5. Warren Hastings, Governor of Bengal. 1772-1774-Hastings was a man of the highest ability, and it would have been well if the Company had given him supreme power to take the whole of the government of Bengal into his own hands, and to set aside the pretence of leaving any part of it to the Nawab. The Company, however, too scrupulous to upset even an evil system which it found in existence, did not authorise him to do this; and though he did immense service in organising the administration on English principles, he could not prevent considerable confusion arising from the technical uncertainty of his position. Beyond the British frontier there was imminent danger. Central India was in the hands of the Mahratta chiefs. The descendants of Sivaji (see p. 759) were reduced to obscurity by the Peishwah or hereditary prime minister at Poonah, whose authority was in turn resisted by other hereditary officers, by Sindhia and Holkar in Malwa, by the Bhonsla in Berar, and by the Guicowar in Guzerat. Divided amongst themselves, these chiefs were always ready to join for plunder or conquest, and it was their military strength that was the greatest danger to the Company's government, and, it must in fairness be added, to the native populations which the Company was bound to protect. To combat the Mahrattas, Hastings carried out a policy-originally sketched out by Cliveof strengthening the Nawab of Oude, in order that he might act as a breakwater against them in defence of Bengal. The Nawab gladly welcomed the proffered alliance, and sought to turn it to account by asking Hastings to support him in annexing Rohilcund, which was governed by the Rohillas, a military body of Afghan descent. In 1774 Hastings lent the Nawab English troops, by whose valour the Rohillas were defeated, whilst the Nawab's own army followed up the victory by plunder and outrage. Politically, Hastings had done much, as he had bound the Nawab to his cause, but he had done this at the expense of soiling the English name by lending English troops to an Eastern potentate who was certain to abuse a victory won by their arms. 6. The Regulating Act and its Results. 1773-1774.-In 1773 was passed, at the instance of Lord North, the Regulating Act, which was intended to introduce order into the possessions of the Company in India. What was needed was to strengthen the hands of the governor of its principal possession, Bengal, and to give him control over the governments of Bombay and Madras. The English Parliament, however, had no experience in dealing with Eastern peoples, and tried to introduce constitutional checks, 1774-1779 WARREN HASTINGS 803 which were better suited for Westminster than for Calcutta. The governor of Bengal was to be called governor-general of Bengal, but there was to be a council of four members besides himself, and if he was outvoted in the council, he was to be obliged to conform his conduct to the decisions of his opponents. There was also set up a supreme court, which might easily come into conflict with the governor, as no rules were laid down to define their separate powers. The governor-general had authority over the governors of Madras and Bombay, but it was insufficient to enable him to dictate their policy. In 1774, the new Council held its first sittings. Its leading spirit was Philip Francis, the reputed author of 'Junius's Letters' (see p. 782), a man actuated by a suspiciousness which amounted to a disease, and who landed with the belief, which no evidence could shake, that Hastings was an incapable and corrupt despot. As two of the other councillors constantly voted with Francis he commanded a majority. This majority thwarted Hastings in everything, cancelled his measures, and set on foot an inquiry into his supposed peculations. 7. Hastings and Nuncomar. 1775.-To support Francis, Nuncomar, a Hindoo, came forward with evidence that Hastings had taken enormous bribes. This evidence was forged, but the majority of the council supported Nuncomar, hoping to drive Hastings from his post. Suddenly Nuncomar was charged with forgery, and hanged by a sentence of the Supreme Court, over which Sir Elijah Impey presided as chief justice. Forgery was too common a crime in Bengal to be regarded by the natives as highly punishable, and Impey was probably too ready to think that everything sanctioned by the English law was entirely admirable. The sentence, however, was so opportune for Hastings, that it has often been supposed that he had suggested the charge against Nuncomar. Not only, however, did he subsequently deny this upon oath, but modern inquirers have generally come to the conclusion that his denial was true. He may, however, have let fall some chance word which induced the accuser of Nuncomar to think that his action would please the governor-general; and, in any case, it was not difficult for a native who wished to stand well with Hastings, to imagine that the destruction of Nuncomar would be an agreeable service. At all events, Hastings's adversaries were frightened, and no more forged accusations were brought against him. 8. War with the Mahrattas and Hyder Ali. 1777-1779. Gradually, by the death or removal of the hostile councillors, Hastings regained power. Then came the most critical time in the history of British rule in India. Far more important than all other conflicts in which Englishmen in India were engaged was the struggle renewed from time to time between the Company and the Mahratta confederacy. Important as it was to the Company, it was far more important to the natives of India; as the victory of the Mahrattas would bring with it outrage and misery, whereas the victory of the Company would bring with it the establishment of peace and settled government. Nevertheless, it would have been well if the conflict could have been deferred till the Company was stronger than it then was. Unluckily the Bombay Government entered upon an unnecessary war with the Mahrattas, and, finding itself in danger, called on Hastings for help. In 1777, at the time when the French were preparing to oppose England in America, they sent an emissary to Poonah to prepare the way for an alliance between themselves and the Mahrattas. In 1778 came the news of Burgoyne's capitulation at Saratoga. "If it be really true," said Hastings, "that the British arms and influence have suffered so severe a check in the Western world, it is more incumbent on those who are charged with the interest of Great Britain in the East to exert themselves for the retrieval of the national loss." Into the struggle with the Mahrattas, now likely to pass into a struggle with France, Hastings threw himself with unbounded energy. His position was made almost desperate by the folly of the Madras Government, which unnecessarily provoked the two Mahomedan rulers of the south, the Nizam and an adventurer named Hyder Ali who had made himself master of Mysore. Hyder Ali, the ablest warrior in India, threw himself on the lands over which the British held sway in the Carnatic. "A storm of universal fire," in Burke's language, "blasted every field, consumed every house, destroyed every temple." The miserable inhabitants, flying from their burning villages, were slaughtered or swept into captivity. All English eyes turned to Hastings. 9. Cheyt Singh and the Begums of Oude. 1781-1782.-Money was the first thing needed, and of money Hastings had but little. He had to send large sums home every year to pay dividends to the Company, and his treasury was almost empty. In his straits, Hastings demanded from Cheyt Singh, the Rajah of Benares, a large payment as a contribution to the war, on the ground that he was a dependent on the Company and therefore bound to support it in times of difficulty. On Cheyt Singh's refusal to pay, Hastings imposed on him an enormous fine, equal to about 500,000l. In order 1781-1783 TRIUMPH OF HASTINGS 805 to ensure payment Hastings went in person to Benares to arrest the Rajah ; but the population rose on his behalf, and Hastings had to fly for his life, though he skilfully made preparations to regain his authority, and before long suppressed the revolters and deposed the Rajah. He then made treaties with some of the Mahratta chiefs, and thus lessened the number of his enemies. The Madras Government, however, continued to cry for support. "We know not," they wrote, “in what words to describe our distress for money." Hastings pressed the Nawab of Oude to furnish him with some, but the Nawab was not rich, because his mother and grandmother, the Begums of Oude as they were called, had retained possession of his father's accumulated treasure, and had enlisted armed men to defend it against him. In 1782 the Nawab laid claim to the money to which he appears to have been rightfully entitled, and in 1782 Hastings lent him the Company's troops to take it from the ladies. They were forced to yield, and Hastings, as his reward, got payment of a large debt which the Nawab owed to the Company. 10. Restoration of Peace. 1781-1782.—In 1781, Hyder Ali was joined by some French troops, but the combined force was defeated at Porto Novo by old Sir Eyre Coote, the victor of Wandewash (see p. 764). In 1782 peace was concluded with the Mahrattas, after which Hyder Ali died, and when the French, in consequence of the end of the war in Europe and America, withdrew their assistance, Hyder Ali's son and successor, Tippoo, also made peace with the English. 11. Hastings as a Statesman. 1783. Hastings, by his pertinacity, had saved the British hold on India and had laid the foundations of a system on which the future peace and prosperity of the country depended. Yet that system would have been severely shaken if future governors-general had continued to levy fines limited only by their own discretion, as had been done in the case of Cheyt Singh, or to supply forces to Eastern potentates to enable them to recover their dues as in the cases of the Rohillas and the Begums of Oude. Much as may be said on Hastings's behalf in all these affairs, it can hardly be denied that it would have been better if he could have supported his government upon the revenues of the Company's own provinces, and could have acted beyond the Company's frontier only by agents responsible to himself. That he did not do so was mainly the fault of the weakness of his own official position. Extraordinary expenditure was in most instances forced on him by the folly of the Council which he was compelled to obey or of the governors of Madras and Bombay who disobeyed his orders. What was urgently needed was the reform of a system which left the governor-general hampered in his authority by those who should have been his subordinates, whilst at the same time it was desirable that he should be made directly responsible, not to a trading company interested in making money, but to the British Government itself. 12. The India Bill of the Coalition. 1783.—In 1783 the Coalition Ministry brought in a bill for the better government of India, which was intended to meet only the latter of these two requirements. Though the Bill was introduced by Fox into the House of Commons, it was the work of Burke. Burke felt deeply and passionately the wrongs done to the natives of India, and he proposed to take the government entirely away from the East India Company, giving it to a board of seven commissioners, appointed in the bill itself, that is to say, practically by the ministers who drew up the bill. No member of this board could be dismissed by the King for four years, except at the request of both Houses of Parliament, though at the end of four years the king was to name the commissioners. As the whole patronage of India was placed in the hands of the board, and as the possessor of patronage could always sell it for votes in the British Parliament, the bill made for the increase of the power of the Crown in the long run, though it weakened it for four years. The opponents of the Coalition, however, shutting their eyes to the former fact and fixing them on the latter, bitterly attacked the bill as directed against the power of the Crown. It was an attempt, said Thurlow, who had been Lord Chancellor in Lord Shelburne's ministry, to take the diadem from the king's head and to put it on that of Mr. Fox. 13. The Fall of the Coalition. 1783.-Though the bill was strongly opposed by Pitt and others, it passed the Commons by a large majority. When it reached the Lords, the king sent a private message through Pitt's cousin, Lord Temple, to each peer, to the effect that whoever voted for the India Bill was not only not the king's friend, but would be considered as his enemy. As many of the lords were conscientiously opposed to the Coalition, and others needed the king's patronage, the bill was thrown out, on which the king contemptuously dismissed the ministry. stitutional writers have blamed his interference, on the ground that a king ought not to intrigue against ministers supported by the House of Commons. On the other hand, it may be said that on this occasion the ministers had gained their posts by an intrigue, Con |