« 上一頁繼續 »
of rendering any part of the resources of the territories, which he holds under the protection of the company, subservient to the further violation of his engagements." In the same instructions lord Wellesley remarked that, “the result of the inquiry ordered by his instructions would probably render it his duty to deprive the nabob of the civil and military government of the Carnatic;" and he actually furnished lord Clive with "a general authority for assuming it, or for taking any such further steps as the exigency of the circumstances on the spot might appear to require. · On the 9th of June, 1800, lord Wellesley stated to the secret committee his opinion that "evidence had appeared to satisfy his judgment, that an intrigue of a nature hostile to the British interests had been carried on between the nabob of the Carnatic and Tippo- ; that his attention was then directed to the measures proper to be adopted with respect to the nabob, under the view in which his criminality was placed by the oral evidence collected; and that he was already satisfied that a due regard to our safety, rendered it indispensibly necessary, that we should obtain soine more certain pledges of the fidelity of the nabob than we then possessed."'$ On the 4th of December 1800, the secret committee replicd to these cominunications of the 23d of April and Ith of June preceding: and it is worthy of observarion, that the orders of the secret committee to the government of Bengal in consequence of this information, were actually “communicated to the court of directors," of which Mr. Charles Grant, of sanctified celebrity, was a member. It is ridiculous, and would be incompitable with the gravity of that body of enlightened statesmen to suppose that these orders wero communicated to the court, without the documents to which they referred. The court, therefore, and at all eyents, the secret committee, which is the same thing in point of law, had before them when they issued these orders of the 4th of Deceinber 18on, the different papers found at Seringa patam, and the governor-general's instructions of the 7th of April of the same year to lord Clive, in which he stated the probability" that it would "become his duty to deprive the nabob of the governinent of the Carnatic," and in which he actually furnished lord Clive with "a genéral authority for assuming it," if necessary. What then was the duty of the company? Ought they not to bave cautioned their government not to assume the government of the Carnatic, if they disapproved of proceeding to such an extreinity? And ought they not to have exa pressed a hope that the government had not been and would not be compelled to resort to such it measure? If they did not express such sentiments, what other construction could the government in India give to their silence upon these important topics, but that the court approved of the determination to assume the governinent of the Carnatic, if necessary ? So far, however, from expressing the slightest disapprobation, the company, in their letter of the 4th of December, 1800, signified “THEIR EYTIRE APPROBATION of the proceedings" of their government to that period (including of course the instructions to lord Clive for eventually assuming the gurerument of the Carnatic) “ of kord Wellesley's intention to demand from the nabob the additional security required, of the nature of which, and of tie subsequent arrangements, they felt no small degree of solicitude to be ad. iseci." They also observed, in the same letter, that “ several circumstances might be urged," fin addition to those already stated) " to strengthen the doubts which have been entertained of the nabob's fidelity to the fundainental principle of his engagements with the company;" and they accordingly stated a circumstance to the firt of Chandernagherry, than which, they observe, “a more decided instance of disaffection towards the company, can scarcely be imagined ! - When the arrangements in the Carnatic had been completed, what was the conduct of the court of directors after they were “advied" of the treaty concluded by lord Clive on the 16th of September 1801? Did they disapprove that maca ure, and ordered it to be anaulled ? No, no ! on the coutrary, they signified, chi the 29th of September 1802, "THEIR APPROBATION OF THAT SETTLEMENT, AND THEIR CONFIRMATION OF THE TREATY," observin, that “they were of opinion, the government in India was fully justifed upon the evidence written as well as oral upon which they proceded, in deeming the rights of the tomily of
§ Ibid page 28.
FORFEITED; that the nature of the security which had been provided by lord Clive's treaty was of a satisfactory description, and that they could not too much applaud the disposition which had been manifested by their servants, to make the arrangement: in question as little injurious to the huppiness and dignity, of the fainily of Arcot, as considerations, immediately connected with the safety of their possessions, would admit." At the same time, they ordered the government of Madras to " address their congratulations to the nabob on his elevation to the Musnad” which was done accordingly, and reported to the court of directors on the 22d of February 1803, five years ago, when Mr. Charles Grant, and Mr. Thornton, alike gified with grace, were both in the direction. On the same day that the treaty was approved, (Sept. 29, 1802) the court of directors, and not the secret committee, reader ! this very court of, directors addressed a letter to lord Wellesley in which they acquainted him that: “ though they had been under the necessity of differing frøin their governments : abroad in some material points, upon which their sentiments had already been communi... cated to them” (was the Carnatic question one of these points?). it was impossible for the court not to feel, and in a rowledge the zeal and ability, which the governorgeneral (meaning lord Wellesle!.) had displayed in the general arrangement and superintendance of their affairs.” Siace that letter was dispatched the king and the court have written to the nabob congratulating !im upon his accession ; and the court have further recognized the new arrarigement, of which they now pretend ignorance, by a printed deed of covenants with the creditors of the nabols of Arcot, dated July 10, 1805, (the truly-reverend Mr. Charles Grant being chairman) in wbich it is stated, “whereas, on the 31st of July, 1801, a new treaty was made by lord Clive on behalf of the company, and by the nabob Azeen ul Dowlah on his own behalf, for setting the succession to the Soubahdarry, (or government) of the territories of Arcot, and for resting the ạ lministration of the civil and military government of the Carnatic in the company, &c. &c.” After this positive, and unequivocal statement, will any man of common honesty pretend to deny that lord Wellesley was fully justified in all his proceedings relative to the Carnatic by the uniform approbation of his legal employers, expressed in the manner which the latu, kas prescribed ?
From the preceding extracts, it is evident, first, that the company conceived themselves entitled, whenever they pleased, to deprive the nabob of part of his territories without his consent, and to withhold the whole of his country from him at their pleasure, contrary to the stipulations of the treaty between them: secondly, that when lord Wellesley reported his, proceedings to them, in which he declared that he might probably be compelled to deprire ihe nabob of his government, and that he actually had furnished lord Clive with general authority for depriving him of the same, they expressed their approbation of those proceedings : and lastly, that when the whole arrangeinent was concluded, they confirmed it, and have since disposed of a portion of the revenues to the nabob's creditors under the very treaty which they, now desire to form into a ground of charge against lord Wellesley, « whose zeal and ability in the general management and superintendence of their affairs, it is impossible for them not to feel and to achnowledge ! ! !” This is precisely the conduct which might have been expected from mercantile emperors, who, uniting in one sordid soul, the most insolent tyranny with the meanest servility, the filth of selfish opulence with political penury, and the official arrogance of upstarts with the stupidity of needy adventurers, are as little conscious, with all their affectation of inward grace, and outward shew, of moral gratitude as they have proved themselves to be, of political rectitude. However, these oriental saints should recol-, lect what is written, and prepare against the day of retribution. "Fur with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged : and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again." Mr. Charles Grant, or Mr. Thornton, being inspired, will point out the passage at the next meeting of the court of directors.
Here I dismiss this branch of the question, and in my next number, I shall exhibit a statement of the principles upon which the whole arrangement is justifiede
* Printed papers, page 153.
even supposing that lord Wellesley had not orders to act from the government at home. Before I enter into that examination, however, I wish to notice the infamous attempts which have been made to impute the death of the young man who was set åside, to violent means, and if possible to invole lord Wellesley, (who was at a distance of two thuitsand miles from the scene of action) and lord Powis, in that horrible imputation. It is a sin ular fact, that notwithstanding all the insinuations of undue inituence having been attoried tolu Wellesloy, not one member of the court of directors, pot one friend or follower of lord Grenville, that very lord Grenville who had declared lord Willesley's administration to be the most splendid and useful that Iodia erer knew, apcared, on a single occasion, to repel these base attempts not merely to define lords Wellesley and Powis, but actually to endanger their lives. On the occasion of sir T. Turton's motion, every member of the government walked out of the house of commons, and left the important question to the decision of about fifty members. I shall begin the discussion of this interesting question by re-printing the speeches delivered upon the occasion by sir Arthur Wellesley and Mr. Wellesley Pole, neither of which, it is also cu ious to observe, hare ever appe red (hether designedly omited I know not) in any paper or publication except my review.
Sir Arthur Wellesley said, he board, that although the house bad heard him before, they would allow him to say a few words, in consequence of what had fallen from the honon: able baronet (sir T. Turton.) The honourable baronet had said, that the prince had been turn from a throne, and sent to a dungeon, from which he had never come out alive.”. This sentence conveyed an insinuation of the same nature with a carminy which hal brea inchez-nously circulated out of doors; and was equally unfounded in fact. The papers which were to be printed, and which he saw the honorable baronet had before him, proved, in the clearest manner, that the prince in question had never been in a dungeon; in point of fact, he had never been in confinement! and had not even been guarded by sentries. There is in the collection of papers, a letter to this prince from the present nabob of the Carnatic, in which the prince in question is desired to withdraw from the palace, if he did not chuse to submit to its regulations; which the prince declined; a clear proof that he was not in confinement, and, above all, not in a dungeon, as was stated by the honourable baronet. It is positively not a fact (said sir A. Wellesley) that this prince was ever in confinement. Sir Arthur then said, that the last part of the sentence spoken by the hon. baronet, contained an insinuation that this prince, who he stated had been in a dungeon, had died by violent means. He said that he was astonished that the hon. baronet, who had been educated for a learned profession, who had legal habits, and must have frequently examined the force of evidence, should have ventured to make such an insinuation; when, in point of fact, all the evidence went to prove that this unfortunate prince died a natural death. The principles of the constitution required that a man should be deemed innocent till he was proved to be guilty; but it never before happened that a man was charged with guilt, when all the evidence tended to prove, that although this prince had died, he had died a natural death ; namely, of fever and dysentery. The European physician, who attended himn in his last moments, certified that he died with sympioms of those disorders upon him; and the native physician, who had attended him throughout his illness, declared that those were the disorders by which he had been afflicted. The physicians could not be mistaken upon this subject; and certainly the symptoms of these disorders are very different from those which would have appeared if he had died by violent means. It is, therefore, matter of astonishment that any man should think of making such an insinuation.
Sir Arthur then said, that this was not the first time that a suggestion of a suspi. cion (for it had amounted to no more) had been stated against the truth of the account of the death of this prince, as mentioned in those papers. It was in the council of Madras: it appears upon the face of those same papers that one of the members of the council suggested this suspicion; but the noble lord who then prio sided over that government, .(the earl of Powis) with that manliness and firmness which characterized every act of his administration, immediately called upon this ain ihe grounds he had for entertaining his doubts? And the result of the discussion was a denial by this gentleman of his entertaining any doubts upon the subject.
Mr. Wellesley Pole said he did not think it necessary to trouble the house on the present occasion; he should adopt the same line of conduct, he had done upon all the former questions relative to inquiry, which he wished, to be as fult and minute as possible, whenever lord W'ellesley was concerned. He said, he rose merely for the purpose of explaining to the house, that his honourable relation had not stated what he had said, respecting the treatment and death of the prince, under any idea that the honourable baronet (Turton) had meant to attribute to lord Wellesley any share in those events. His honourable relation bad nut the inost distant idea that it could be supposed that lord Wellesley had any thing to do with them. He had risen for the purpose of explaining the circumstances he had stated, which he was enabled to do from baving most attentively perased all the documents upon the subject. But it was necessary the house should understand that it never could be for a moment considered, by any person, nor did his honourable relation conceive it had been insinuated, either by the honourable baronet or the right honourable geneman, 'naf lord Wellesley could have any concern whatever in the transaction. Mr. Pule concluded by saying that he entirely agreed with every thing that had fallen from his honourable relation. (sir A. Wellesley), which had rendered it unnecessary for him to trouble the house, and that he should vote for the motion,
Ally liussein, the young man who was deposed, died on the 6th of April 1803, in his own apartments. It appears from lord Clive's letter to Jord Wellesley," on that day, that some months previous to this event, his lordship having learnt the young man was indisposed, had directed Dr. Fitzgerald, the confidential physician of his father, to wait upon him with the offer of his professional assistance, which the young man rejected in terms of incivility. It also appears, that two months before bis death, he had resided in the house of his aunt, whose apartments the reigning nabob Azeem ui Dowlah had nerer entered, and that he was sent back to his own house on Friday the 2nd of April, in a state of insensibility, baving been confined to kis bed for nine or ten days. His own attendants, however, concealed his danger so care. fully, that his illness was not discovered until Friday, when it was communicated to lord Clive by the reigning nabob, whose inquiries concerning the young man's health were repelled with rudeness. On Saturday evening, the 3rd of April, it was understood, from rumour only, that the young man's illness was of a serious nature. He resided
in his own apartments, and would not allow access to any of the nabob's servants. · On Monday morning, the 5th of April, lord Clive sent Mr. Horseman, the nabob's
płysician to wait upon the young man, Ally Hussein, with a suitable message, and an utier of professional assistance. Mr. Horseman obtained adınission to his presence with considerable difficulty, but was treated with incivility, and prohibited from administering any relief. He reported to lurd Clive, on his return, that Ally Hussein was insensible, and that his life was in imminent danger: a short time after, and on the same day, lord Clive received a letter stated to have been written by Ally Hussein's direction, wherein Ally Hussein said that his illness bad been occasioned by his “protracted confinement," and by the " spells and incantations" of the teigning nabob, who "prevented Ally Hussein's common servants, nay even a doctor tiom having access to him." Ally Hussein then desired lord Clive, to send to him doctor Anderson, the physician-general, who accordingly went to the young man's place of residence. Doctor Anderson reported to lord Clive that "he had learnt that the young man had been ill twenty-five days, ten of which bed-ridden, and three insensible, so as to void stools and urine as hé lay. The disease, as far as he could collect from a musselman doctor in attendance was a dysentery. His pulse was 125 in a minute. Doctor Anderson promised to call on Ally Hussein again in
* Vide printed Carnatic papers, No. 1. page 145.
the morning of the 6th of April, but he died, before the time appointed for the doctor's visit.
Thus, it appears from the foregoing statement, that the young man dica of a dya sentery in his own house, surrounded by his own attendants--that he never w211 002finement, and had been residing for two months in the house of his anut, whic, the reigning nabob had never entered, that lady being extreineny hustile to him, and be of the most violent opponents to his succession—that he, Ally Hussein, was insensible on Monday, the 5th of April, and had been so for three days, consequently, he never could have written or dictated the letter to lord Clive, which was received on that day, and which contained the only assertion that violence had been used to him--and lastly, that his illness was concealed by his own attendants, and was discovered by the reigning nabol, who was the first to communicate the intelligence to lord Clive; a strong proof that the nabob bad not made use of any violeace against the young inan.
But we have also another proof that Ally Hussein was not in confinement. It is contained in a letter from the reigning nabub to each of the members f the family., and among others to Ally Hussein, who is designated by his title of Tagat Onira.* In this letter, the nabob desires him, “if contrary to the customs of the sainilya Ally Hussein should disclaim his authority," to quit the palace, and in that case, “ he would no longer be responsible for the defence of Ally Hussein's honour." Now. if the nabob wished to contine the young man, he would not have desired him to lease the palace; nor would he atterwards have permitted him to reside for two months with his aunt, who was more violent, as appears by the printed papers, thaa ang other person of the family against the reigning nabob. Besides, there were many other males of the family alive, who had pretensions to the succession, and who were loud in the assertion of their claims. Among these was Hussum ui M k, he late nabob's brother. Of what advantage then would it have been to the reigning. nabob to have destroyed Ally Hussein, when the discovery of such an act would have occasioned his own ruin? It is evident, therefore, from Dr. Anderson's report, that the young inan died of a natural illness; but if persons will not give credit to the reports.et Dr. Anderson, and of lord Clive, who could have no motives for misre. presenting the inatter, and will persist in asserting that the young man's death was Precipitated by violence, it is clear that the violence must have proceeded frorn another quarter than that of the reigning nabob, whose attendants could never obtain access to Ally Hussein, and who was himself the first person to apprize lord Clive of his illness, and to recommend assistance. If violence were al all used, of which however there is not any appearance, it must have been used either by his own attendants bribed by Hussuin al Mulk, the other claimant, or by the aunt, with a view of promoting the interests of her brother Hussum ul Mulk, of whose claims she was a strenuous partizan. Here, it may be asked, what there is in the cha. racter or conduct of lord Clive, which should, for a moment, give countenance to a rumour so base and injurious as the one tliat has been employed in striting the young man's death? There is nothing, I can assure the public,so captivating or tempting in the gratitude of the East India company as would induce any man to do an unworthy action for their sakes. One would be led to suppose that there are some persons who really think that our governors in India are always acting for their own benefit: but, for whom do they take so much trouble, and incur so much responsibiliiy? Is it not evident, 'if personal interest were their object, that they would gain much more, by abstaining from all interference in the affairs of the dutive courts, and by allow. ing things to remain as they are, without considering the national interests intrusted to their charge? It is a very easy matter to make accusations; but I believe, this is the first time, that a charge of murder has been made, and that the person accused, has been called upon to piove a negative, before any evidence in support of the charge had been adduced. I have already mentioned, that the only suggestion of violence having been used, is contained in a letter, which it is physically impossible could have
* Printed papers, page 134.