coast of
Ceylon, while at the same time another and independent
struggle was proceeding with the Mahrattas. … The coffers at
Calcutta were nearly empty, and it was in order to replenish
them that Hastings committed some of the acts which were
afterwards the subjects of his impeachment. … By the skill
and daring of a few able men, of whom Hastings, Coote, Munro,
and Lord Macartney were the most prominent, the storm was
weathered. Hyder Ali died in December, 1782, about four months
before Sir Eyre Coote. The peace of 1782 withdrew France and
Holland from the contest, and towards the close of 1783,
Tippoo, the son of Hyder Ali, consented to negotiate a peace,
which was signed in the following March. Its terms were a
mutual restoration of all conquests, and in this, as in so
many other great wars, neither of the contending parties
gained a single advantage by all the bloodshed, the
expenditure, the desolation, and the misery of a struggle of
nearly four years."

_W. E. H. Lecky,
History of England in the 18th Century,
chapter 14 (volume 5)._