by Edmund Burke
Your Lordships see plainly the whole of this matter. When they had resolved to seize the Begums’ treasures, they propagated this report just in proportion to their acts. As they proceeded, the report grew hotter and hotter. This man tells you when it was that the propagation of this report first began, when it grew hot, and when it was in its greatest heat. He tells you that not one native of credit in the country believed it, — that he did not think the Nabob himself believed it; and he gives a reason that speaks for itself, namely, that he, the Nabob, would have been the first man to give the alarm, if he believed in a rebellion, as he was to be the object of it. He says the English were the principal spreaders of the report. It was, in fact, a wicked report, propagated by Mr. Middleton and the English agents for the purpose of justifying their iniquitous spoliation of the Begums.
This is the manner in which the matter stands upon the ground of rebellion, with the exception of Major Gilpin’s and Hyder Beg Khân’s testimony. This last man we have proved to have been kept in his office by Mr. Hastings’s influence, and to have been entirely under his government. When this dependant comes to give his attestation, he gives a long account of all the proceedings of Cheyt Sing’s rebellion, with which the rebellion charged on the Begums was supposed to be coincident; and he ends it very remarkably, — that he tells the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. But it is also remarkable, that even this Hyder Beg Khân never mentions by name the rebellion of the Begums, nor says that he ever heard a word about it: a strong proof that he did not dare, in the face of his country, to give countenance to such a falsehood.
Major Gilpin’s evidence leaves not even the shadow of a pretence for this charge. He had the Begums and their eunuchs under his custody for a full year; he was strictly ordered to watch them and to guard them; and during all that time he lived at Fyzabad. He was the man who commanded the troops, who had all the witnesses in his power, who had daily access to all parties at Fyzabad, and who, moreover, was a person attached to Mr. Hastings in the strongest manner. Your Lordships will now be pleased to hear read to you this part of Major Gilpin’s evidence.
“Q. Had you any opportunity of knowing the character of the Begums, and whether they were disaffected to our government? — A. I had a very good opportunity of knowing, from the circumstance of my having commanded so long there. The elder Begum, it was generally understood, (and I have reason to believe,) was disaffected to our government; and my sentiments of her conduct stand recorded in my correspondence to the court of Lucknow to that effect; but with respect to the Bhow Begum, I acquit her entirely of any disaffection to our government, so far as comes to my knowledge: appearances were for some time against her; but, on cool, deliberate inquiry, I found there was no ground for supposing her guilty of any rebellious principles, at the time of Cheyt Sing’s rebellion. — Q. Whether that, according to your belief, is not your present opinion? — A. I think I have answered that very fully, that it was upon those very principles that I did form an opinion of her innocence; how far they are justifiable or right I will not take upon me to say upon oath; there was no one circumstance that came to my knowledge, during my residence at Fyzabad or my residence in India, that I would wish to withhold from your Lordships. — Q. You state here, ‘upon cool, deliberate inquiry’: what was that cool, deliberate inquiry? — A. That cool, deliberate inquiry was the conversations I had with the ministers and the people of Fyzabad, and the letters from herself expressing her innocence; and it appeared to me from those letters that she really was our friend and ally.”
The same witness goes on afterwards to say: —
“Q. I understood you to say, that originally the report prevailed with respect to both the Begums, but that you was induced to alter that opinion with respect to the younger Begum, in consequence of Mr. Gordon’s letters, and the intelligence of some of her ministers and other persons: were not those other persons in the interest of the younger Begum? — A. In general the town of Fyzabad were in her interest. — Q. In what sense do you mean generally in her interest? Were the persons you conversed with merely those who were in her service and household, or the inhabitants of Fyzabad in general? — A. Both: I held conversations with both her own body-servants and the inhabitants of the city.”
A little lower down, in the same page: —
“Q. What do you mean by the word rebellion, as applied to the Begums? In what sense do you use it? — A. In raising troops, and in other acts of rebellion, in the common acceptation of the word. — Q. Against whom? — A. Against the Nabob’s government and the British government jointly: but I beg to know the particular time and circumstance the question alludes to. — Q. I understand you to have said you understood the elder Begum was in a constant state of rebellion. In what sense do you use the word rebellion? Did you say the elder Begum was in a constant state of rebellion? — A. I always understood her to be disaffected to the English government: it might not be a proper expression of mine, the word rebellion. — Q. Do you know of any act by the elder Begum against the Vizier? — A. I cannot state any. — Q. Do you know of any act which you call rebellion, committed by the elder Begum against the Company? — A. I do not know of any particular circumstance, only it was generally supposed that she was disaffected to the Company. — Q. What acts of disaffection or hostility towards the English do you allude to, when you speak of the conversation of the world at the time? — A. I have answered that question as fully as I can, — that it was nothing but conversation, — that I knew of no particular act or deed myself.”
This man, then, declares, as your Lordships have heard, that, upon cool, deliberate inquiry made at Fyzabad from all the inhabitants, he did not believe in the existence of any rebellion; — that as to the Bhow Begum, the grandmother, who was a person that could only be charged with it in a secondary degree, and as conspiring with the other, he says he knows no facts against her, except that at the battle of Buxar, in the year 1764, she had used some odd expressions concerning the English, who were then at war with her son Sujah Dowlah. This was long before we had any empire or pretence to empire in that part of India: therefore the expression of a rebellion, which he had used with regard to her, was, he acknowledged, improper, and that he only meant he had formed some opinion of her disaffection to the English.
As to the Begum, he positively acquits her of any rebellion. If he, therefore, did not know it, who was an active officer in the very centre of the alleged rebellion, and who was in possession of all the persons from whom information was to be got, who had the eunuchs in prison, and might have charged them with this rebellion, and might have examined and cross-examined them at his pleasure, — if this man knew nothing about it, your Lordships will judge of the falsehood of this wicked rumor, spread about from hand to hand, and which was circulated by persons who at the same time have declared that they never heard of it before Sir Elijah Impey went up into the country, the messenger of Mr. Hastings’s orders to seize the treasures of the Begums, and commissioned to procure evidence in justification of that violence and robbery.
I now go to another part of this evidence. There is a person they call Hoolas Roy, — a man in the employment of the Resident, Mr. Middleton. The gentlemen who are counsel for the prisoner have exclaimed, “Oh! he was nothing but a news-writer. What! do you take any notice of him?” Your Lordships would imagine that the man whom they treat in this manner, and whose negative evidence they think fit to despise, was no better than the writers of those scandalous paragraphs which are published in our daily papers, to misrepresent the proceedings of this court to the public. But who in fact is this Hoolas Roy, whom they represent, for the convenience of the day, to be nothing but a news-writer? I will read to your Lordships a letter from Major Naylor to Colonel Jaques, commanding the second battalion, twentieth regiment.
“Sir, — Hoolas Roy, the person appointed by the Nabob for transacting the business for which the troops are required here, will hold constant communication and intercourse with you; and as he is instructed
and acquainted with the best method to accomplish this business, Mr. Middleton requests implicit attention to be paid to what he may from time to time represent respecting the prisoners or the business on which he is employed; in short, as he is the person nominated by the Nabob, he wishes Hoolas Roy to be considered in the same light as if he himself was present.”
Mr. Middleton, in a letter to Lieutenant Francis Rutledge, writes thus of him: —
“Sir, — When, this note is delivered to you by Hoolas Roy, I have to desire that you order the two prisoners to be put in irons, keeping them from all food, &c., agreeable to my instructions of yesterday.”
You will first see in how confidential a manner Hoolas Roy was employed, and in what light he was held: that he was employed to carry some instructions which do not indeed appear, but were accompanied by an order from Mr. Middleton. “When these instructions shall come to you, to put these prisoners in irons and keep them without food, &c.” The Begums say, without food and water. Et cetera are words of large import; but he was “to keep them without food, &c., agreeable to my instructions of yesterday.” This was a pretty general warrant for sufferings. This Hoolas Roy, this mere news-writer, was not only intrusted with this warrant, but Mr. Middleton declares him to be a person who was to be received there, and to represent the Nabob, and very justly too; for he, Mr. Middleton, was undoubtedly the real nabob of the country. The man, therefore, whom they talk of in this contemptuous manner in order to make slight of an observation we made, and which I shall make again, and whom they affect to consider as a mere paragraph-monger in some scandalous newspaper, was a man vested by Mr. Middleton with authority equal to that of the Nabob himself.
Mr. Hastings not only thought him of consequence enough to be a witness to the severities used on the ministers of the Begums, but he considered that he would afterwards be a fit witness to the rebellion. I pray your Lordships to mark this: he sent for this Hoolas Roy, (who is now nothing but a mere paragraph-monger,) — he sent for him from Fyzabad to Benares, — a pretty long journey; and at last caused him to be examined before Sir Elijah Impey. He has, however, sunk his evidence: a suppression which is strongly in favor of the Begums, and equally strong against their accuser. Here we have a man who was intrusted with all their orders, — who represented the English government, — who represented the Nabob’s government: this man is sent for by Mr. Hastings; he gives his deposition before Sir Elijah Impey; and the deposition so given is not to be found either upon the Company’s record, in Sir Elijah Impey’s trunk, in Jonathan Scott’s trunk, nor in any other place whatever. The evidence of a witness who could speak most clearly, as probably he did, and most decisively, upon this subject, is sunk. They suppress, and dare not produce, the affidavit of the man who was at the bottom of every secret of both governments. They had the folly to let you know, obliquely, that he had been sent for by Mr. Hastings, but they conceal the information obtained from him: a silence more damning than any positive evidence could be. You have here a proof of their practice of producing such evidence only as they thought most favorable to their wicked purposes, in the destruction of this great and ancient family.
But all the English, they say, believed in the existence of this rebellion. This we deny. Mr. Purling, who was Resident the year before its pretended explosion, has told you that he never knew of anything like a plot carrying on by these women. We were almost ashamed to put the question to him. Did Mr. Bristow, the next Resident, know or believe in this plot? He seems, indeed, to have been induced to give some oblique hints to Mr. Hastings of improper conduct on the part of the Begums, but without stating what it was. In a letter to Mr. Hastings, he appears to endeavor to soften the cruel temper of this inflexible man by going a little way with him, by admitting that he thought they had behaved improperly. When Mr. Wombwell, another Resident, is asked whether any Englishman doubted of it, he says Mr. Bristow doubted of it. No one, indeed, who reads these papers, can avoid seeing that Mr. Bristow did not believe one word of it, — no more, in fact, than did Mr. Hastings, or anybody else.
But, my Lords, let us go from these inferior agents and servants of the Company to their higher officers. Did Mr. Stables believe it? This gentleman was Mr. Hastings’s colleague in the Council, — a man of as much honor, I really believe, as ever went to India, — a faithful old servant of the Company, and very worthy of credit. I believe there is not a spot upon him during all his long service under the Company: if any, it is his being a little too obsequious, sometimes, to Mr. Hastings. Did he believe it? No, he did not: and yet he was one of the persons authorized to investigate it coolly, and most able to do so.
Upon the whole, then, the persons who best knew the state of the country did not believe it; the Nabob did not believe it; the Begums were never charged with it; no ground of suspicion is suggested, except loose rumors and the story of two nudjeeves. Under these circumstances the treasures of these ancient ladies were seized, their property confiscated, and the Nabob dragged most reluctantly to this act. Yes, my Lords, this poor, miserable victim was forced to violate all the laws of Nature, all decency, all property, to rob his own mother, for the benefit of Mr. Hastings. All this he was forced to do: he was made the reluctant instrument of punishing his mother and grandmother for a plot of which even their accusers do not pretend to say that the parties accused had ever received any intimation.
My Lords, in forming your judgment upon this nefarious proceeding, your Lordships will not fail to advert to the fundamental principles, the acknowledged maxims and established rules, of all judgment and justice, — that conviction ought to precede execution, that trial ought to precede conviction, and that a prosecutor’s information and evidence ought to be the preliminary step and substance of the trial. Here everything was reversed: Sir Elijah Impey goes up with the order for execution; the party accused is neither arraigned nor tried; this same Sir Elijah then proceeds to seek for witnesses and to take affidavits; and in the mean time neither the Nabob, the ostensible prosecutor, nor his mother and grandmother, the parties accused, knew one word of the matter.
But possibly some peculiarity in the circumstances of the case rendered such a proceeding necessary, and may justify it. No such peculiarity has been proved or even alleged; nay, it is in the highest degree improbable that it could have existed. Mr. Hastings had another opportunity of doing himself justice. When an account of this business was transmitted to the Court of Directors, they ordered him to inquire into it: and your Lordships will see what he did in consequence of this order. Your Lordships will then judge of the extreme audacity of the defence which he has made of this act at your bar, after having refused to institute any inquiry into it, although, he had the positive order of the Court of Directors, and was in the place where that inquiry could be made effectually, and in the place where the unfortunate women could have an opportunity of clearing themselves.
I will first read to your Lordships an extract from the letter of the Court of Directors to the board at Calcutta, dated the 14th of February, 1783.
“4. By the second article of the treaty [of Chunar] the Nabob is permitted to resume such jaghires as he shall think proper, with a reserve, that all such jaghiredars, for the amount of whose jaghires the Company are guaranties, shall, in case of a resumption of their lands, be paid the amount of the net collections through the Resident.
“5. We do not see how the Governor-General could consent to the resumption of such lands as the Company had engaged should remain in the hands of those who possessed them previous to the execution of the late treaty, without stronger proofs of the Begums’ defection than have been laid before us; neither can we allow it to be good policy to reduce the several jaghiredars, and thus uniting the territory, and the troops maintained for the protection of that territory, under one head, who, by that means, at some future period, may become a very powerful enemy to the Company.
“6. With respect to the resumption of the jaghires possessed by the Begums in particular, and the subsequent seizur
e of the treasure deposited with the Vizier’s mother, which the Governor-General, in his letter to the board, 23d January, 1782, has declared he strenuously encouraged and supported, we hope and trust, for the honor of the British nation, that the measure appeared to be fully justified in the eyes of all Hindostan. The Governor-General has informed us that it can be well attested, that the Begums principally excited and supported the late commotions, and that they carried their inveteracy to the English nation so far as to aim at our utter extirpation.
