"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)._

"The centre and heart of the English power lay in Bengal,

which the war never reached at all, and which was governed by

a man of rare talent and organizing capacity. No Anglo-Indian

government of that time could carry on a campaign by war

loans, as in Europe; the cost had to be provided out of

revenue, or by requiring subsidies from allied native rulers;

and it was Bengal that furnished not only the money and the

men, but also the chief political direction and military

leadership which surmounted the difficulties and repaired the

calamities of the English in the western and southern

Presidencies. And when at last the Marathas made peace, when

Hyder Ali died, and Suffren, with all his courage and genius,

could not master the English fleet in the Bay of Bengal, there

could be no doubt that the war had proved the strength of the

English position in India, had tested the firmness of its

foundation. … With the termination of this war ended the

only period in the long contest between England and the native

powers, during which our position in India was for a time

seriously jeoparded. That the English dominion emerged from

this prolonged struggle uninjured, though not unshaken, is a

result due to the political intrepidity of Warren Hastings.

… Hastings had no aristocratic connexions or parliamentary

influence at a time when the great families and the House of

Commons held immense power; he was surrounded by enemies in

his own Council; and his immediate masters, the East India

Company, gave him very fluctuating support. Fiercely opposed

by his own colleagues, and very ill obeyed by the subordinate

Presidencies, he had to maintain the Company's commercial

establishments, and at the same time to find money for

carrying on distant and impolitic wars in which he had been

involved by blunders at Madras or Bombay. These funds he had

been expected to provide out of current revenues, after buying

and despatching the merchandise on which the company's home

dividends depended; for the resource of raising public loans,

so freely used in England, was not available to him. He was

thus inevitably driven to the financial transactions, at

Benares and Lucknow, that were now so bitterly stigmatized as

crimes by men who made no allowance for a perilous situation

in a distant land, or for the weight of enormous national

interests committed to the charge of the one man capable of

sustaining them. When the storm had blown over in India, and

he had piloted his vessel into calm water, he was sacrificed

with little or no hesitation to party exigencies in England;

the Ministry would have recalled him; they consented to his

impeachment; they left him to be baited by the Opposition and

to be ruined by the law's delay, by the incredible

procrastination and the obsolete formalities of a seven years'

trial before the House of Lords."

_Sir A. Lyall,

Rise of the British Dominion in India,

chapter 11, section 2._

ALSO IN:

_Meer Hussein Ali Khan Kirmani,

History of Hydur Naik,

chapters 27-31._

_G. B. Malleson,

Decisive Battles of India,

chapter 8._

_L. B. Bowring,

Haidar Ali and Tipu Sultan,

chapters 14-15._

{1726}

INDIA: A. D. 1785-1793.

State of India.

Extent of English rule.

Administration of Lord Cornwallis.

War with Tippoo Saib (Third Mysore War).

The "Permanent Settlement" of Land Revenue in Bengal,

and its fruit.

"When Warren Hastings left India, the Mogul Empire was simply

the phantom of a name. The warlike tribes of the north-west,

Sikhs, Rajpoots, Jats, were henceforth independent; but the

Rohillas of the north-east had been subdued and almost

exterminated. Of the three greatest Soobahs or vice-royalties

of the Mogul empire, at one time practically independent, that

of Bengal had wholly disappeared, those of Oude and the Deckan

had sunk into dependence on a foreign power, were maintained

by the aid of foreign mercenaries. The only two native powers

that remained were, the Mahrattas, and the newly-risen

Mussulman dynasty of Mysore. The former were still divided

between the great chieftaincies of the Peshwa, Scindia,

Holkar, the Guicowar, and the Boslas of Berar. But the

supremacy of the Peshwa was on the wane; that of Scindia, on

the contrary, in the ascendant. Scindia ruled in the north; he

had possession of the emperor's person, of Delhi, the old

Mussulman capital. In the south, Hyder Ali and Tippoo [son of

Hyder Ali, whom he had succeeded in 1782], Sultan of Mysore,

had attained to remarkable power. They were dangerous to the

Mahrattas, dangerous to the Nizam, dangerous, lastly, to the

English. But the rise of the last-named power was the great

event of the period. … They had won for themselves the three

great provinces of Bengal, Behar, and Orissa, besides

Benares,—forming a large compact mass of territory to the

north-east. They had, farther down the east coast, the

province of the Northern Circars, and farther still, the

jagheer [land grant], of Madras; on the west, again, a large

stretch of territory at the southern extremity of the

peninsula. The two Mussulman sovereigns of Oude and Hyderabad

were their dependent allies; they administered the country of

the Nawab of the Carnatic, besides having hosts of smaller

potentates under their protection. … The appointed successor

to Hastings was Lord Macartney. … He lost his office,

however, by hesitating to accept it, and going to England to

urge conditions. … The great military event of Lord

Cornwallis's government was the third Mysore war. It began

with some disputes about the petty Raja of Cherika, from whom

the English had farmed the customs of Tellicherry, and taken,

in security for advances, a district called Randaterra, and by

Tippoo's attack upon the lines of the Raja of Travancore, an

ally of the English, consisting of a ditch, wall, and other

defences, on an extent of about thirty miles. Tippoo was,

however, repelled with great slaughter in an attack on the

town (1789). Hearing this, Lord Cornwallis at once entered

into treaties with the Nizam and the Peshwa for a joint war

upon Mysore; all new conquests to be equally divided, all

Tippoo's own conquests from the contracting powers to be

restored. After a first inconclusive campaign, in which,

notwithstanding the skill of General Meadows, the advantage

rather remained to Tippoo, who, amongst other things, gave a

decided check to Colonel Floyd (1790), Lord Cornwallis took

the command in person, and carried Bangalore by assault, with

great loss to both parties, but a tremendous carnage of the

besieged. However, so wretched had been the English

preparations, that, the cattle being 'reduced to skeletons,

and scarcely able to move their own weight,' Lord Cornwallis,

after advancing to besiege Seringapatam, was forced to retreat

and to destroy the whole of his battering-train and other

equipments; whilst General Abercrombie, who was advancing in

the same direction from the Malabar coast, had to do the same

(1791). A force of Mahrattas came in, well appointed and well

provided, but too late to avert these disasters. The next

campaign was more successful. It began by the taking of

several of the hill-forts forming the western barrier of

Mysore. … On the 5th February, 1792, however, Lord

Cornwallis appeared before Seringapatam, situated in an island

formed by the Cauvery: the fort and outworks were provided

with 300 pieces of cannon; the fortified camp, outside the

river, by six redoubts, with more than 100 pieces of heavy

artillery. Tippoo's army consisted of 6,000 cavalry and 50,000

infantry, himself commanding. This first siege, which is

celebrated in Indian warfare, continued with complete success

on the English side till the 24th. 10,000 subjects of Coorg,

whom Tippoo had enlisted by force, deserted. At last, when the

whole island was carried and all preparations made for the

siege, Tippoo made peace. The English allies had such

confidence in Lord Cornwallis, that they left him entire

discretion as to the terms. They were,—that Tippoo should

give up half of his territory, pay a large sum for war

expenses, and give up two of his sons as hostages. The ceded

territory was divided between the allies, the Company

obtaining a large strip of the Malabar coast, extending

eastward to the Carnatic. … Meanwhile, on the breaking out

of war between England and the French Republic, the French

settlements in India were all again annexed (1792). Lord

Cornwallis now applied himself to questions of internal

government. Properly speaking, there was no English Government

as yet. Mr. Kaye, the brilliant apologist of the East India

Company, says, of Lord Cornwallis, that 'he gathered up the

scattered fragments of government which he found, and reduced

them to one comprehensive system.' He organized the

administration of criminal justice, reorganized the police. He

separated the connection of the revenues from the

administration of justice, organizing civil justice in turn.

… He next proceeded to organize the financial system of the

Company's government. … Hence the famous 'Permanent

Settlement' of Lord Cornwallis (22nd March, 1793)."

_J. M. Ludlow,

British India,

lecture 9 (volume 1)._

{1727}

"In 1793 the so-called Permanent Settlement of the Land Revenue

was introduced. We found in Bengal, when we succeeded to the

Government, a class of middle-men, called Zemindars [or

Zamindars-see, also, TALUKDARS], who collected the land

revenue and the taxes, and we continued to employ them. As a

matter of convenience and expediency, but not of right, the

office of zemindar was often hereditary. The zemindars had

never been in any sense the owners of the land, but it was

supposed by Lord Cornwallis and the English rulers of the time

that it would be an excellent thing for Bengal to have a class

of landlords something like those of England; the zemindars

were the only people that seemed available for the purpose,

and they were declared to be the proprietors of the land. It

was by no means intended that injustice should thus be done to

others. Excepting the State, there was only one great class,

that of the ryots or actual cultivators, which, according to

immemorial custom, could be held to possess permanent rights

in the land. The existence of those rights was recognised,

and, as it was supposed, guarded by the law. … There has

been much dispute as to the exact nature of the rights given

to the zemindars, but everyone agrees that it was not the

intention of the authors of the Permanent Settlement to

confiscate anything which, according to the customs of the

country, had belonged to the cultivators. The right of

property given to the zemindars was a portion of those rights

which had always been exercised by the State, and of which the

State was at liberty to dispose; it was not intended that they

should receive anything else. The land revenue, representing

the share of the produce or rental to which the State was

entitled, was fixed in perpetuity. The ryots were to continue

to hold their lands permanently at the 'rates established in

the purgunnah;' when the amount of these rates was disputed it

was to be settled by the courts; so long as rents at those

rates were paid, the ryot could not be evicted. The intention

was to secure to the ryot fixity of tenure and fixity of rent.

Unfortunately, these rights were only secured upon paper. …

The consequences at the present time are these:—Even if it

be assumed that the share of the rent which the State can

wisely take is smaller than the share which any Government,

Native or English, has ever taken or proposed to take in

India, the amount now received by the State from the land in

Bengal must be held to fall short of what it might be by a sum

that can hardly be less than £5,000,000 a year; this is a

moderate computation; probably the loss is much more. This is

given away in return for no service to the State or to the

public; the zemindars are merely the receivers of rent; with

exceptions so rare as to deserve no consideration, they take

no part in the improvement of the land, and, until a very few

years ago, they bore virtually no share of the public burdens.

The result of these proceedings of the last century, to the

maintenance of which for ever the faith of the British

Government is said to have been pledged, is that the poorer

classes in poorer provinces have to make good to the State the

millions which have been thrown away in Bengal. If this were

all, it would be bad enough, but worse remains to be told. …

'The original intention of the framers of the Permanent

Settlement (I am quoting from Sir George Campbell) was to

record all rights. The Canoongoes (District Registrars) and

Putwarees (Village Accountants) were to register all holdings,

all transfers, all rent-rolls, and all receipts and payments;

and every five years there was to be filed in the public

offices a complete register of all land tenures. But the task

was a difficult one; there was delay in carrying it out. …

The putwarees fell into disuse or became the mere servants of

the zemindars; the canoongoes were abolished. No record of the

rights of the ryots and inferior holders was ever made, and

even the quinquennial register of superior rights, which was

maintained for a time, fell into disuse.' … The consequences

of the Permanent Settlement did not become immediately

prominent. … But, as time went on, and population and wealth

increased, as cultivators were more readily found, and custom

began to give way to competition, the position of the ryots

became worse and that of the zemindars became stronger. Other

circumstances helped the process of confiscation of the rights

of the peasantry. … The confiscation of the rights of the

ryots has reached vast proportions. In 1793 the rental left to

the zemindars under the Permanent Settlement, after payment of

the land revenue, is supposed not to have exceeded £400,000;

according to some estimates it was less. If the intentions of

the Government had been carried out, it was to the ryots that

the greater portion of any future increase in the annual value

of the land would have belonged, in those parts at least of

the province which were at that time well cultivated. It is

not possible to state with confidence the present gross annual

rental of the landlords of Bengal. An imperfect valuation made

some years ago showed it to be £13,000,000. It is now called

£17,000,000, but there can be little doubt that it is much

more. Thus, after deducting the land revenue, which is about

£3,800,000, the net rental has risen from £400,000 in the last

century to more than £13,000,000 at the present time. No

portion of this increase has been due to the action of the

zemindars. It has been due to the industry of the ryots, to

whom the greater part of it rightfully belonged, to the

peaceful progress of the country, and to the expenditure of

the State, an expenditure mainly defrayed from the taxation of

poorer provinces. If ever there was an 'unearned increment,'

it is this."

_Sir J. Strachey,

India,

lecture 12._

ALSO IN:

_J. W. Kaye,

The Administration of the East India Co.,

part 2, chapter 2._

_J. Mill,

History of British India,

book 6, chapter 4 (volume 5)._

_W. S. Seton-Karr,

The Marquess Cornwallis,

chapter 2._

_Sir R. Temple,

James Thomason,

chapter 9._

INDIA: A. D. 1785-1795.

The Impeachment and Trial of Warren Hastings.

"Warren Hastings returned to England in the summer of 1785,

and met with a distinguished reception. "I find myself," he

wrote to a friend, "every where and universally treated with

evidences, apparent even to my own observation, that I possess

the good opinion of my country." But underneath this

superficial "good opinion" there existed a moral feeling which

had been outraged by the unscrupulous measures of the

Governor-General of India, and which began soon to speak aloud

through the eloquent lips of Edmund Burke. Joined in the

movement by Fox and Sheridan, Burke laid charges before

Parliament which forced the House of Commons, in the session

of 1787 to order the impeachment of Hastings before the Lords.

On the 13th of February, 1788, the sittings of the Court

commenced.

{1728}

There have been spectacles more dazzling to the eye, more

gorgeous with jewellery and cloth of gold, more attractive to

grown-up children, than that which was then exhibited at

Westminster; but, perhaps, there never was a spectacle so well

calculated to strike a highly cultivated, a reflecting, an

imaginative mind. All the various kinds of interest which

belong to the near and to the distant, to the present and to

the past, were collected on one spot and in one hour. All the

talents and all the accomplishments which are developed by

liberty and civilisation were now displayed, with every

advantage that could be derived both from co-operation and

from contrast. Every step in the proceedings carried the mind

either backward, through many troubled centuries, to the days

when the foundations of our constitution were laid; or far

away, over boundless seas and deserts, to dusky nations living

under strange stars, worshipping strange gods, and writing

strange characters from right to left. The High Court of

Parliament was to sit, according to forms handed down from the

days of the Plantagenets, on an Englishman accused of

exercising tyranny over the lord of the holy city of Benares,

and over the ladies of the princely house of Oude. The place

was worthy of such a trial. It was the great hall of William

Rufus, the hall which had resounded with acclamations at the

inauguration of thirty kings, the hall which had witnessed the

just sentence of Bacon and the just absolution of Somers, the

hall where the eloquence of Strafford had for a moment awed

and melted a victorious party inflamed with just resentment,

the hall where Charles had confronted the High Court of

Justice with the placid courage which has half redeemed his

fame. Neither military nor civil pomp was wanting. The avenues

were lined with grenadiers. The streets were kept clear by

cavalry. The peers, robed in gold and ermine, were marshalled

by the heralds under Garter King-at-arms. The judges in their

vestments of state attended to give advice on points of law.

Near a hundred and seventy lords, three fourths of the Upper

House as the Upper House then was, walked in solemn order from

their usual place of assembling to the tribunal. … The grey

old walls were hung with scarlet. The long galleries were

crowded by an audience such as has rarely excited the fears or

the emulations of an orator. There were gathered together,

from all parts of a great, free, enlightened, and prosperous

empire, grace and female loveliness, wit and learning, the

representatives of every science and of every art. … The

Serjeants made proclamation. Hastings advanced to the bar, and

bent his knee. The culprit was indeed not unworthy of that

great presence. He had ruled an extensive and populous

country, had made laws and treaties, had sent forth armies,

had set up and pulled down princes. And in his high place he

had so borne himself, that all had feared him, that most had

loved him, and that hatred itself could deny him no title to

glory, except virtue. He looked like a great man, and not like

a bad man. … His counsel accompanied him, men all of whom

were afterwards raised by their talents and learning to the

highest posts in their profession, the bold and strong-minded

Law, afterwards Chief Justice of the King's Bench; the more

humane and eloquent Dallas, afterwards Chief Justice of the

Common Pleas; and Plomer who, near twenty years later,

successfully conducted in the same high court the defence of

Lord Melville, and subsequently became Vice-chancellor and

Master of the Rolls. But neither the culprit nor his advocates

attracted so much notice as the accusers. In the midst of the

blaze of red drapery, a space had been fitted up with green

benches and tables for the Commons. The managers, with Burke

at their head, appeared in full dress. The collectors of

gossip did not fail to remark that even Fox, generally so

regardless of his appearance, had paid to the illustrious

tribunal the compliment of wearing a bag and sword. Pitt had

refused to be one of the conductors of the impeachment; and

his commanding, copious, and sonorous eloquence was wanting to

that great muster of various talents. … The charges and the

answers of Hastings were first read. The ceremony occupied two

whole days, and was rendered less tedious than it would

otherwise have been by the silver voice and just emphasis of

Cowper, the clerk of the court, a near relation of the amiable

poet. On the third day Burke rose. Four sittings were occupied

by his opening speech, which was intended to be a general

introduction to all the charges. With an exuberance of thought

and a splendour of diction, which more than satisfied the

highly raised expectation of the audience, he described the

character and institutions of the natives of India, recounted

the circumstances in which the Asiatic empire of Britain had

originated, and set forth the constitution of the Company and

of the English presidencies. … When the Court sat again, Mr.

Fox, assisted by Mr. Grey, opened the charge respecting Cheyte

Sing, and several days were spent in reading papers and

hearing witnesses. The next article was that relating to the

Princesses of Oude. The conduct of this part of the case was

intrusted to Sheridan. The curiosity of the public to hear him

was unbounded. His sparkling and highly finished declamation

lasted two days; but the Hall was crowded to suffocation

during the whole time. It was said that fifty guineas had been

paid for a single ticket. Sheridan, when he concluded,

contrived, with a knowledge of stage effect which his father

might have envied, to sink back, as if exhausted, into the

arms of Burke, who hugged him with the energy of generous

admiration. June was now far advanced. The session could not

last much longer; and the progress which had been made in the

impeachment was not very satisfactory. There were twenty

charges. On two only of these had even the case for the

prosecution been heard; and it was now a year since Hastings

had been admitted to bail. The interest taken by the public in

the trial was great when the Court began to sit, and rose to

the height when Sheridan spoke on the charge relating to the

Begums. From that time the excitement went down fast. The

spectacle had lost the attraction of novelty. The great

displays of rhetoric were over. … The trial in the Hall went

on languidly. In the session of 1788, when the proceedings had

the interest of novelty, and when the Peers had little other

business before them, only thirty-five days were given to the

impeachment. In 1789 … during the whole year only

seventeen days were given to the case of Hastings. … At

length, in the spring of 1795, the decision was pronounced,

near eight years after Hastings had been brought by the

Serjeant-at-arms of the Commons to the bar of the Lords.

{1729}

… Only twenty-nine Peers voted. Of these only six found

Hastings guilty on the charges relating to Cheyte Sing and to

the Begums. On other charges, the majority in his favour was

still greater. On some he was unanimously absolved. He was

then called to the bar, was informed from the woolsack that

the Lords had acquitted him, and was solemnly discharged. He

bowed respectfully and retired. We have said that the decision

had been fully expected. It was also generally approved. …

It was thought, and not without reason, that, even if he was

guilty, he was still an ill-used man, and that an impeachment

of eight years was more than a sufficient punishment. It was

also felt that, though, in the ordinary course of criminal

law, a defendant is not allowed to set off his good actions

against his crimes, a great political cause should be tried on

different principles, and that a man who had governed an

empire during thirteen years might have done some very

reprehensible things, and yet might be on the whole deserving

of rewards and honours rather than of fine and imprisonment."

_Lord Macaulay,

Warren Hastings (Essays)._

"The trial had several beneficial results. It cleared off a

cloud of misconceptions, calumnies, exaggerations, and false

notions generally on both sides; it fixed and promulgated the

standard which the English people would in future insist upon

maintaining in their Indian administration; it bound down the

East India Company to better behaviour; it served as an

example and a salutary warning, and it relieved the national

conscience. But the attempt to make Hastings a sacrifice and a

burnt-offering for the sins of the people; the process of

loading him with curses and driving him away into the

wilderness; of stoning him with every epithet and metaphor

that the English language could supply for heaping ignominy on

his head; of keeping him seven years under an impeachment that

menaced him with ruin and infamy—these were blots upon the

prosecution and wide aberrations from the true course of

justice which disfigured the aspect of the trial, distorted

its aim, and had much to do with bringing it to the lame and

impotent conclusion that Burke so bitterly denounced."

_Sir A. Lyall,

Warren Hastings,

chapter 9._

ALSO IN:

_E. Burke,

Works,

volumes 8-12._

_Speeches of Managers and Counsel

in the Trial of Warren Hastings,

edited by E. A. Bond._

INDIA: A. D. 1798-1805.

The administration and imperial policy of the Marquis Wellesley.

Treaty with the Nizam.

Overthrow and death of Tippoo, Sultan of Mysore.

War with the Mahrattas.

Assaye and Laswari.

Territorial acquisitions.

"The period of Sir John Shore's rule as Governor-General, from

1793 to 1798 [after which he became Lord Teignmouth], was

uneventful. In 1798, Lord Mornington, better known as the

Marquis of Wellesley, arrived in India, already inspired with

imperial projects which were destined to change the map of the

country. Mornington was the friend and favourite of Pitt, from

whom he is thought to have derived his far-reaching political

vision, and his antipathy to the French name. From the first

he laid down as his guiding principle, that the English must

be the one paramount power in the peninsula, and that Native

princes could only retain the insignia of sovereignty by

surrendering their political independence. The history of

India since his time has been but the gradual development of

this policy, which received its finishing touch when Queen

Victoria was proclaimed Empress of India on the 1st of

January, 1877. To frustrate the possibility of a French

invasion of India, led by Napoleon in person, was the

governing idea of Wellesley's foreign policy. France at this

time, and for many years later, filled the place afterwards

occupied by Russia in the minds of Indian statesmen. Nor was

the danger so remote as might now be thought. French regiments

guarded and overawed the Nizam of Haidarabad. The soldiers of

Sindhia, the military head of the Marhatta Confederacy, were

disciplined and led by French adventurers. Tipu Sultan of

Mysore carried on a secret correspondence with the French

Directorate, allowed a tree of liberty to be planted in his

dominions, and enrolled himself in a republican club as

'Citizen Tipu.' The islands of Mauritius and Bourbon afforded

a convenient half-way rendezvous for French intrigue and for

the assembling of a hostile expedition. Above all, Napoleon

Buonaparte was then in Egypt, dreaming of the conquests of

Alexander, and no man knew in what direction he might turn his

hitherto unconquered legions. Wellesley conceived the scheme

of crushing for ever the French hopes in Asia, by placing

himself at the head of a great Indian confederacy. In Lower

Bengal, the sword of Clive and the policy of Warren Hastings

had made the English paramount. Before the end of the century,

our power was consolidated from the seaboard to Benares, high

up the Gangetic valley. … In 1801, the treaty of Lucknow

made over to the British the Doab, or fertile tract between

the Ganges and the Jumna, together with Rohilkhand. In

Southern India, our possessions were chiefly confined, before

Lord Wellesley, to the coast Districts of Madras and Bombay.

Wellesley resolved to make the British supreme as far as Delhi

in Northern India, and to compel the great powers of the south

to enter into subordinate relations to the Company's

government. The intrigues of the Native princes gave him his

opportunity for carrying out this plan without breach of

faith. The time had arrived when the English must either

become supreme in India, or be driven out of it. The Mughal

Empire was completely broken up; and the sway had to pass

either to the local Muhammadan governors of that empire, or to

the Hindu Confederacy represented by the Marhattas, or to the

British. Lord Wellesley determined that it should pass to the

British. His work in Northern India was at first easy. The

treaty of Lucknow in 1801 made us territorial rulers as far as

the heart of the present North-Western Provinces, and

established our political influence in Oudh. Beyond those

limits, the northern branches of the Marhattas practically

held sway, with the puppet emperor in their hands. Lord

Wellesley left them untouched for a few years, until the

second Marhatta war (1802-1804) gave him an opportunity for

dealing effectively with their nation as a whole. In Southern

India, he saw that the Nizam at Haidarabad stood in need of

his protection, and he converted him into a useful follower

throughout the succeeding struggle. The other Muhammadan power

of the south, Tipu Sultan of Mysore, could not be so easily

handled.

{1730}

Lord Wellesley resolved to crush him, and had ample

provocation for so doing. The third power of Southern

India—namely, the Marhatta Confederacy—was so loosely

organized, that Lord Wellesley seems at first to have hoped to

live on terms with it. When several years of fitful alliance

had convinced him that he had to choose between the supremacy

of the Marhattas or of the British in Southern India, he did

not hesitate to decide. Lord Wellesley first addressed himself

to the weakest of the three southern powers, the Nizam of

Haidarabad. Here he won a diplomatic success, which turned a

possible rival into a subservient ally. The French battalions

at Haidarabad were disbanded, and the Nizam bound himself by

treaty not to take any European into his service without the

consent of the English Government,—a clause since inserted in

every engagement entered into with Native powers. Wellesley

next turned the whole weight of his resources against Tipu,

whom Cornwallis had defeated, but not subdued. Tipu's

intrigues with the French were laid bare, and he was given an

opportunity of adhering to the new subsidiary system. On his

refusal, war was declared, and Wellesley came down in

viceregal state to Madras to organize the expedition in

person, and to watch over the course of events. One English

army marched into Mysore from Madras, accompanied by a

contingent from the Nizam. Another advanced from the western

coast. Tipu, after a feeble resistance in the field, retired

into Seringapatam, and, when his capital was stormed, died

fighting bravely in the breach (1799). Since the battle of

Plassey, no event so greatly impressed the Native imagination

as the capture of Seringapatam, which won for General Harris a

peerage, and for Wellesley an Irish marquisate. In dealing

with the territories of Tipu, Wellesley acted with moderation.

The central portion, forming the old state of Mysore, was

restored to an infant representative of the Hindu Rajas, whom

Haidar Ali had dethroned; the rest of Tipu's dominion was

partitioned between the Nizam, the Marhattas, and the English.

At about the same time, the Karnatic, or the part of

South-Eastern India ruled by the Nawab of Arcot, and also the

principality of Tanjore, were placed under direct British

administration, thus constituting the Madras Presidency almost

as it has existed to the present day. … The Marhattas had

been the nominal allies of the English in both their wars with

Tipu. But they had not rendered active assistance, nor were

they secured to the English side as the Nizam now was. The

Marhatta powers at this time were five in number. The

recognised head of the confederacy was the Peshwa of Poona,

who ruled the hill country of the Western Ghats, the cradle of

the Marhatta race. The fertile Province of Guzerat was

annually harried by the horsemen of the Gaekwar of Baroda. In

Central India, two military leaders, Sindhia of Gwalior and

Holkar of Indore, alternately held the pre-eminence. Towards

the east, the Bhonsla Raja of Nagpur reigned from Berar to the

coast of Orissa. Wellesley laboured to bring these several

Marhatta powers within the net of his subsidiary system. In

1802, the necessities of the Peshwa, who had been defeated by

Holkar, and driven as a fugitive into British territory,

induced him to sign the treaty of Bassein. By this he pledged

himself to the British to hold communications with no other

power, European or Native, and granted to us Districts for the

maintenance of a subsidiary force. This greatly extended the

English territorial influence in the Bombay Presidency. But it

led to the second Marhatta war, as neither Sindhia nor the

Raja of Nagpur would tolerate the Peshwa's betrayal of the

Marhatta independence. The campaigns which followed are

perhaps the most glorious in the history of the British arms

in India. The general plan, and the adequate provision of

resources, were due to the Marquis of Wellesley, as also the

indomitable spirit which refused to admit of defeat. The

armies were led by Sir Arthur Wellesley (afterwards Duke of

Wellington) and General (afterwards Lord) Lake. Wellesley

operated in the Deccan, where in a few short months, he won

the decisive victories of Assaye [September 23, 1803] and

Argaum [November 28], and captured Ahmednagar. Lake's campaign

in Hindustan was equally brilliant, although it has received

less notice from historians. He won pitched battles at Aligarh

[August 29] and Laswari [November 1, 1803], and took the

cities of Delhi and Agra. He scattered the French troops of

Sindhia, and at the same time stood forward as the champion of

the Mughal Emperor in his hereditary capital. Before the end

of 1803, both Sindhia and the Bhonsla Raja of Nagpur sued for

peace. Sindhia ceded all claims to the territory north of the

Jumna, and left the blind old Emperor Shah Alam once more

under British protection. The Bhonsla forfeited Orissa to the

English, who had already occupied it with a flying column in

1803, and Berar to the Nizam, who gained fresh territory by

every act of complaisance to the British Government. … The

concluding years of Wellesley's rule were occupied with a

series of operations against Holkar, which brought little

credit on the British name. The disastrous retreat of Colonel

Monson through Central India (1804) recalled memories of the

convention of Wargaum, and of the destruction of Colonel

Baillie's force by Haidar Ali. The repulse of Lake in person

at the siege of Bhartpur (Bhurtpore) is memorable as an

instance of a British army in India having to turn back with

its object unaccomplished (1805). Bhartpur was not finally

taken till 1827. Lord Wellesley during his six years of office

carried out almost every part of his territorial scheme. In

Northern India, Lord Lake's campaigns brought the

North-Western provinces (the ancient Madhyadesa) under British

rule, together with the custody of the puppet emperor. The new

Districts were amalgamated with those previously acquired from

the Nawab Wazir of Oudh into the 'Ceded and Conquered

Provinces.' This partition of Northern India remained till the

Sikh wars of 1844 and 1847 gave us the Punjab."

_W. W. Hunter,

Brief History of the Indian People,

chapter 13._

ALSO IN:

_W. H. Maxwell,

Life of the Duke of Wellington,

volume 1, chapters 2-12._

_J. M. Wilson.

Memoir of Wellington,

volume 1, chapters 2-9._

_G. B. Malleson,

Decisive Battles of India,

chapters 9-10._

_W. H. Hutton,

The Marquess Wellesley._

_J. S. Cotton,

Mountstuart Elphinstone,

chapter 4._

{1731}

INDIA: A. D. 1805-1816.

Reversal of Lord Wellesley's policy.

Sepoy revolt at Vellore.

Influence established with Runjeet Singh and the Sikhs.

Conquest of the Mauritius.

The Ghorka War.

"The retreat of Monson was not only a disastrous blow to

British prestige, but ruined for a while the reputation of

Lord Wellesley. Because a Mahratta freebooter had broken loose

in Hindustan, the Home authorities imagined that all the

Mahratta powers had risen against the imperial policy of the

Governor-General. Lord Wellesley was recalled from his post,

and Lord Cornwallis was sent out to take his place, to reverse

the policy of his illustrious predecessor, to scuttle out of

Western Hindustan, to restore all the ceded territories, to

surrender all the captured fortresses, and to abandon large

tracts of country to be plundered and devastated by the

Mahrattas, as they had been from the days of Sivaji to those

of Wellesley and Lake. Before Lord Cornwallis reached Bengal

the political outlook had brightened. … But Lord Cornwallis

was sixty-seven years of age, and had lost the nerve which he

had displayed in his wars against Tippu; and he would have

ignored the turn of the tide, and persisted in falling back on

the old policy of conciliation and non-intervention, had not

death cut short his career before he had been ten weeks in the

country. Sir George Barlow, a Bengal civilian, succeeded for a

while to the post of Governor-General, as a provisional

arrangement. He had been a member of Council under both

Wellesley and Cornwallis, and he halted between the two. He

refused to restore the conquered territories to Sindia and the

Bhonsla, but he gave back the Indore principality to Holkar,

together with the captured fortresses. Worst of all, he

annulled most of the protective treaties with the Rajput

princes on the ground that they had deserted the British

government during Monson's retreat from Jaswant Rao Holkar.

For some years the policy of the British government was a

half-hearted system of non-intervention. … The Mahratta

princes were left to plunder and collect chout [a blackmail

extortion, levied by the Mahrattas for a century] in

Rajputana, and practically to make war on each other, so long

as they respected the territories of the British government

and its allies. … All this while an under-current of

intrigue was at work between Indian courts, which served in

the end to revive wild hopes of getting rid of British

supremacy, and rekindling the old aspirations for war and

rapine. In 1806 the peace of India was broken by an alarm from

a very different quarter. In those days India was so remote

from the British Isles that the existence of the British

government mainly depended on the loyalty of its sepoy armies.

Suddenly it was discovered that the Madras army was on the

brink of mutiny. The British authorities at Madras had

introduced an obnoxious head-dress resembling a European hat,

in the place of the old time-honoured turban, and had,

moreover, forbidden the sepoys to appear on parade with

earrings and caste marks. India was astounded by a revolt of

the Madras sepoys at the fortress of Vellore, about eight

miles to the westward of Arcot. … The garrison at Vellore

consisted of about 400 Europeans and 1,500 sepoys. At

midnight, without warning, the sepoys rose in mutiny. One body

fired on the European barracks until half the soldiers were

killed or wounded. Another body fired on the houses of the

British officers, and shot them down as they rushed out to

know the cause of the uproar. All this while provisions were

distributed amongst the sepoys by the Mysore princes, and the

flag of Mysore was hoisted over the fortress. Fortunately the

news was carried to Arcot, where Colonel Gillespie commanded a

British garrison. Gillespie at once galloped to Vellore with a

troop of British dragoons and two field guns. The gates of

Vellore were blown open; the soldiers rushed in; 400 mutineers

were cut down, and the outbreak was over. … In 1807 Lord

Minto succeeded Barlow as Governor-General. He broke the spell

of non-intervention. … Lord Minto's main work was to keep

Napoleon and the French out of India. The north-west frontier

was still vulnerable, but the Afghans had retired from the

Punjab, and the once famous Runjeet Singh had founded a Sikh

kingdom between the Indus and the Sutlej. As far as the

British were concerned, the Sikhs formed a barrier against the

Afghans; and Runjeet Singh was apparently friendly, for he had

refused to shelter Jaswant Rao Holkar in his flight from Lord

Lake. But there was no knowing what Runjeet Singh might do if

the French found their way to Lahore. To crown the perplexity,

the Sikh princes on the British side of the river Sutlej, who

had done homage to the British government during the campaigns

of Lord Lake, were being conquered by Runjeet Singh, and were

appealing to the British government for protection. In 1808-9

a young Bengal civilian, named Charles Metcalfe, was sent on a

mission to Lahore. The work before him was difficult and

complicated, and somewhat trying to the nerves. The object was

to secure Runjeet Singh as a useful ally against the French

and Afghans, whilst protecting the Sikh states on the British

side of the Sutlej, namely, Jhind, Nabha, and Patiala. Runjeet

Singh was naturally disgusted at being checked by British

interference. It was unfair, he said, for the British to wait

until he had conquered the three states, and then to demand

possession. Metcalfe cleverly dropped the question of justice,

and appealed to Runjeet Singh's self-interest. By giving up

the three states, Runjeet Singh would secure an alliance with

the British, a strong frontier on the Sutlej, and freedom to

push his conquests on the north and west. Runjeet Singh took

the hint. He withdrew his pretensions from the British side of

the Sutlej, and professed a friendship which remained unbroken

until his death in 1839; but he knew what he was about. He

conquered Cashmere on the north, and he wrested Peshawar from

the Afghans; but he refused to open his dominions to British

trade, and he was jealous to the last of any attempt to enter

his territories. … Meanwhile the war against France and

Napoleon had extended to eastern waters. The island of the

Mauritius had become a French depot for frigates and

privateers, which swept the seas from Madagascar to Java,

until the East India Company reckoned its losses by millions,

and private traders were brought to the brink of ruin. Lord

Minto sent one expedition [1810], which wrested the Mauritius

from the French; and he conducted another expedition in

person, which wrested the island of Java from the Dutch, who

at that time were the allies of France. The Mauritius has

remained a British possession until this day, but Java was

restored to Holland at the conclusion of the war. …

Meanwhile war clouds were gathering on the southern slopes of

the Himalayas.

{1732}

Down to the middle of the 18th century, the territory of Nipal

had been peopled by a peaceful and industrious race of

Buddhists known as Newars, but about the year 1767, when the

British had taken over the Bengal provinces, the Newars were

conquered by a Rajput tribe from Cashmere, known as Ghorkas.

The Ghorka conquest of Nipal was as complete as the Norman

conquest of England. The Ghorkas established a military

despotism with Brahmanical institutions, and parcelled out the

country amongst feudal nobles known as Bharadars. … During

the early years of the 19th century the Ghorkas began to

encroach on British territory, annexing villages and revenues

from Darjeeling to Simla without right or reason. They were

obviously bent on extending their dominion southward to the

Ganges, and for a long time aggressions were overlooked for

the sake of peace. At last two districts were appropriated to

which the Ghorkas had not a shadow of a claim, and it was

absolutely necessary to make a stand against their

pretensions. Accordingly, Lord Minto sent an ultimatum to

Khatmandu, declaring that unless the districts were restored

they would be recovered by force of arms. Before the answer

arrived, Lord Minto was succeeded in the post of

Governor-General by Lord Moira, better known by his later

title of Marquis of Hastings. Lord Moira landed at Calcutta in

1813. Shortly after his arrival an answer was received from

the Ghorka government, that the disputed districts belonged to

Nipal, and would not be surrendered. Lord Moira at once fixed

a day on which the districts were to be restored; and when the

day had passed without any action being taken by the Ghorkas,

a British detachment entered the districts and set up police

stations. … The council of Bharadars resolved on war, but

they did not declare it in European fashion. A Ghorka army

suddenly entered the disputed districts, surrounded the police

stations, and murdered many of the constables, and then

returned to Khatmandu to await the action of the British

government in the way of reprisals. The war against the

Ghorkas was more remote and more serious than the wars against

the Mahrattas. … Those who have ascended the Himalayas to

Darjeeling or Simla may realise something of the difficulties

of an invasion of Nipal. The British army advanced in four

divisions by four different routes. … General David

Ochterlony, who advanced his division along the valley of the

Sutlej, gained the most brilliant successes. He was one of the

half-forgotten heroes of the East India Company. … For five

months in the worst season of the year he carried one fortress

after another, until the enemy made a final stand at Maloun on

a shelf of the Himalayas. The Ghorkas made a desperate attack

on the British works, but the attempt failed; and when the

British batteries were about to open fire, the Ghorka garrison

came to terms, and were permitted to march out with the

honours of war. The fall of Maloun shook the faith of the

Ghorka government in their heaven-built fortresses.

Commissioners were sent to conclude a peace. Nipal agreed to

cede Kumaon in the west, and the southern belt of forest and

jungle known as the Terai. It also agreed to receive a British

Resident at Khatmandu. Lord Moira had actually signed the

treaty, when the Ghorkas raised the question of whether the

Terai included the forest or only the swamp. War was renewed.

Ochterlony advanced an army within fifty miles of Khatmandu,

and then the Ghorkas concluded the treaty [1816], and the

British army withdrew from Nipal. The Terai, however, was a

bone of contention for many years afterwards. Nothing was said

about a subsidiary army, and to this day Nipal is outside the

pale of subsidiary alliances; but Nipal is bound over not to

take any European into her service without the consent of the

British government."

_J. T. Wheeler,

India under British Rule,

chapter 3._

ALSO IN:

_J. D. Cunningham,

History of the Sikhs,

chapters 5-6._

_E. Thornton,

History of British Empire in India,

chapters 21-24 (volume 4)._

INDIA: A. D. 1816-1819.

Suppression of the Pindaris.

Overthrow of the Mahratta power.

The last of the Peshwas.

"For some time past the Pindaris, a vast brotherhood of

mounted freebooters, who were ready to fight under any

standard for the chance of unbounded plunder, had been playing

a more and more prominent part in the wars of native princes.

As Free Lances, they had fought for the Peshwa at Panipat, had

shared in the frequent struggles of the Sindhias and Holkars

in Hindustan and Southern India, and made war on their own

account with every native prince whose weakness at any moment

seemed to invite attack. … From the hills and glens of

Central India thousands of armed ruffians sallied forth year

after year in quest of plunder, sparing no cruelty to gain

their ends, and widening the circle of their ravages with each

new raid, until in 1811 the smoke of their camp-fires could be

seen from Gaya and Mirzapur. … To thwart Maratha intrigues

and punish Pindari aggressions was the Governor-General's next

aim. In spite of hindrances offered by his own council and the

Court of Directors, he set himself to revive and extend Lord

Wellesley's policy of securing peace and order throughout

India by means of treaties, which placed one native prince

after another in a kind of vassalage to the paramount power

that ruled from Fort William. … By means of a little timely

compulsion, the able and accomplished Elphinstone baffled for

a while the plots which the Peshwa, Baji Rao, and his

villainous accomplice, Trimbakji Danglia, had woven against

their English allies. The treaty of June, 1817, left Lord

Hastings master of Sagar and Bundalkhand, while it bound the

Peshwa to renounce his friend Trimbakji, his own claims to the

headship of the Maratha League, to make no treaties with any

other native prince, and to accept in all things the counsel

and control of the Company's Government. Hard as these terms

may seem, there was no choice, averred Lord Hastings, between

thus crippling a secret foe and depriving him of the crown he

had fairly forfeited. Meanwhile Lord Hastings' fearless energy

had already saved the Rajputs of Jaipur from further suffering

at the hands of their Pathan oppressor, Amir Khan, and forced

from Sindia himself a reluctant promise to aid in suppressing

the Pindari hordes, whose fearful ravages had at length been

felt by the peaceful villagers in the Northern Sarkars. In the

autumn of 1817 Hastings took the field at the head of an army

which, counting native contingents, mustered nearly 120,000

strong, with some 300 guns. From east, west, north, and south,

a dozen columns set forth to hunt down the merciless ruffians

who had so long been allowed to harry the fairest provinces of

India.

{1733}

In spite of the havoc wrought among our troops by the great

cholera outbreak of that year, and of a sudden rising among

the Maratha princes for one last struggle with their former

conquerors, our arms were everywhere successful against

Marathas and Pindaris alike. The latter, hunted into the hills

and jungles of Central India, found no safety anywhere except

in small bodies and constant flight … and the famous

robber-league passed into a tale of yore. Not less swift and

sure was the punishment dealt upon the Maratha leaders who

joined the Peshwa in his sudden uprising against the British

power. His late submission had been nothing but a mask for

renewed plottings. Elphinstone, however, saw through the mask

which had taken in the confiding Malcolm. Before the end of

October an English regiment, summoned in hot haste from

Bombay, pitched its camp at Kirki, about two miles from Puna,

beside the small Sepoy brigade already quartered there. In the

first days of November Baji Rao began to assume a bolder tone

as his plans grew ripe for instant execution. On the 5th, a

body of Marathas attacked and destroyed the Residency, which

Elphinstone had quitted in the nick of time. A great Maratha

army then marched forth to overwhelm the little garrison at

Kirki, before fresh troops could come up to its aid from

Sirur. Elphinstone, however, who knew his foe, had no idea of

awaiting the attack. Colonel Burr at once led out his men, not

3,000 all told. A brilliant charge of Maratha horse was

heavily repulsed by a Sepoy regiment, and the English steadily

advancing drove the enemy from the field. A few days later

General Smith, at the head of a larger force, advanced on

Puna, occupied the city, and pursued the frightened Peshwa

from place to place. The heroic defence of Karigaum, a small

village on the Bhima, by Captain Staunton and 800 Sepoys, with

only two light guns, against 25,000 Marathas during a whole

day, proved once more how nobly native troops could fight

under English leading. Happily for Staunton's weary and

diminished band, Smith came up the next morning, and the

desponding Peshwa continued his retreat. Turn where he would,

there was no rest for his jaded soldiers. Munro with a weak

force, partly of his own raising, headed him on his way to the

Carnatic, took several of his strong places, and drove him

northwards within reach of General Smith. On the 19th

February, 1818, that officer overtook and routed the flying

foe at the village of Ashti. Bapu Gokla, the Peshwa's

staunchest and ablest follower, perished in the field, while

covering the retreat of his cowardly master. For some weeks

longer Baji Rao fled hither and thither before his resolute

pursuers. But at length all hope forsook him as the circle of

escape grew daily narrower; and in the middle of May the

great-grandson of Balaji Vishwanath yielded himself to Sir

John Malcolm at Indor, on terms far more liberal than he had

any reason to expect. Even for the faithful few who still

shared his fortunes due provision was made at his request. He

himself spent the rest of his days a princely pensioner at

Bithur, near Cawnpore; but the sceptre which he and his sires

had wielded for a hundred years passed into English hands,

while the Rajah of Satara, the long-neglected heir of the

house of Sivaji, was restored to the nominal headship of the

Maratha power. Meanwhile Appa Sahib, the usurping Rajah of

Berar, had no sooner heard of the outbreak at Puna, than he,

too, like the Peshwa, threw off his mask. On the evening of

the 24th November, 1817, his troops, to the number of 18,000,

suddenly attacked the weak English and Sepoy force of 1,400

men with four guns, posted on the Sitabaldi Hills, outside

Nagpur. A terrible fight for eighteen hours ended in the

repulse of the assailants, with a loss to the victors of more

than 300 men and twelve officers. A few weeks later Nagpur

itself was occupied after another fight. Even then the Rajah

might have kept his throne, for his conquerors were merciful

and hoped the best. But they hoped in vain. It was not long

before Appa Sahib, caught out in fresh intrigues, was sent off

a prisoner towards Allahabad. Escaping from his captors, he

wandered about the country for several years, and died at

Lahor a pensioner on the bounty of Ranjit Singh. The house of

Holkar had also paid the penalty of its rash resistance to our

arms. … On the 6th January, 1818, the young Holkar was glad

to sign a treaty which placed him and his heirs under English

protection at the cost of his independence and of some part of

his realm. Luckily for himself, Sindia had remained quiet, if

not quite loyal, throughout this last struggle between the

English and his Maratha kinsfolk. Thus in one short and

decisive campaign, the great Maratha power, which had survived

the slaughter of Panipat, fell shattered to pieces by the same

blow which crushed the Pindaris, and raised an English

merchant-company to the paramount lordship of all India. The

last of the Peshwas had ceased to reign, the Rajah of Berar

was a discrowned fugitive, the Rajah of Satara a king only in

name, while Sindia, Holkar, and the Nizam were dependent

princes who reigned only by sufferance of an English

Governor-General at Calcutta. The Moghal Empire lingered only

in the Palace of Dehli; its former viceroy, the Nawab of Audh,

was our obedient vassal; the haughty princes of Rajputana

bowed their necks, more or less cheerfully, to the yoke of

masters merciful as Akbar and mightier than Aurangzib. Ranjit

Singh himself cultivated the goodwill of those powerful

neighbours who had sheltered the Sikhs of Sirhind from his

ambitious inroads. With the final overthrow of the Marathas a

new reign of peace, order, and general progress began for

peoples who, during a hundred and fifty years, had lived in a

ceaseless whirl of anarchy and armed strife. With the capture

of Asirgarh in April, 1819, the fighting in Southern India

came to an end."

_L. J. Trotter,

History of India,

book 5, chapters 2-3._

ALSO IN:

_W. M. Torrens,

Empire in Asia: How we came by it,

chapters 19-20._

_J. G. Duff,

History of the Mahrattas,

volume 3, chapters 17-20._

_Major Ross-of-Bladensburg,

The Marquess of Hastings,

chapters 4-7._

INDIA: A. D. 1823-1833.

The first Burmese War.

English acquisition of Assam and Aracan.

Suppression of Suttee and Thuggee.

Rechartering of the East India Company.

It is deprived of its last trading monopoly.

"On Hastings' retirement, in 1823, the choice of the ministry

fell upon Canning. … Canning ultimately resigning the

Governor-Generalship, the choice of the authorities fell upon

Lord Amherst. The new Governor-General reached India at a time

when the authorities in London had a right to expect a long

period of peace.

{1734}

In fact, both in Hindostan and in the Deccan, the victories of

Hastings had left the Company no more enemies to conquer.

Unfortunately, however, for the prospects of peace, nature,

which had given India an impenetrable boundary on the north,

had left her with an undefined and open frontier on the east.

On the shores of the Bay of Bengal, opposite Calcutta, a

struggle had raged during the eighteenth century between the

inhabitants of Ava and Pegu. The former, known as Burmans or

Burmese, had the good fortune to find a capable leader, who

rapidly ensured their own victory and founded a Burmese

Empire. The successful competitors were not satisfied with

their own predominance in Pegu—they conquered Aracan, they

overran Assam, and they wrested from Siam a considerable

territory on the Tenasserim coast. The conquest of Aracan

brought the Burmese to the confines of the Company's dominions

in Chittagong. The conquered people, disliking the severe rule

of the conquerors, crossed the frontier and settled in British

territory. Many of them used their new home as a secure basis

for hostile raids on the Burmese. … The river Naf ran for a

portion of its course between the possessions of the British

in Chittagong and those of the Burmese in Aracan. With the

object of preventing the repetition of outrages, which had

occurred on the river, a small British guard was stationed on

a little island, called Shaporee, near its mouth. The Burmese,

claiming the island as their own, attacked the guard and drove

it from the post. It was impossible to ignore such a

challenge. The island was reoccupied; but the

Governor-General, still anxious for peace, offered to treat

its occupation by the Burmese as an action unauthorised by the

Burmese Government. The Burmese Court, however, instead of

accepting this offer, sent an army to reoccupy the island;

collisions almost simultaneously occurred between the British

and the Burmese on other parts of the frontier, and in

February 1824 the first Burmese war began. … If the war of

1824 may be excused as inevitable, its conduct must be

condemned as careless. No pains were taken to ascertain the

nature of the country which it was requisite to invade, or the

strength of the enemy whom it was decided to encounter. …

Burma is watered by two great rivers, the Irawaddy and the

Salwen. … In its upper waters the Irawaddy is a rapid

stream; in its lower waters it flows through alluvial plains,

and finds its way through a delta with nine mouths into the

Bay of Bengal. On one of its western mouths is the town of

Bassein, on one of its eastern mouths the great commercial

port of Rangoon. The banks of the river are clothed with

jungle and with forest; and malaria, the curse of all

low-lying tropical lands, always lingers in the marshes. The

authorities decided on invading Burma through the Rangoon

branch of the river. They gave Sir Archibald Campbell, an

officer who had won distinction in the Peninsula, the command

of the expedition, and, as a preliminary measure, they

determined to seize Rangoon. Its capture was accomplished with

ease, and the Burmese retired from the town. But the victory

was the precursor of difficulty. The troops dared not advance

in an unhealthy season; the supplies which they had brought

with them proved insufficient for their support; and the men

perished by scores during their period of forced inaction. …

When more favourable weather returned with the autumn,

Campbell was again able to advance. Burma was then attacked

from three separate bases. A force under Colonel Richards,

moving along the valley of the Bramaputra, conquered Assam; an

expedition under General Morrison, marching from Chittagong,

occupied Aracan; while Campbell himself, dividing his army

into two divisions, one moving by water, the other by land,

passed up the Irawaddy and captured Donabue and Prome. The

climate improved as the troops ascended the river, and the hot

weather of 1825 proved less injurious than the summer of 1824.

… The operations in 1825-6 drove home the lesson which the

campaign of 1824-5 had already taught. The Burmese realised

their impotence to resist, and consented to accept the terms

which the British were still ready to offer them. Assam,

Aracan, and the Tenasserim Coast were ceded to the Company;

the King of Burma consented to receive a Resident at his

capital, and to pay a very large sum of

money—£1,000,000—towards the expenses of the war. … The

increasing credit which the Company thus acquired did not add

to the reputation of the Governor-General. … The Company

complained of the vast additions which his rule had made to

expenditure, and they doubted the expediency of acquiring new

and unnecessary territory beyond the confines of India itself.

The ministry thought that these acquisitions were opposed to

the policy which Parliament had laid down, and to the true

interests of the empire. It decided on his recall. … William

Bentinck, whom Canning selected as Amherst's successor, was no

stranger to Indian soil. More than twenty years before he had

served as Governor of Madras. … Bentinck arrived in Calcutta

in difficult times. Amherst's war had saddled the Government

with a debt, and his successor with a deficit. …

Retrenchment, in the opinion of every one qualified to judge,

was absolutely indispensable, and Bentinck, as a matter of

fact, brought out specific instructions to retrench. … In

two other matters … Bentinck effected a change which

deserves to be recollected with gratitude. He had the courage

to abolish flogging in the native Indian army; he had the

still higher courage to abolish suttee. … In Bengal the

suttee, or 'the pure and virtuous woman,' who became a widow,

was required to show her devotion to her husband by

sacrificing herself on his funeral pile. … Successive

Governors-General, whose attention had been directed to this

barbarous practice, had feared to incur the unpopularity of

abolishing it. … Cornwallis and Wellesley, Hastings and

Amherst, were all afraid to prohibit murder which was

identified with religion, and it was accordingly reserved to

Bentinck to remove the reproach of its existence. With the

consent of his Council, suttee was declared illegal. The

danger which others had apprehended from its prohibition

proved a mere phantom. The Hindoos complied with the order

without attempting to resist it, and the horrible rite which

had disgraced the soil of India for centuries became entirely

unknown. For these humane regulations Bentinck deserves to be

remembered with gratitude. Yet it should not be forgotten that

these reforms were as much the work of his age as of himself.

… One other great abuse was terminated under Bentinck.

{1735}

In Central India life was made unsafe and travelling dangerous

by the establishment of a secret band of robbers known as

Thugs. The Thugs mingled with any travellers whom they met,

disarmed them by their conversation and courtesy, and availed

themselves of the first convenient spot in their journey to

strangle them with a rope and to rob them of their money. The

burial of the victim usually concealed all traces of the

crime; the secrecy of the confederates made its revelation

unlikely; and, to make treachery more improbable, the Thugs

usually consecrated their murders with religious rites, and

claimed their god as the patron of their misdoings. Bentinck

selected an active officer, Major Sleeman, whom he charged to

put down Thuggee. Sleeman's exertions were rewarded by a

gratifying success. The Thugs, like all secret societies, were

assailable in one way. The first discovery of crime always

produces an approver. The timid conspirator, conscious of his

guilt, is glad to purchase his own safety by sacrificing his

associates, and when one man turns traitor every member of the

band is anxious to secure the rewards and immunity of

treachery. Hence the first clue towards the practices of the

Thugs led to the unveiling of the whole organisation; and the

same statesman, who had the merit of forbidding suttee,

succeeded in extirpating Thuggee from the dominions over which

he ruled. Social reforms of this character occupy the greater

portion of the history of Bentinck's government. In politics

he almost always pursued a policy of non-intervention. The

British during his rule made few additions to their

possessions; they rarely interfered in the affairs of Native

states. … The privileges which the East India, Company

enjoyed had from time to time been renewed by the British

Parliament. The charter of the Company had been extended for a

period of twenty years in 1773, in 1793, and in 1813. But the

conditions on which it was continued in 1813 were very

different from those on which it had been originally granted.

Instead of maintaining its exclusive right of trade,

Parliament decided on throwing open the trade with India to

all British subjects. It left the Company a monopoly of the

China trade alone. The Act of 1813 of course excited the

strenuous opposition of the Company. The highest authorities

were brought forward to prove that the trade with India would

not be increased by a termination of the monopoly. Their

views, however, were proved false by the result, and the stern

logic of facts consequently pointed in 1833 to the further

extension of the policy of 1813 [see CHINA: A. D. 1839-1842].

… The inclination towards free trade was, in fact, so

prevalent, that it is doubtful whether, even if the Tories had

remained in office, they would have consented to preserve the

monopoly. … The fall of the Wellington administration made

its termination a certainty [see ENGLAND: A. D. 1832-1833].

… The Government consented to compensate the Company for the

loss of its monopoly by an annuity of £630,000 charged on the

territorial revenues of India. It is a remarkable circumstance

that the change of ministry which deprived the Company of its

trade possibly preserved its political power for nearly a

quarter of a century. … The Whig ministry shrank from

proposing an alteration for which the country was not

prepared, and which might have aroused the opposition by which

the Coalition of 1783 had been destroyed. Though, however, it

left the rule with Leadenhall Street, it altered the machinery

of government. The Governor-General of Bengal was made

Governor-General of India. A fourth member—an English

jurist—was added to his Council, and the Governor-General in

Council was authorised to legislate for the whole of India. At

the same time the disabilities which still clung to the

natives were in theory swept away, and Europeans were for the

first time allowed to hold land in India. These important

proposals were carried at the close of the first session of

the first reformed Parliament."

_S. Walpole,

History of England from 1815,

chapter 25 (volume 5)._

ALSO IN:

_J. W. Kaye,

Administration of the East India Company,

parts 3-4._

Sir C. Trevelyan,

The Thugs

(Edin. Review, January, 1837).

_Illustrations of the History of the Thugs._

_M. Taylor,

Confessions of a Thug, introduction._

_D. C. Boulger,

Lord William Bentinck,

chapters 4-6._

INDIA: A. D. 1836-1845.

The first Afghan war and its catastrophe.

Conquest and annexation of Scinde.

Threatened trouble with the Sikhs.