The tenure tary, at home or abroad? So far as the Crown is concerned, it is certainly rather a gainer, for the vacant offices are to be filled up by the King. It is argued, as a part of the bill derogatory to the prerogatives of the Crown, that for four years the Commissioners named in the bill defended. are to continue for a short term of years (too short, in my opinion), and because, during that time, they are not at the mercy of every predominant faction of the Court. Does not this objection lie against the present Directors, none of whom are named by the Crown, and a proportion of whom hold for this very term of four years? Did it not lie against the Governor General and council named in the act of 1773, who were invested by name, as the present Commissioners are to be appointed in the body of the act of Parliament, who were to hold their places for a term of years, and were not removable at the discretion of the Crown? Did it not lie against the reappointment, in the year 1780, upon the very same terms? Yet at none of these times, whatever other objections the scheme might be liable to, was it supposed to be a derogation to the just prerogative of the Crown, that a commission created by act of Parliament should have its members named by the authority which called it into existence? This is not the disposal by Parliament of any office derived from the authority of the Crown, or now disposable by that authority. It is so far from being any thing new, violent, or alarming, that I do not recollect, in any parliamentary commission, down to the commissioners of the land tax, that it has ever been otherwise. objection that the minister will appoint his friends as The objection of the tenure for four years is an objection to all places that are not held during pleasure; but in that objection I pronounce the gentlemen, from my knowledge of their complexion and of their principles, to be perfectly in earnest. The party (say these gentlemen) of the minister who proposes this scheme will be rendered Answer to the powerful by it, for he will name his party friends to the commission. This objection against party is a party obCommissioners. jection; and in this, too, these gentlemen are perfectly serious. They see that if, by any intrigue, they should succeed to office, they will lose the clandestine patronage, the true instrument of clandestine influence, enjoyed in the name of subservient Directors, and of wealthy, trembling Indian delinquents. But as often as they are beaten off this ground, they return to it again. The minister will name his friends, and persons of his own party. Who should he name? Should he name those whom he can not trust? Should he name those to execute his plans who are the declared enemies to the principles of his reform? His character is here at stake. If he proposes for his own ends (but he never will propose) such names as, from their want of rank, fortune, character, ability, or knowledge, are likely to betray or to fall short of their trust, he is in an independent House of Commons; in a House of Commons which has, by its own virtue, destroyed the instruments of parliamentary subservience. This House of Commons would not endure the sound of such names. He would perish by the means which he is supposed to pursue for the security of his power. The first pledge he must give of his sincerity in this great reform will be in the confidence which ought to be reposed in those names. For my part, sir, in this business I put all indirect questions wholly out of my mind. My sole question, on each clause of the bill, amounts to this: Is the measure proposed required by the necessities of India? I can not consent totally to lose sight of the real wants of the people who are the objects of it, and to hunt after every matter of party squabble that may be started on the several provisions. On the question of the duration of the commission I am clear and decided. Can I, can any one who has taken the smallest trouble to be informed concerning the affairs of India, amuse himself with so strange an imagination as that the habitual despotism and oppression, that the monopolies, the peculations, the universal destruction of all the legal authority of this kingdom, which have been for twenty years maturing to their present enormity, combined with the distance of the scene, the boldness and artifice of delinquents, their combination, their excessive wealth, and the faction they have made in England, can be fully corrected in a shorter term than four years? None has hazarded such an assertion; none who has a regard for his reputation will hazard it. are, who a great work Sir, the gentlemen, whoever they shall be appointed to this commission, The Commishave an undertaking of magnitude on Bioners have their hands, and their stability must to perform. not only be, but it must be thought, real; and who is it will believe that any thing short of an establishment made, supported, and fixed in its duration with all the authority of Parliament, can be thought secure of a reasonable stability? The plan of my honorable friend is the reverse of that of reforming by the authors of the abuse. The best we could expect from them is, that they should not continue their ancient pernicious activity. To those we could think of nothing but applying control, as we are sure that even a regard to their reputation (if any such thing exists in them) would oblige them to cover, to conceal, to suppress, and consequently to prevent, all cure of the grievances of India. For what can be discovered which is not to their disgrace? Every attempt to correct an abuse would be a satire on their former administration. Every man they should pretend to call to an account would be found their instrument or their accomplice. They can never see a beneficial regulation but with a view to defeat it. The shorter the tenure of such persons, the better would be the chance of some amendment. But the system of the bill is different. It calls in persons nowise concerned with any act censured by Parliament; persons generated with, and for the reform of which they are themselves the most essential part. To these the chief regula tions in the bill are helps, not fetters; they are authorities to support, not regulations to restrain them. From these we look for much more than innocence. From these we expect zeal, firmness, and unremitted activity. Their duty, their character, binds them to proceedings of vigor; and they ought to have a tenure in their office which precludes all fear, while they are acting up to the purposes of their trust; a tenure without which none will undertake plans that require a series and system of acts. When they know that they can not be whispered out of their duty, that their public conduct can not be censured without a public discussion, that the schemes which they have begun will not be committed to those who will have an interest and credit in defeating and disgracing them, then we may entertain hopes. The tenure is for four years, or during their good behavior. That good behavior is as long as they are true to the principles of the bill; and the judgment is in either house of Parliament. This is the tenure of your judges; and the 'aluable principle of the bill is, to make a judicial administration for India. It is to give confidence in the execution of a duty which requires as much perseverance and fortitude as can fall to the lot of any that is born of woman. Answer to ob party gain. As to the gain by party from the right honorable gentleman's bill, let it be shown jection as to that this supposed party advantage is pernicious to its object, and the objecttion is of weight; but until this is done, and this has not been attempted, I shall consider the sole objection, from its tendency to promote the interest of a party, as altogether contemptible. The kingdom is divided into parties, and it ever has been so divided, and it ever will be so divided; and if no system for relieving the subjects of this kingdom from oppression, and snatching its affairs from ruin, can be adopted until it is demonstrated that no party can derive an advantage from it, no good can ever be done in this country. If party is to derive an advantage from the reform of India (which is more than I know or believe), it ought to be that party which alone in this kingdom has its reputation, nay, its very being, pledged to the protection and preservation of that part of the empire. Great fear is expressed that the Commissioners named in this bill will show some regard to a minister out of place [Lord North]. To men like the objectors, this must appear criminal. Let it, however, be remembered by others, that if the Commissioners should be his friends, they can not be his slaves. But dependents are not in a condition to adhere to friends, nor to principles, nor to any uniform line of conduct. They may begin censors, and be obliged to end accomplices. They may be even put under the direction of those whom they were appointed to punish. IV. The fourth and last objection is, that Fourth the bill will hurt public credit. I do not objection know whether this requires an answer; but if it does, look to your foundations. The sinking fund is the pillar of credit in this country; and let it not be forgot, that the distresses, owing to the mismanagement of the East India Company, have already taken a million from that fund by the non-payment of duties. The bills drawn upon the Company, which are about four millions, can not be accepted without the consent of the treasury. The treasury, acting under a parliamentary trust and authority, pledges the public for these millions. If they pledge the public, the public must have a security in its hands for the management of this interest, or the national credit is gone; for otherwise it is not only the East India Company, which is a great interest, that is undone, but, clinging to the security of all your funds, it drags down the rest, and the whole fabric perishes in one ruin. If this bill does not provide a direction of integrity and of ability competent to that trust, the objection is fatal. If it does, public credit must depend on the support of the bill. It has been said, if you violate this charter, what security has the charter of the Bank, in which public credit is so deeply concerned, and even the charter of London, in which the rights of so many subjects are involved? I answer, in the like case they have no security at all-nono security at all. If the Bank should, by every species of mismanagement, fall into a state similar to that of the East India Company; if it should be oppressed with demands it could not answer, engagements which it could not perform, and with bills for which it could not procure payment, no charter should protect the mismanagement from correction, and such public grievances from redress. If the city of London had the means and will of destroying an empire, and of cruelly oppressing and tyrannizing over millions of men as good as themselves, the charter of the city of London should prove no sanction to such tyranny and such oppression. Charters are kept when their purposes are maintained; they are violated when the privilege is supported against its aim and object. on Mr. Fox. And now, having done my duty to the bill, let me say a word to the author. I should Eulogium leave him to his own noble sentiments, if the unworthy and illiberal language with which he has been treated, beyond all example of parliamentary liberty, did not make a few words necessary, not so much in justice to him as to my own feelings. I must say, then, that it will be a distinction honorable to the age, that the rescue of the greatest number of the human race that ever were so grievously oppressed, from the greatest tyranny that was ever exercised, has fallen to the lot of abilities and dispositions equal to the task; that it has fallen to one who has the enlargement to comprehend, the spirit to undertake, and the eloquence to support so great a measure of hazardous benevolence. His spirit is not owing to his ignorance of the state of men and things; he well knows what snares are man. Implebit terras voce; et furialia bella [1783. the only person to whose eloquence it does not This was what was said of the predecessor of wrong that of the mover of this bill to be com pared. But the Ganges and the Indus are the patrimony of the fame of my honorable friend, and not of Cicero. I confess I anticipate with joy the reward of those whose whole conse benefit of mankind; and I carry my mind to all spread about his path, from personal animosity, from court intrigues, and possibly from popular delusion. But he has put to hazard his ease, his security, his interest, his power, even his darling popularity, for the benefit of a people whom he has never seen. This is the road that all heroes have trod before him. He is traduced and abused for his supposed motives. He will remember that obloquy is a necessary ingredient in the composition of all true glory; he will remem-quence, power, and authority exist only for the ber that it was not only in the Roman customs, but it is in the nature and constitution of things, that calumny and abuse are essential parts of a triumph.21 These thoughts will support a mind, which only exists for honor, under the burden of temporary reproach. He is doing, indeed, a great good, such as rarely falls to the lot, and al-will not be heard where freedom and happiness most as rarely coincides with the desires of any will be felt. Let him use his time. There is not a tongue, a nation, or whole length of the reins to his benevolence.22 siding care and manly beneficence of this House, Let him give the religion in India which will not bless the preHe is now on a great eminence, where the eyes and of him who proposes to you this great work. of mankind are turned to him. long; he may do much. But here is the summit. throne of the Divine Goodness, in whatever lanHe may live Your names will never be separated before the He never can exceed what he does this day. for sin, and reward for those who imitate the guage, or with whatever rites pardon is asked Godhead in his universal bounty to his creatures. These honors you deserve, and they will surely be paid, when all the jargon of influence, and In those faults there is no mix-party, and patronage are swept into oblivion. ture of deceit, of hypocrisy, of pride, of ferocity, of complexional despotism, or want of feeling of the mover of this bill. I have spoken what I think and what I feel for the distresses of mankind. which might exist in a descendant of Henry the with having made a studied panegyric. I don't His are faults of mine, speaking of his merits, was charged An honorable friend Fourth of France, as they did exist in that father know what his was. of his country. Henry the Fourth wished that studied panegyric; the fruit of much meditaMine, I am sure, is a he might live to see a fowl in the pot of every tion; the result of the observation of near twenpeasant of his kingdom. That sentiment of ty years. homely benevolence was worth all the splendid have lived to see this day. I feel myself overFor my own part, I am happy that I sayings that are recorded of kings; but he paid for the labors of eighteen years, when, at wished, perhaps, for more than could be obtain- this late period, I am able to take my share, by ed, and the goodness of the man exceeded the one humble vote, in destroying a tyranny that power of the king. But this gentleman, a sub-exists to the disgrace of this nation and the deject, may this day say this, at least, with truth, struction of so large a part of the human species. that he secures the rice in his pot to every man in India. A poet of antiquity thought it one of the first distinctions to a prince whom he meant to celebrate, that, through a long succession of generations, he had been the progenitor of an able and virtuous citizen [Cicero], who, by force of the arts of peace, had corrected governments of oppression and suppressed wars of rapine. He has faults, but they are faults that, though they may in a small degree tarnish the luster and sometimes impede the march of his abilities, have nothing in them to extinguish the fire of great virtues. Indole proh quantâ juvenis, quantumque daturus Ausoniæ populis, ventura in sæcula civem. Ille super Gangem, super exauditus et Indos, 21 During the procession in a Roman triumph, the soldiers and spectators proclaimed the praises of the conqueror, or indulged in keen sarcasms and coarse ribaldry at his expense, the most perfect freedom of speech being exercised on this occasion.-Smith's Dictionary of Antiquities, p. 1018. 22 Mr. Burke seems to have been partial to this image. Elsewhere he speaks of "pouring out all the length of the reins," &c., using the image in various forms a number of times. It is derived from the "laxas habenas," " effundere habenas" of Virgil, in speaking of the management of steeds in chariot races, &c. very large majority, but was defeated in the dismissed, and Mr. William Pitt placed at the the early kings of the Volsci, who, according to some Rich in the gifts of nature, favored youth! SPEECH OF MR. BURKE ON THE NABOB OF ARCOT'S DEBTS, DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS, FEBRUARY 28, 1785. INTRODUCTION. THE design of this speech was to convict Mr. Pitt of a scandalous abuse of power. It charges him with allowing the claims of a set of unprincipled speculators in India to the amount of four millions of pounds, in direct defiance of an act of Parliament drawn up by Mr. Pitt himself. Men of all parties had agreed that these claims were of a highly suspicious character, and ought never to be paid until they were severely scrutinized. Mr. Pitt, in his East India Bill, had therefore provided, that "whereas large sums of money are claimed to be due to British subjects by the Nabob of Arcot, the Court of Directors, as soon as may be, shall take into consideration the origin and justice of these demands." And yet, one of the first acts of the Board of Control created by that bill, was to take the whole matter out of the hands of the Directors just as they had commenced the investigation! This was done by Mr. Henry Dundas, President of the Board of Control, and it is, therefore, against him more immedi ately that the force of this speech is directed, though Mr. Pitt, as prime minister, was justly held responsible. A mandate was issued for paying all these claims without farther inquiry, and the Directors of the East India Company, notwithstanding their most earnest remonstrances, were compelled to sign an order for disbursing what proved to be nearly five millions of pounds sterling (interest included) on account of these debts.-Mill's British India, v., 26. A few words only will be necessary to explain their origin. Mohammed Ali, Nabob of the Carnatic, or, as he was more commonly called, Nabob of Arcot, from the town where he held his court, was a man of weak judgment but strong passions, who was established in his dominions, to the prejudice of an elder brother, by the policy and arms of the Presidency of Madras. At an early period, he fell under the influ ence of Paul Benfield and a few other English residents, who played upon his passions, encouraged his schemes of conquest, and ruled him with absolute authority. They no doubt lent him money to some extent; but, as their means were limited, the amount could not have been very great. Every thing which they did lend, however, was put upon extravagant interest; and when he failed to pay, the amount was sometimes doubled or tripled in taking new securities. There is also reason to believe, that, in order to obtain their favor, he gave them acknowledgments of debts to an immense amount, which were understood by both parties to be purely fictitious. Thus, from time to time, enormous sums were put upon interest, at the rate of twenty or thirty per cent. a year, until the annual proceeds of the debts thus accumulated were equal, as Mr. Burke remarks, to "the revenue of a respectable kingdom." The Directors of the Company, in the mean time, had no knowledge of these proceedings, which were studiously concealed from all but the immediate agents in this system of usury and peculation. The Nabob at last became wholly unable to protect the dominions over which he had been placed, and the Company were compelled, in self-defense, and for the accomplishment of their designs, to take the military operations of the country into their own bands. In doing this, they received from the Nabob an assignment of his revenues, for the purpose of defraying the expense. But it now came out that these very revenues, to a great extent, had been previously assigned to Benfield and his friends, to secure the interest on their claims. Hence it was important for the Company to inquire how far these claims had any real foundation. Under Mr. Pitt's East India Bill, this inquiry became equally important to the whole British nation, because the civil and military concerns of India had now passed into the hands of the government at home. Whatever allowance was made to Benfield and his associates on the score of these debts, was so much money deducted from the resources provided for the government of India. Any deficit that occurred was of course to be supplied out of the general treasury of the empire; and the question was, therefore, truly stated by Mr. Burke to be this, "Whether the Board of Control could transfer the public revenue to the private emolument of certain servants of the East India Company, without the inquiry into the origin and justice of their claims, prescribed by an act of Parliament." Mr. Fox brought the subject before the House in a call for papers, supported by a powerful speech, on the evening of the 28th of February, 1785. Mr. Dundas replied at great length, and was followed by Sir Thomas Rumbold, formerly President of Madras, who condemned the decision of the Board in brief but energetic terms. It was now late, and the cry of Question!" "Question!" was heard from every quarter. At this moment Mr. Burke rose and commenced the speech before us, which lasted five hours! Never did a man speak under such adverse circumstances. The House was completely wearied out by the preceding discussion; and the majority, besides being prejudiced against Mr. Burke on other grounds, were so vexed at the unfortunate timing and length of his specch, that the more he dilated on the subject, the more firmly they were resolved to vote him down. In fact, no one that night seems to have had any conception of the real character of the speech which was delivered in their hearing. Lord Grenville was asked by Mr. Pitt, toward the close, whether it was best to reply, and instantly said, "No! not the slightest impression has been made. The speech may with perfect safety be passed over in silence." And yet, if Lord Grenville had been called upon, at a subsequent period of his life, to name the most remarkable speech in our language for its triumph over the difficulties of the subject, for the union of brilliancy and force, of comprehensive survey and minute detail, of vivid description and impassioned eloquence, he would at once, probably, have mentioned the speech on the Nabob of Arcot's debts. It does not, however, contain as much fine philosophy, or profound remark, as some of Mr. Burke's earlier speeches. Nor is it faultless in style, though it is generally distinguished by an elastic energy of expression admirably suited to the subject. Still, there are passages which mark a transition into greater profluence of imagery on the one hand, and greater coarseness of language on the other, arising from the excited state of Mr. Burke's mind. Never had his feelings been so completely roused. In none of his speeches do we find so much of cutting sarcasm. In none, except that against Warren Hastings, has he poured out his whole soul in such fervid declamation. His description of Hyder Ali, sweeping over the Carnatic with fire and sword, is the most eloquent passage which he ever produced. Lord Brougham has pronounced this speech "by far the first of all Mr. Burke's orations." SPEECH, &c. THE times we live in, Mr. Speaker, have been distinguished by extraordinary events. Habituated, however, as we are, to uncommon combinations of men and of affairs, I believe nobody recollects any thing more surprising than the spectacle of this day. The right honorable gentletuan [Mr. Dundas], whose conduct is now in question, formerly stood forth in this House the prosecutor of the worthy baronet [Sir Thomas Rumbold] who spoke after him. He charged him with several grievous acts of malversation in office; with abuses of a public trust of a great and heinous nature. In less than two years we see the situation of parties reversed, and a singular revolution puts the worthy baronet in a fair way of returning the prosecution in a recriminatory bill of pains and penalties, grounded on a breach of public trust, relative to the government of the very same part of India. If he should undertake a bill of that kind, he will find no difficulty in conducting it with a degree of skill and vigor fully equal to all that have been exerted against him.' But the change of relation between these two gentlemen is not so striking as the total difference of their deportment under the same unhappy circumstances. Whatever the merits of the worthy baronet's defense might have been, he did not shrink from the charge. He met it with manliness of spirit and decency of behavior. What would have been thought of him if he had held the present language of his old accuser? When articles were exhibited against him by that right honorable gentleman, he did not think proper to tell the House that we ought to institute no inquiry, to inspect no paper, to examine no witness. He did not tell us (what at that time he might have told us with some show of reason) It requires a minute knowledge of the times to understand this reference. Mr. Dundas, in 1782, had brought in a bill of pains and penalties against Sir Thomas Rumbold for high crimes and misdemeanors as Governor of Madras; but he managed it so badly, that he was at last compelled to give it up in disgrace. Hence Mr. Burke's reference to his "skill and energy" was a cutting sarcasm which Mr. Dundas could not but feel most keenly. that our concerns in India were matters of delicacy; that to divulge any thing relative to them would be mischievous to the state. He did not tell us that those who would inquire into his proceedings were disposed to dismember the empire. He had not the presumption to say that, for his part, having obtained, in his Indian presidency, the ultimate object of his ambition, his honor was concerned in executing with integrity the trust which had been legally committed to his charge; that others, not having been so fortunate, could not be so disinterested, and therefore their accusations could spring from no other source than faction, and envy to his fortune. Had he been frontless enough to hold such vain, vaporing language, in the face of a grave, a detailed, a specified matter of accusation, while he violently resisted every thing which could bring the merits of his cause to the test; had he been wild enough to anticipate the absurdities of this day; that is, had he inferred, as his late accuser has thought proper to do, that he could not have been guilty of malversation in office, for this sole and curious reason, that he had been in office; had he argued the impossibility of his abusing his power on this sole principle, that he had power to abuse, he would have left but one impression on the mind of every man who heard him, and who believed him in his senses-that, in the utmost extent, he was guilty of the charge. 2 This is the best of Mr. Burke's exordiums; it would be difficult, indeed, to find a better in any oration, ancient or modern, except that of Demosthenes for the Crown. It springs directly out of a turn in the debate, and has therefore all the freshness and interest belonging to a real transaction which has just taken place before the audience. It turns upon a striking circumstance, the sudden and remarkable change in the relative position of the two parties; and puts Mr. Dundas in the wrong from the very outset. Before a syllable is said touching the merits of the case, it presents him in the worst possible attitude—that of shuffling and evading, instead of "meeting the charge," like his old antagonist, "with manliness of spirit and decency of behavior." There is great ingenuity in selecting the various points of contrast between the deportment of Mr. Dundas and of Sir Thomas Rumbold in the two cases. The attack |